Did you guys catch these two bullets in the neg chairman's letter?

1. Job protection for our junior pilots for a reasonable amount of time

and

The logic behind our staffing portion was that we would grant management until the end of the May 2010 bid period (essentially the duration of the 09-02 Excess bid Training letter) to get their act together via reduced Minimum Bid Period Guarantees (MBPGs). The obvious “quid pro quo” was furlough protection for that duration which would be almost 18 months since management invoked 4.A.2.b. Afterwards, management had to restore the MBPGs or announce intent to furlough, which would still leave room for further negotiation, if necessary."

Am I reading this wrong or are WE proposing that if we are still under 4A2b in May 2010 the company should furlough?

Are you kidding me?

 

Makes sense to me. 4.a.2.b is unlikely to go through meaningful changes beyond what has been proposed by either side until after the next Sec. 6 or an arbitration decision whichever occurs first. That's just one of the realities of signing and accepting a CBA. 4.a.2.b is being used in a manner that was not intended by its framers, one that could have very negative consequences on BLG levels going forward. The NC is rightfully trying to correct that which is absolutely better for all of us in the long term, while respecting the shorter term manning issue. Personally, I believe the company has waited far too long if they wish to furlough and that it won't be economically or logistically worth it if they do so, but that opinion won't buy anything but a guaranteed box of poop. It's not exactly a secret that the company expects to see things bottom out economically and show a few signs of life toward the latter part of the year which would further mitigate the need/desire for furloughs. From a NC standpoint, it seems smart that they are taking advantage of that in the proposal by covering junior guys the 'rumored' furlough timeframe and then some, but not asking for something over the top. Imo, that would likely increase the likelihood of any agreement holding up on arbitration if it were violated, while keeping the big picture that in none of our worlds did we believe that 4.a.2.b was intended to be used for 4-5 years total like the company is proposing.

 

I read that as "state their intent" to furlough, which I don't believe mgt did when they invoked 4a2b. Also says that there would still be opportunity for further negotiation, not to automatically furlough dudes. I personally don't have a problem with those 2 bullets (yes I'm bottom 300 also). I thought 18 months of furlough protection was adequate, I don't expect the rest of the pilot group to suffer 60 hour BLGs for years and years on end to save my job. And I certainly don't want to damage our CBA seeking short term security for me while screwing things up for the long term. This whole thing sucks big time, but I thought our NC made extremely reasonable efforts to help the situation. Unfortunately, mgt could care less about our recommendations.

 

Well spoken Mr Larusso

 

Agreed, we need a defined "exit" point for 4.A.2.b. The company is using it to their full advantage and will continue to do so until an arbitrator says differently. I think 18 months is more than enough time to decide to either furlough or restore MBPG.

The one good thing that has happened during this economic downturn is to expose the deficiencies and vagueness of our CBA and what language we need to correct these problems in the future.

 

Spoke with DM (FDX ALPA vice-chair) today at a CIRP briefing during the day hub turn. He says "nothings new with regard to negotiations" (which makes me wonder why DW bid the 777?). kind of makes one go hmmmmmm

 

I couldn't agree with you more. And I'm in the bottom 200.