Two separate issues?
04-18-2020, 08:34 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by marcal
So I've been thinking about the potential ALV/Furloughs/survival of the airline like everyone. I'm a bubble candidate to lose my job if this all goes south. I just want to get a discussion on if we are looking at potential ALV reductions vs furloughs the right way. I see these at two separate issues. I don't believe they are related.
1.) The survival of the airline is predicated on cash flow. With no revenue, stretching every dollar prolongs the airline surviving.
2.) The airline is going to be smaller and there will(most likely) be furloughs on the other side and we don't know how long that will take.
I absolutely do not believe we should be taking any concessions to prevent any furlough because they are unrelated. If we are smaller, we're losing guys and gals.
I am however, open to the union discussing methods to stretch our cash flow through the significant downturn, IF IT IS STRUCTURED AS A LOAN THAT PAYS US INTEREST.
When Delta taps a line of credit, they pay interest. If we were to offer 20 hour ALV reductions, I would want 5-10% interest on that in some way/shape/form. I don't think that would be unreasonable. I am in no way shape or form advocating for a permanent amendment of our PWA. Any change would have to be temporary as an LOA.
Just as an example of what I'm thinking:
Each pilot reduces ALV by 20 hrs/month for a period of one year until things stabilize(240hrs). If it is say paid back over a 5 year period with the company paying us 5% interest, they would have five years after an agreed upon date or financial hurdle to pay us back roughy 5-10 extra hours every month for those five years(this is just a rough guess on what it would cost them to pay back this "loan" to them. If this is structured as a loan(I don't know if that can be done), it would be paid back at a higher priority in a BK.
Thoughts?
1.) The survival of the airline is predicated on cash flow. With no revenue, stretching every dollar prolongs the airline surviving.
2.) The airline is going to be smaller and there will(most likely) be furloughs on the other side and we don't know how long that will take.
I absolutely do not believe we should be taking any concessions to prevent any furlough because they are unrelated. If we are smaller, we're losing guys and gals.
I am however, open to the union discussing methods to stretch our cash flow through the significant downturn, IF IT IS STRUCTURED AS A LOAN THAT PAYS US INTEREST.
When Delta taps a line of credit, they pay interest. If we were to offer 20 hour ALV reductions, I would want 5-10% interest on that in some way/shape/form. I don't think that would be unreasonable. I am in no way shape or form advocating for a permanent amendment of our PWA. Any change would have to be temporary as an LOA.
Just as an example of what I'm thinking:
Each pilot reduces ALV by 20 hrs/month for a period of one year until things stabilize(240hrs). If it is say paid back over a 5 year period with the company paying us 5% interest, they would have five years after an agreed upon date or financial hurdle to pay us back roughy 5-10 extra hours every month for those five years(this is just a rough guess on what it would cost them to pay back this "loan" to them. If this is structured as a loan(I don't know if that can be done), it would be paid back at a higher priority in a BK.
Thoughts?
The company has stated numerous times that preserving cash is a huge priority. Their actions prove otherwise. By not offering SILs to pilots they are throwing away in excess of $10 million a month.
04-18-2020, 08:38 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Position: Hoping for any position
Posts: 2,506
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
So, what happens for the 2500 pilots that must retire in the next 3-4 years? What, if any, is the plan for them to be made whole?
additionally, most of those guys lived thru a bankruptcy and more importantly, the 10 years of substandard contracts...they did not get much "sympathy" from the soon to be furloughed for their "plight" at Delta. At least not from the vocal minority on these forums.
Before this gets off the rails, nobody owes me anything for past hardships at Delta....likewise I don't owe anybody anything for possible future hardships.....or turn the phrase 180 degrees and same same.
additionally, most of those guys lived thru a bankruptcy and more importantly, the 10 years of substandard contracts...they did not get much "sympathy" from the soon to be furloughed for their "plight" at Delta. At least not from the vocal minority on these forums.
Before this gets off the rails, nobody owes me anything for past hardships at Delta....likewise I don't owe anybody anything for possible future hardships.....or turn the phrase 180 degrees and same same.
I look at a scenario presented as loaning money to cousin Eddie. It’s not really a loan and we know it. You have to assume it’s never going to be paid back. If you are ok with giving that and likely not getting anything in return then you won’t be setup for a future disappointment.
04-18-2020, 08:41 AM
#13
Optimized
Joined APC: Oct 2017
Posts: 391
Just spit balling an idea here, curious to get more points of views on potential ups/downs.
Let’s agree to temporarily move the ALV down by putting a permanent lower cap. The basic idea being that limiting the summer surge that forces us to fly more in the summers. The majority of premium pay comes from excess open time, lowering the cap in summer months will increase those opportunities. It also gives the pilots who prioritize money to choose to do so, while also giving them more FAA legality time wise to pick and choose. It also lets pilots who choose time off to have a more balanced schedule.
I would also have reserve tied to that upper limit year round to potentially reward the locals that take reserve lines in an attempt to make bases more commuter friendly.
Thoughts?
