Now add the LAX and ANC numbers.

Read the E Mail from the SIG chairman, the number is close to 12K for all seats in Feb. That is 176 lines.

Just curious do you think it is OK for some to have 100 hour lines when others are < 60? Duh.

 

No I didn't look at ANC bidback. I just looked at the MEM bid pack because it is the one that affects me--as you say. There are 697 F0s in MEM MD-11. I cruched the numbers for MEM because it represents most of the MD-11 flying. Sorry if it is not representative of ANC.

I'm not going to crunch numbers for the other bid packs or seats. Just did it for mine and drew a conclusion that may be correct or incorrect but I think correct.

I think you would agree that the MD-11 FO seat probably has the most CO of any seat due to RFO requirements? MEM 11 CO (into March) is 7.9 % of total FO hours in Feb. If the Mar BLG is 80 hrs then the carryover into Mar will amount to 5.9% of total Mar hrs. (assuming the same number of lines).

If there was absolutely no carryover, It would take an extra 30 lines to cover those hours.

In Feb 679 FOs - 33 pay only - 469 lines - 157 (pilot bodies with 2 week vacations) = 20 pilots left.

Conclusion. We are not overmanned in MD-11 FO seat in MEM. The only way no carry over would affect manning is that we would need to train more pilots in MD-11. Now would reducing CO in MD-11 create some place for excesses in other seats to go? Yes it could? How much CO can realistically be reduced effectively and economically due to the international flying? Beats me.

 

Interesting point.

Bet we're not the only ones who are going to take a BIG LOOK at this section come 2010.

The minimum BLG reductions CLEARLY do not support sounding the overmanning alarm. I would be worried if I saw the new BLGs WAY lower towards the stated minimum. This is a no interest loan for FDX, that's all. I think they just showed most of their cards with that one and blew their overmanning argument out of the water. We're not overmanned to the point that furlough is necessary or else BLGs would've been ALOT lower.

The excess (IF any) will tell, and I think, will show their final card. I also think in the end, they'll fold or go all in...regardless I think we have a better hand and will come out winning. Heck, we're already ahead, they're helping us unite.

 

The union's current interpretation is that the MBLG would stay at 48/60 while guys are furloughed. It's also the union's interpretation that BLGs are supposed to be AT 48/60 to prevent a furlough and while guys are furloughed, not just minimum of.

 

I'm not sure the snap back to normal BLG levels would hold water. What would keep the company from stating that they only furloughed X pilots to be magnanimous, but we still might need to furlough Y more in the near term if "market conditions" don't improve.

For the record, I completely agree with the few posters who have supplied very sound arguments that there is no over-manning problem. This is nothing more than money grab for the company.

I am astounded that the over 65 crowd even considered coming back to the 727 s/o seat, with the hint of a furlough for the younger guys on our seniority list. Heck, some of those guys could be grad-school chums of their grandchildren, have they no shame or conscience.

 

Do you think it was alright 2 or 3 years ago (before we were overmanned) for some guys to be flying 110 hours with c/o while others were only getting 70?
That's how our seniority based system works. I can't normally hold a c/o line but someday I might be able to. Protecting min. days off isn't going to force the company build additional lines, it will just give the guys getting VTO's more options.
Maybe we can get people that live in domicile to only bid reserve so that life will be better for commuters!? Kumbaya

 

Thanks for putting in the time. 30 extra lines is significant in my book. If not more lines then it would mean lines 5-8% higher in value. This would raise the pay of not only only lines holders but all Reserve holders and anyone doing office work such as flexes. This is a HUGE pay grab by the company

Maybe we can get someone to do the math for ANC and LAX.

Knowledge is power!

 

How do you figure?
The company has always used c/o. They won't build additional lines or higher value lines even if everyone conflicts their carry-in and no one picks up CIA trips. VTO's and reserve will just be flying instead of sitting. No extra dollars for anyone, unless you count per-diem for the reserve guys.

 

It's o.k. because they have "always done it"? How do YOU figure? They have taken the UNPRECEDENTED step of paying less than the CBA allows. It was o.k. as long as they kept their word to pay us at minimum CBA hours to support the unnecessary C/O habit.

They are varying C/O by bid pack to achieve relatively even low line averages. They could build MD11 bid packs at higher averages if they took care of C/O. If you don't understand that, e-mail the SIG. I'm sure they could explain.

The company doesn't want to cap guys at a credit hr limit per month either, even if it is at a lofty 90-100 hrs. That would create more lines and raise pay for everyone else. That should tell you all you need to know to connect the dots.

You really think the only affect to Reserves is that they will fly more? It's all about the pay per day.

 

Reserves flying is another issue.

Right now there is no need to have fat reserve coverage in case of hiccups. Open time scoopers are doing the job of traditional reserve coverage. So the schedulers feel free to assign reserves extra flying 'cause they aren't going to get used otherwise.


This would be happening with high or low line averages.