Roberto

Here's a place to start...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYsc...layer_embedded

Avg Joe

Not doubting you.... but please show me where anyone in the IPA has ever proposed "making those positions, IPA positions"? All that's ever been proposed is bringing the BODIES over, as I recall. I've never understood why people want 200+ senior bodies inserted ahead of them on the seniority list? Sounds like 200 more furloughs off the bottom.

Joe

congowings

"I've never understood why people want 200+ senior bodies inserted ahead of them on the seniority list?"

From reading your previous posts, AvgJoe, one can certainly say you have more than a passing understanding of the industry. Therefore, your statement doesn't ring true. There is no way you have missed the point. I'm pretty sure everyone understands why so many management pilots were hired for the UPS Air Division (remember, we are not an airline). Once the pilots left the Teamsters and organized their own union, UPS was left with a situation that was unacceptable to them - employees that they didn't dance to their exact tune. Between having to follow FAA rules and the contract which the IPA negotiated (pitiful as it was), UPS was not used to not being able to call the shots. They didn't want this "Air Division" in this form in the first place. Hence, we have an "airline" within an "airline" - so UPS has pilots that they can utilize as they see fit and aren't protected by our union. They have been slowly, but surely hiring more management pilots in order to protect themselves from any action which our union might take during periods of unpleasantness - thus neutralizing some of our effectiveness.

It is understandable how angry pilots are that UPS is throwing out this threat of furlough, while there are so many management pilots on board. There have been arguments before about management pilots being integrated into the seniority system - and many have said they would not like it - but there is something to the idea of bringing them on board when you think of how UPS would be able to run their operation without the freedom of using them as they do now. Plus, they would also be protected in case of a job action. They also perform jobs in training which in most airlines are performed by line pilots - so they effectively take some of those opportunities away from the IPA.

However, with the economy in the shape it is now, one has to wonder if even adding those pilots to IPA's seniority list would prevent a furlough. With the exception of upper management (who voted to give themselves quite a hefty percentage increase), there are quite a few UPSers who have already felt the shrinking volume effect them. Just reading some of the posts in the "Majors", "Corporate", "Foreign" - there are furloughs happening everywhere. And although we pilots know everything - - it just might be necessary for UPS to implement some cost saving pain in order for it to remain strong and be in the position to take advantage of the upturn in the economy when it does happen.

I think the most important thing that could happen regarding the number of management pilots is for the courts to rule that UPS has rewritten their intent concerning managers/supervisors - thus opening up the door for many of them to either become line pilots, "real" management pilots - or gone.

Avg Joe

Congo... you didn't answer my question. Why?

The IPA has sought the management BODIES (i.e., more due$)... period. Never has it been proposed to seek the jobs, function, etc... that the managers perform. Please show me otherwise.

So we integrate 200+ managers into our seniority list and furlough the existing bottom 200+ IPA pilots (in ADDITION to the bottom 300 that are currently threatened)... I fail to see how we are better for it? What prevents UPS from hiring 200+ more managers in 30 days and elevating them to a different "class and craft"? A month later the situation is status quo, the IPA has not gained a single job function and thus has no need for 200+ more pilots. A furlough would undoubtedly ensue. Why are you seeking this?

Joe

bifff15

AJ,
I think you are missing the obvious. The 200+ management pilots are already "ahead" of everyone else. Getting them onto our seniority list will change nothing except their flying (IAW the contract). No open time pick ups, crew rest, strike breaking / crossing to name a few.
Biff

freig8t dog

Ave Joe,

You are missing the point... the whole argument about the supervisors coming on to the IPA list is the Class and Craft argument. Most of the positions are truly just supervisor's - not real management. If we allowed the supervisors on to our list, it would come with the jobs. For the supervisors who like what they are doing now, they could stay in their current position (only with IPA positions), and those who don't like their job could come over to the fly the line. Their vacant positions could be available to the rest of the seniority list...for those who would enjoy supervising.

Food for thought.

Freig8t Dog

L'il J.Seinfeld

There were dozens of manglers hired in 2005 and 2006 that are junior to many of us hired in 2004/2005. If furloughs ever went up into the 350-450 range then you would have some IPA pilots on the street who were hired well before many mgt pilots. That to me is total BS. Bring the 200 mgt pilots over and base their seniority on DOH and let the chips fall where they may in regards to furloughs.

Airbum

That is how I understood the Union's comments during a GMM in SDF concerning the non union pilots at UPS

Avg Joe

I absolutely agree one of us is missing the obvious...

Hypothetically... after the current 200 managers become IPA what prevents UPS from hiring 200 more non-IPA managers? (paying them more than an IPA Capt and elevating them to a different class and craft, for example)

I think it is a terrible ASSUMPTION that the JOBS (checking, training, etc...) that the current managers perform will come with the bodies. UPS firmly believes these are management functions.

I understand the "airline within an airline" situation very well and its many adverse effects upon the IPA. It just seems to me that trying to put the proverbial cat back in the bag 20 years later will not be successful. As I have asked before... what PREVENTS UPS from hiring more managers to perform the functions they believe to be rightly that of management?

Joe

congowings

Morning AvgJoe, you confused my points in regards to bringing management pilots over. I have not been vocal concerning this issue, but can readily see the implications which would arise either way. One needs to be clairvoyant and be able to analyze the real financial needs of the company - and that is way beyond my pay grade. I can only speculate on that. However, I think my point at the end of my post has merit. As you say, nothing prevents the company from hiring more "managers" as they want them --- now. Which is why I think a court needs to rule that their definition of manager/supervisor needs to conform to a certain definition. And if that definition causes higher costs or less utilization of these employees, then perhaps a change would come about. Does it seem feasible that our union is able to pursue this aggressively? - I personally would be very surprised if they were able to handle that type of litigation to a positive outcome.

It is unfortunate that the rhetoric the company puts out about their concern for their employees is false - especially in our air division. There are many great people who work within the different departments of this company, who will readily agree with our frustrations, but are unable to help. The first mistake many new hires make is the assumption that this company is the finest and will treat their employees with respect - it is a shame that it doesn't take very long to find out the real nature of our employers.

UPS has always been slow and methodical in their dealings - and you can be sure that what is happening at this time has been in the works for a while. If they feel they need to furlough, no amount of good will by IPA is going to stop them. And re-opening our contract at this time would be a huge error --- in my opinion. Trust went out the door many years ago - and I have been called many things, but I hope "fool" won't be one.