Daniel Larusso

Probably. The vast majority of our contract including 4.a.2.b was not written by ALPA lawyers, but FPA ones.

FDXLAG

If you are saying that no other ALPA carriers have serious furlough mitigation language I am not surprised. After all certain demographics are more equal than others. At one time it was supposed we will all be senior someday, and at one time it was probably a true supposition.

Again the problem is not the concept of 4A2b but the implementation. True it was FPA language but our last ALPA negotiators (and the membership) were content with it.

Daniel Larusso

No that's not what I was getting at. I was trying to point to that imo, a big part of the problem isn't the intent of the language but the way it was written. Compared to some of the ALPA (and non-ALPA too) contracts I've seen, there's a lot areas of our contract that aren't worded clearly or linked together appropriately, I imagine that is largely the lawyers job not the negotiators. To be fair those guys though, from what I heard the decision to not rewrite the contract was made by the MEC because they thought it would take too long for a ratification vote to occur if a re-write was done.

There are other carriers that did/do have furlough mitigation language. You could view the flowthrough/flowback deals that American(APA) and Continental(IACP at the time now ALPA) had with their wholly-owned feeders a type of furlough mitigation. Usair(then ALPA) also had a deal for flowbacks to their old Mid Atlantic feeder and for 50% of the seats on RJ's at their other feeders. Delta and United both had no-furlough clauses in their 2000-2001 contracts. After 9/11 those companies obviously violated them. Delta ALPA successfully grieved theirs, UA ALPA let theirs go in a settlement. Recently, I believe Delta got some kind of furlough mitigation as part of their deal to go along with the merger. I'm not sure if Northwest got anything as part of that as well or for letting Compass being setup.

FDXLAG

As we really don't have a regional airline our only realistic fulough mitigation plan is to reduce flying across the board. Imagine what the flying would look like this month if the high fleetwide bid lines were limited to 82 hours (727 low line plus 13) or better yet 80 hours ("FPA" contract limit of 11 hours between high and low lines). I hate to see the concept of 4A2b attacked when it was a deliberate decision to leave the language vague and virtually unenforceable.

We are overmanned. The first ALPA contract is directly responsible for a lot of that overmanning, not to mention age 60. The company is doing everything possible to make that overmanning situation last as long as possible. I do not think 4A2b is permanent but I think the company's new manning model is.

Imagine how few pilots we would be overmanned if restrictions on C/O, Open Time, and draft where included in any 4A2b implementation language. Could the company afford to reduce reserves if that were the case?

Daniel Larusso

Technically speaking since FDX does in fact lease the aircraft to to our feeders, we could attempt similar mitigation strategies. However I was really only trying to answer your question about whether or carriers have attempted to find ways to mitigate furloughs contractually or not. I don't have a problem with the 4.a.2.b concept just the way the language was written. It's not the only area I feel that way about, but it's obviously the one that is carrying the day right now. ALPA and the FPA are responsible for the language, all I was trying to say was that I think the ALPA lawyers do a better job at writing language than the FPA ones. Whether they are used for that or not is up to our MC/MEC.

I agree, but I think we have a lot of people who won't truly understand that until things are back to 'normal'. There are still a fair number of people who think the changes brought about by an extraordinary confluence of events are extraordinary as well. 'They never used to do xyx,' can often be heard out there. Well they do now. New day, new jet.

I would imagine that all sorts of things, including the ones you mentioned are being tossed around as part of cleaning up the 4.a.2.b language. Probably on both sides of the fence too as arbitrators tend to rule in a way that makes everybody unhappy. FDX likes strong control of everything(see ASAP) so while I'm sure they're more than willing to drag this out as long as possible, they'd probably prefer a settlement where the terms are known vs. an imposed one.

DLax85

I agree --- age 60 change didn't cause our current overmanning, but it sure is extending it.

It appears retirements are actually picking up a bit this Dec, but then again some over 65 guys are coming to the back again in 2010 for a third tour.

Agree --- I think all of these should be curtailed when 4A2B was/is imposed.

Of course, such restrictions are not in the current contract, but could be part of the 4A2B fix, which is bound to be a major issue during negotiations

EPIRB

4A2B isn’t permanent. Airlines hire up until the day they furlough and they furlough up until they start hiring again. There isn’t an airline in the US that has ever got the pilot manning issue right.

Some negotiated variation of 4A2B might let FedEx achieve that goal.

In the mean time, I am sitting back and waiting for the panic that is likely to happen next fall when the realize that they have outsmarted themselves.

I am more worried about the company being able to prevent me from dropping or trading trips than I am about 4A2B.

Daniel Larusso

I couldn't help but think the same thing as I was reading that stuff about LK. If there isn't a problem, they'll find one.

Gunter

Then this is actually good for you throughout the business cycle.

Before, when the company was worried about hiring too many during a growth spurt, they would underman seats so the inevitable slowdown wouldn't create an unmanageable overmanned situation. Now they can continually upgrade and hire without restraint to keep line averages in the low range and to prevent draft opportunities. Because draft and vacation buyback is expensive. When the downturn hits again 4a2b will be trotted out without hesitation. It's a win-win...for management.

Not permanent? Depends on how you look at it. I think we will see it again soon. Right after the next hiring cycle.