I hope you're right. Just not the feeling I got at the meeting.

Were you there?

 

I am right...I am always right!...just ask my wife. LOL ...just kidding guys please don't wig out! I hope it passes too...pretty sorry group if it doesn't. ( I have not heard to many objections except to VBB which is not on the table due to re-biding problems.)

 

Well, those of you who think you are always right REALLY pizz off those of us that are!

 

Unfortunately, the idea that this could save jobs is a myth. If they furlough 7 pilots on Jan. 1st then experience an increase in business as you predict and have to recall 7 pilots at some later date, the outcome is the same. In fact some people might even argue that would be a more appropriate outcome based on some factors that I am not going to get into.


As far as saving the company huge training costs and delays in restaffing for new business, I really don't think it's a good idea to shift that responsibility from the corporation to the pilots. The costs associated with furloughing and recalling pilots serve as a damper on the corporation and help prevent knee jerk decisions about furloughing. We want the corporation to have some deterrent to doing furloughs and the more the better. That's what really saves jobs. In fact, it is possible the corporation will cancel the furloughs anyway like they did last time because of those deterrents.


As for the delays in restaffing, we're only talking about 5 to 7 pilots. I'm sure they can find a way to cover for that amount until the recalled pilots get trained. Once again, deterrents to furloughing are a good thing. We don't want to remove deterrents. If anything, we should try to get more deterrents. Force the corporation to look for other ways to deal with fluctuations in demand for our services. It doesn't and shouldn't be done on the backs of pilots.


We don't want to corporation to constantly churn the bottom 10% of pilots in and out of furlough status every time there is a hiccup. If we start shifting the responsibility of providing even a small amount of job security from the corporation to the pilots, the corporation will start to expect concessions from the pilots every chance they get. Do you think the VP of flight ops or the CEO are taking a pay cut right now because a route in Europe was ended?


As far as the positive predictions about getting routes back, that's pure speculation. There is just as much possibility that we'll see a further reduction in work. What will they do then, threaten to furlough more and demand more concessions?


This is not about greed, it's about not allowing the corporation to make the pilots responsible for problems that we do not have any control over. When our pilots come to work we deserve some stability in our job. This LOA might be born with good intentions but the unintended consequences are a disaster.


Myth busted.

 

In this ACMI world there are always going to be fluctuations in the demand for our services. That's just the way it works. The managers need to figure out how to deal with that. They can furlough if they make that decision. That is one of the options they have. They have many other options as well. Renegotiating our CBA should not be one of their tools for dealing with fluctuations in demand.

If the pilots want to renegotiate the contract because they are feeling pressure to be more competitive with pilot groups at other companies either inside or outside the corporation, we need to be honest about that and do it the right way. I don't have a problem with giving up some perks to be more competitive but let's make sure that we do it in a way that is open and above board.

This LOA just encourages the corporation to threaten more furloughs, which ends up putting the real pressure on the pilots at the bottom of the list. They have to live in constant fear while the more secure portion of the seniority list can decide whether or not they want to negotiate a magnanimous gesture to save the poor souls while pretending that we are not really giving anything up. There is an awful lot of pride in that.

 

It is very ironic that we already have one of the best furlough protection programs in the industry. Then management was kind enough to make it even stronger when they jackassed up the lists at ABX and ATI because they thought they were going to get to bring in a bunch of new hires this year at ABX (that plan backfired, of course).

We have already seen how effective our furlough protection is.

So, why are we trying to gut the furlough protection we already have while pretending we are trying to “save jobs?” Maybe the question should be “who's job are we REALLY trying to save?”

 

This will pass....also it is only 5 to 7 crewmembers if it passes. 20 if not. Replacing 20 will take a huge amount of time for this shelled out training department. To the 20 who will now be on the street it is not about company greed but pilot greed. As it stands today we are overstaffed. They will be cut loose whether you believe/think so or not does not mater...what matters is what Hete thinks. It would be nice if ABX/ATSG did not "churn the bottom" every-time there is a hiccup but that is the path Hete has decided on. We can stand around and beat our chests saying "we showed em" while 20 more start collecting unemployment but...I do not believe that is the best option ...remember the CDG flying went away last year at this time also. If it comes back the LOA will go away unlike most LOA's in the past. If it doesn't we were overstaffed..self correcting. JMHO

 

3raser said:

"I don't have a problem with giving up some perks to be more competitive but let's make sure that we do it in a way that is open and above board."

You will get to vote on any LOA....

 

Well. It's not 20. I know the actual number is a moving target. There are 2 retiring which brings the number down to 18. Then there is another 11 to 15 positions that can be saved by a combination of company strategies that do NOT require ratification and pilot concessions. The company measures will happen whether the pilots give concessions or not so that will reduce the number. Unfortunately, the EXCO did not report the breakdown on how many furloughs will be reduced by company measures and how many will be reduced by pilot concessions. Then there are other measures such as voluntary furloughs, voluntary leaves of absence and early retirement incentives. So, the actual impact will not be know until near the end of December.


As far as the gambit of whether or not the CDG routes return and when. That is for management to consider and make decisions about. We should not start meddling with the seniority process based on speculation about matters that we know nothing about and have no control over.


As far as the unemployment checks go, there are 7 or 8 more furloughed ABX pilots who will begin their unemployment later this week. It could be argued that meddling with the process will prolong their unemployment while favoring much more junior members. Are the needs of one group more important that the other? The only really fair thing to do is to let the process run it's natural course. The union should not be involved in a process that alters the course of events to favor one group of members at the expense of another group.


Remember the words of APA 1224 lawyer Paul Rutter “Our position is guided by our sense of fairness to the Crewmembers remaining on the Seniority List, and our certainty that the appearance of meddling with the order and process of recall will result in further action neither side wishes to be bogged down in.”

 

In the end you get to vote....meddling or not...just like the the last election.. (Presidential)..you may not like the process or outcome but it is what it is..Democracy at it finest!