OK Baron. How about we look at this another way? It is clear we are over manned right now. It is also clear that there is no way the company can furlough without a very expensive reshuffling of the seniority list across the fleet. What's not clear is how many we truly are over manned, if it is worth the enormous cost to the company to actually close and pay for an excess bid that allows them to furlough, and whether or not the current issues the company has with this pilot group is about manning or money.

Some quick math may help here. The company has said we are about 700 over manned if they honor the meaning and intent of our contract, which is the 68 hour min BLG across the board. Reduce that by cutting out all C/O (which the company says is too expensive..a money, not manning issue BTW) by 200. We are now 500 pilots over manned. Now take away the amount of pilots that will be in and out of training the next year or so and unavailable for line flying. Let's say 100 to 200 or an average of 150. Now we are down to 350. The company has historically liked to carry some extra pilots to take advantage of any new flying that may pop up on the radar, usually around the 200 mark or so. Now we are down to about 150 of the lowest cost pilots on the property that we are truly over manned. To furlough those pilots would likely cost the company 150 million or so based on the last excess bid that was never closed because it was so expensive. They would have to leave them out several years to even break even on the cost of the excess bid that aligned them properly to furlough. That would leave them unprepared to take on any new business that may pop up. They would also have to man the HKG F/O seat with very expensive double D/H's out of MEM as they cannot force anyone to be based there, but I digress. These numbers are wags of course, but likely as accurate as the numbers given in RGS on any given day. This is about money, not manning, IMHO and always has been. It would help us all to remember that.

We are also grieving and likely going arbitration over the company's improper usage of 4a2b as a way to save the 1.2 million they were paying to follow the contract in buy ups every month. If everyone protected min days off and the company had to use 200 more pilots to man the flying that would certainly help our case that they never had any intention to furlough and the invocation of this clause was all about money and not manning, all about covering up bad decisions on where to base and staff pilots by management and trying to open up a foreign domicile on the cheap. I want to win that arbitration and get the all the money back that was taken by the company under their improper invocation of 4a2b, don't you? Showing the company did not take all steps possible, to include listening to the union for over a year about possible furlough mitigation help and doing away with carry over, will certainly play in our favor. Now, everyone has to make their own decision here, but do so with all the facts at least.

Now the company probably knows they will likely lose this and will be happy to pay the money back they took from us when the time comes, perhaps in 2-4 years. Until then they just took an interest free loan from your back pocket to cover up their mistakes. They did this after your reps tried to talk to them for over a year to help them out of a bad situation created partly by their poor manning decisions. They did this after you helped them out during the high fuel cost crisis by saving 2 million a month in fuel costs. Right now they probably think they are pretty smart and the higher ups will pat them on the back for taking this money. The real cost of their actions will likely be felt though the next time they need some help from the very pilots they took from or in Contract 2010 when we refuse to vote for a contract that has not had all the clauses like 4a2b tightened up and made iron clad so they cannot be misused at the company's will against us whenever they feel the need to.

If you read PC's letter, that 700 number was based on historical BLG's not MBLG. It was put out at tuesday's meeting that 74hrs was that historical BLG.

I may have misunderstood. I thought the original number given by the company was 850 over manned. When we looked at how they got to that figure it was the 74 hour BLG you mentioned. I thought the 68 hour min, when used, was about 670 or so. Obviously I hope you are correct though!

I normally don't use the quote feature, but, had to this time.

FreightDD, I think you are right on the mark here with your statements!! Nice post.

They ain't going to furlough, it's all smoke and mirrors. I am glad that ALPA is standing up to this BS that the compnay is sending our way.

If I were management, I would furlough a small amount of pilots just to check all the "to avoid a furlough" clauses in the CBA. You could probably furlough just 727 s/o's and avoid a seniority reshuffle? I'm not advocating this option, just asking why the company wouldn't see this problem in this light?

Then the no volunteer, can't fill the schedule with draft clause would kick in. I think they would be 727S/O short in that case. If they excess 727FO's back there, the FO's may choose to excess the nuggets in ANC. Two house buys for the company. Does Passover pay work when excessed? Passunder pay?

Economy is the flop we haven't seen yet. I fear I brutual parking of airplanes would change our discusion

Just enough to make PC's daughter the caboose, right?

For those of you who care. I added up all the MEM MD-11 FO CO in the Feb bid pack. That is CO into the month of Mar. I estimated with a wag earlier that it was 3000 hours. The actual amout is 2366. I didn't add up the Captains but bet it is much less due to the FO CO also incluing RFO lines.

That is not very much in the big scheme of things. Guys flying CO and protecting some of it or all of it just isn't as big a deal as everyone is making it out to be. If everyone protected min days more reserve days would get flown and more guys might get better secondary lines but more lines aren't going to be built. Higher paying lines aren't going to be built. Pilots aren't going to get furloughed. CO is not going away in the MD-11 because of the international lines. Sorry but you have to have someone in HKG on the last day of the month to fly the airplane the next day--duh!

I don't recall who said that flying one day of CO every month amounts to one month of pay and a month that one pilot doesn't get furloughed--please GMAFB--it doesn't work that way.

The crazy thing is that I am reading how someone should have punched someone in the mouth because he was flying carryover and protecting it when it just doesn't matter. It ain't gonna change! Do the math!

Also....if/when the furlough even 1 pilot.....according to some folks "interpretation" - Section 4.A.2.b. is now null & void.

4.A.2.b. is to be used to PREVENT or DELAY a furlough. Once a furlough actually happens, the company has to revert back to normal BLGs (according to some folks interpretation) = 68/85

So, in my opinion, the company can't furlough a minimal number of folks in an attempt to trigger all the clauses in the contract dealing with furlough - without cancelling their ASSuMEd BLG protections under 4.A.2.b.

So, even furloughing a few wouldn't be a cheap fix for the company either - they'd have to go right back to paying full 68/85 BLGs again.

Thus, I agree with most on here - they probably aren't gonna/can't won't furlough anyone.

JMO...FWIW

Are you looking at the "big picture"? or just focusing on what affects you?

You keep quoting MEM MD11 bidpack numbers - saying there's not significant C/O there.

Have you looked at the ANC bidpack for example and crunched any of THOSE number? Take a look. There's significant C/O in those lines - EVERY MONTH.