Let’s agree to temporarily move the ALV down by putting a permanent lower cap. The basic idea being that limiting the summer surge that forces us to fly more in the summers. The majority of premium pay comes from excess open time, lowering the cap in summer months will increase those opportunities. It also gives the pilots who prioritize money to choose to do so, while also giving them more FAA legality time wise to pick and choose. It also lets pilots who choose time off to have a more balanced schedule.
I would also have reserve tied to that upper limit year round to potentially reward the locals that take reserve lines in an attempt to make bases more commuter friendly.
Thoughts?
04-18-2020, 08:42 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Posts: 208
Yeah. I don't suspect you'll get paid back, with interest, for work you didn't do. Whereas a reduced rate (I don't advocate this) you can negotiate a deferred payment with interest for the work previously performed.
Reduced ALV/TLV will be short lived. I doubt the company wants more unproductive pilots than necessary. Hell, they spend last summer trying to get more work out of us, instead of hire. Unproductive pilots are expensive.
Delta, or any airline, doesn't have a cost problem. Revenues dropping to ZERO overnight is the problem. We could all work for free and it wouldn't be enough to extend the operation by more than a few days.
Reduced ALV/TLV will be short lived. I doubt the company wants more unproductive pilots than necessary. Hell, they spend last summer trying to get more work out of us, instead of hire. Unproductive pilots are expensive.
Delta, or any airline, doesn't have a cost problem. Revenues dropping to ZERO overnight is the problem. We could all work for free and it wouldn't be enough to extend the operation by more than a few days.
04-18-2020, 09:49 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,110
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
So, what happens for the 2500 pilots that must retire in the next 3-4 years? What, if any, is the plan for them to be made whole?
.
.
04-18-2020, 09:49 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,110
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
If memory serves the last buy out was a max of $150k in 2012/3 if the pilot had 5;years left.
The only real incentive is avoiding the school house. Of course there may be more money by just saying adios on the day of the ESV.
*DEPENDING ON THE DATA* we should consider*
- the notion of an ALV / TLV adjustment to minimize displacements. My analysis of the park plan suggests the waterfall starts on the 777, builds us momentum on the 330, becomes a flipping avalanche on the 7ER and the narrow body islands are shrinking too.
So, in exchange for a minimization of displacements & furloughs we must maintain pay rates, category and status.
- no overtime (except for maybe GS on reserve which effectively decreases effective pilot utilization due to PB+PR, or maybe no overtime period for consistency)
- move the reinstatement window to the limit of the short course.
The long range concern is that
WE MUST KEEP AN EYE ON THE POTENTIAL FOR AN ARBITRATED SLI/MERGER! McKatskill Bond was written as a result of APA's bad faith ... ironically they would be the first beneficiaries of the Act. We would not want to degrade our pay rates, category or status.
If the airlines re emerge at 50% they are going to be looking for ways to consolidate and build customer demand sufficient to feed multiple connecting banks to facilitate their hub and spoke network model.
Just one guy's opinion.
The only real incentive is avoiding the school house. Of course there may be more money by just saying adios on the day of the ESV.
*DEPENDING ON THE DATA* we should consider*
- the notion of an ALV / TLV adjustment to minimize displacements. My analysis of the park plan suggests the waterfall starts on the 777, builds us momentum on the 330, becomes a flipping avalanche on the 7ER and the narrow body islands are shrinking too.
So, in exchange for a minimization of displacements & furloughs we must maintain pay rates, category and status.
- no overtime (except for maybe GS on reserve which effectively decreases effective pilot utilization due to PB+PR, or maybe no overtime period for consistency)
- move the reinstatement window to the limit of the short course.
The long range concern is that
WE MUST KEEP AN EYE ON THE POTENTIAL FOR AN ARBITRATED SLI/MERGER! McKatskill Bond was written as a result of APA's bad faith ... ironically they would be the first beneficiaries of the Act. We would not want to degrade our pay rates, category or status.
If the airlines re emerge at 50% they are going to be looking for ways to consolidate and build customer demand sufficient to feed multiple connecting banks to facilitate their hub and spoke network model.
Just one guy's opinion.
04-18-2020, 09:54 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,227
How about we fly the contract. No concessions. Non cons got 4% this year. Management drug their feet with us. Going down to ALV is already a concession for most line holders. We have a contract we need to enforce—not water it down further.
04-18-2020, 09:56 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,110
Originally Posted by Eddiewouldgo
How can you say that you don’t support any concessions and then a paragraph later you say you will support an ALV reduction which is a huge concession.....
The company has stated numerous times that preserving cash is a huge priority. Their actions prove otherwise. By not offering SILs to pilots they are throwing away in excess of $10 million a month.
The company has stated numerous times that preserving cash is a huge priority. Their actions prove otherwise. By not offering SILs to pilots they are throwing away in excess of $10 million a month.
I don’t support any concessions as a trade for few furloughs.
I support an investment to prolong cash flow for the company to be paid back with interest in the recovery.
04-18-2020, 09:58 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,468
Originally Posted by marcal
I would advocate that any pilot that is on the list when such a proposal is made would receive their “investment” back regardless of if they are retired or not. The payback wouldn’t necessarily need to be tied to your paycheck.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
