FDX - Which is cheaper, Low MBPG or Furlough?
#1
FDX - Which is cheaper, Low MBPG or Furlough?
What is the companies intent? I think it is to save money and do it in the easiest way possible.
Low MBPG accomplishes that goal. Get most of the savings of a furlough without overhead costs and avoidance of some labor/legal problems
Question - Do the lines have to snap back to 68/85 after a furlough? Sounds really expensive if that is the case.
What they have to do to get there from here -
1) Excess bid and retraining (taking guys off the line costs productivity)
2) Temporarily overman the seats to be furloughed from
3) Probably pay buyup if after the furlough if things don't go exactly right.
3) Pay money to those being furloughed
When the least bit of uptick in the economy occurs -
1) Recall/put folks back into training (i.e. pay them for no revenue gained)
2) Hold vacancy bids and watch musical chairs start again for those not furloughed
I think the company wants folks to stay where they are and suck up a pay cut. Haven't done the calculations but the money saved on the reserve side may be tremendous.
Low MBPG accomplishes that goal. Get most of the savings of a furlough without overhead costs and avoidance of some labor/legal problems
Question - Do the lines have to snap back to 68/85 after a furlough? Sounds really expensive if that is the case.
What they have to do to get there from here -
1) Excess bid and retraining (taking guys off the line costs productivity)
2) Temporarily overman the seats to be furloughed from
3) Probably pay buyup if after the furlough if things don't go exactly right.
3) Pay money to those being furloughed
When the least bit of uptick in the economy occurs -
1) Recall/put folks back into training (i.e. pay them for no revenue gained)
2) Hold vacancy bids and watch musical chairs start again for those not furloughed
I think the company wants folks to stay where they are and suck up a pay cut. Haven't done the calculations but the money saved on the reserve side may be tremendous.
Last edited by Gunter; 01-09-2009 at 08:58 AM.
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Let's not forget that all of this is not to reduce our company's losses...We're not losing money. It's strictly to increase our billion dollar profits!!
I think that should be repeated on every page, of every FDX thread.
I think that should be repeated on every page, of every FDX thread.
#4
#5
A few 72 SO flexes went to their passover seats a few months ago. Maybe that's why we are now even more overmanned there. That passover situation is now "mitigated".
The handling of those standing up the 757 "mitigated" that passover situation too.
I'm starting to get tired of taking cuts to subsidize the Airbus and MD passover guys. Should we all feel that way?
#6
Oh and by the way, we're still making money.
Google "Fedex Insider Trading" and tally up what the top execs take home, especially under the category "Option Exercised" (these are option grants as part of "compensation"). For these guys to take a 5 to 10% salary cut is akin to us giving up our Scooby snacks. David Bronzek (sorry, can't spell the name right) took in around $19 mill in various options/stock selling since 2005. Mr. Smith could have bailed out the banking industry with what he took home, and I have no problem with that.
But the pay cuts the top execs are taking are mere window dressing. Cry me a river.
By the way, we are still making money! Tons of it. (We as Fedex, not as pilots.)
Google "Fedex Insider Trading" and tally up what the top execs take home, especially under the category "Option Exercised" (these are option grants as part of "compensation"). For these guys to take a 5 to 10% salary cut is akin to us giving up our Scooby snacks. David Bronzek (sorry, can't spell the name right) took in around $19 mill in various options/stock selling since 2005. Mr. Smith could have bailed out the banking industry with what he took home, and I have no problem with that.
But the pay cuts the top execs are taking are mere window dressing. Cry me a river.
By the way, we are still making money! Tons of it. (We as Fedex, not as pilots.)
#7
WR sent out a message line saying we have 12000 hrs of carryover.
Almost 200 lines of flying!
I wonder how much higher the averages would have been if the carryover had been properly reduced?
Are we 700 pilots overmanned without this huge amount of carryover?
Almost 200 lines of flying!
I wonder how much higher the averages would have been if the carryover had been properly reduced?
Are we 700 pilots overmanned without this huge amount of carryover?
#8
Do you mean an excess would generate more passover? Not smart on this issue.
A few 72 SO flexes went to their passover seats a few months ago. Maybe that's why we are now even more overmanned there. That passover situation is now "mitigated".
The handling of those standing up the 757 "mitigated" that passover situation too.
I'm starting to get tired of taking cuts to subsidize the Airbus and MD passover guys. Should we all feel that way?
A few 72 SO flexes went to their passover seats a few months ago. Maybe that's why we are now even more overmanned there. That passover situation is now "mitigated".
The handling of those standing up the 757 "mitigated" that passover situation too.
I'm starting to get tired of taking cuts to subsidize the Airbus and MD passover guys. Should we all feel that way?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post