Posting 13-03 is out.. Let the Excesses begin
04-13-2013 | 05:29 AM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
From: On the corner, covered in Stickum
Yeah. All 6 of them. We are also parking 9 A300s and 20 MD-10s. Adding up all the numbers, we gain 11 operating narrow bodies and lose 12 wide bodies through 2015. That includes all 14 767's.
Air cargo is not a growth industry. In fact, it is a declining industry. That big bucket of money we used to dip into shipping high tech consumer goods from plants in Asia is drying up faster than the PC computer. Companies that ran to China to find cheap labor are dribbling back because things haven't worked out there like they thought. We are discovering the same thing with our "backdoor" flying in both Europe and Asia.
5 months ago, we figured we'd be hiring 9-14 a month just to cover retirements. Now we probably won't be hiring for over a year and we still might be fat. We've already deferred 11 777's and I would be surprised if we end up with all 27 767's we ordered. Meanwhile, we have accelerated retirements of both the MD-10 and the Airbus. The only airplane we seem to be accelerating our purchases of is the 757.
My point in all this isn't to focus on doom and gloom. My point is we just ratified an LOA based on a goal of "preserving" wide body seats. We don't control wide body seats. The company does. What we can attempt to negotiate is pay rates. We did. We just locked in narrow body pay rates for the 757 until it retires. We did that with a shrinking wide body fleet, and a growing narrow body fleet. All to "preserve wide body seats".
No wonder the company came to such a quick agreement on this LOA.
Air cargo is not a growth industry. In fact, it is a declining industry. That big bucket of money we used to dip into shipping high tech consumer goods from plants in Asia is drying up faster than the PC computer. Companies that ran to China to find cheap labor are dribbling back because things haven't worked out there like they thought. We are discovering the same thing with our "backdoor" flying in both Europe and Asia.
5 months ago, we figured we'd be hiring 9-14 a month just to cover retirements. Now we probably won't be hiring for over a year and we still might be fat. We've already deferred 11 777's and I would be surprised if we end up with all 27 767's we ordered. Meanwhile, we have accelerated retirements of both the MD-10 and the Airbus. The only airplane we seem to be accelerating our purchases of is the 757.
My point in all this isn't to focus on doom and gloom. My point is we just ratified an LOA based on a goal of "preserving" wide body seats. We don't control wide body seats. The company does. What we can attempt to negotiate is pay rates. We did. We just locked in narrow body pay rates for the 757 until it retires. We did that with a shrinking wide body fleet, and a growing narrow body fleet. All to "preserve wide body seats".
No wonder the company came to such a quick agreement on this LOA.
04-13-2013 | 05:56 AM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
From: 11 Left Side
I'm a slow learner ... maybe one of you smart computer geeks can explain this one? The 'Excess Posting' published today says ...
Programming logic cannot currently manage vacancies and excesses in one bid, so we need to run separate vacancy and excess bids. A second bid, Posting 13-04, will be published the third week in April offering vacancies associated with the introduction of the B767.
I understand that the economy isn't great and we all want (need?) a proactive company that is able to adapt to changing times. I don't believe there is anything sinister in their proposed downsizing. Can anyone explain why our (legitimately) high tech company can't figure out how to manage a single bid that takes aircraft going away and new arriving aircraft all on the same bid!*?
A High School kid could write the program.
It will be interesting to hear what ALPA thinks.
Programming logic cannot currently manage vacancies and excesses in one bid, so we need to run separate vacancy and excess bids. A second bid, Posting 13-04, will be published the third week in April offering vacancies associated with the introduction of the B767.
I understand that the economy isn't great and we all want (need?) a proactive company that is able to adapt to changing times. I don't believe there is anything sinister in their proposed downsizing. Can anyone explain why our (legitimately) high tech company can't figure out how to manage a single bid that takes aircraft going away and new arriving aircraft all on the same bid!*?
A High School kid could write the program. It will be interesting to hear what ALPA thinks.
It may be a way to prevent another "paid vacation" while waiting for 767 training.
If they included vacancy position postings for the 767 simultaneously with the excesses posted (which Section 24.C.1. Line 3 implies could be done). There could be a long delay prior to 767 training for some guys.
Say I bid to go last on the 727 excess (by bidding to be excessed, not relieve the excess)....and I have 767 FO as my first choice after my current seat. I may be sitting a while waiting for 767 training.
Posting the excess first, we all get training dates as soon as 7 days after the bid closes. Even if we bid for the 767 a week after our excess award (while the 1 week overlap) is in effect.
I find it hard to believe our company IT software can't handle a simultaneous vacancy/excess bid.
04-13-2013 | 06:56 AM
#65
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
NO FEPP for YOU!
If I read this correctly, according to the settlement agreement, an FO who bids to relieve excess to say HKG CA, does not get FEPP if he could hold the same pay grade somewhere else (i.e. MEM MD Captain). Any thoughts?
04-13-2013 | 08:27 AM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,097
Likes: 0
04-13-2013 | 09:00 AM
#68
trip trading freak
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 673
Likes: 0
From: MD-11
- 6 airbus's
- 9 MD10s
+14 767s
+ 2 777s
= sum total of +1 wide body. Also note, international flying a/c are manned at about 12 to 1 ratio while the domestic is manned at about 3.5 to 1.
+18 narrow bodies.
Last I checked, our manning/flying was based on operational flying and not maintenance birds.
Last edited by Pakagecheck; 04-13-2013 at 09:01 AM. Reason: math in public
04-13-2013 | 09:14 AM
#69
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,201
Likes: 0
I see your numbers but what I see is, - operational
- 6 airbus's
- 9 MD10s
+14 767s
+ 2 777s
= sum total of +1 wide body. Also note, international flying a/c are manned at about 12 to 1 ratio while the domestic is manned at about 3.5 to 1.
+18 narrow bodies.
Last I checked, our manning/flying was based on operational flying and not maintenance birds.
- 6 airbus's
- 9 MD10s
+14 767s
+ 2 777s
= sum total of +1 wide body. Also note, international flying a/c are manned at about 12 to 1 ratio while the domestic is manned at about 3.5 to 1.
+18 narrow bodies.
Last I checked, our manning/flying was based on operational flying and not maintenance birds.
Interesting point regarding int'l versus domestic manning. Which of our aircraft don't fly international?
04-13-2013 | 09:19 AM
#70
trip trading freak
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 673
Likes: 0
From: MD-11
Was just lookin at that! What I get after a few winks and a night hub turn. Glad sleep dep doesn't effect ME!!!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
vagabond
Hangar Talk
0
02-20-2007 02:16 PM
Southerncowboyz
Major
2
10-31-2006 07:53 PM
