2558
07-11-2020, 10:25 AM
#621
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: A330 First Officer
Posts: 1,465
Originally Posted by StartngOvr
Isn’t the number that sign up initially potentially misleading? I’m not eligible, or interested so I haven’t studied the offer closely. But, it seems to me we could potentially have a large number who signed up decide to then revoke during the window to do so. I’m thinking if I was eligible and know I could revoke, I’d likely sign up initially so as to not miss the chance while I studied the details to make a final decision.
FWIW, I also happen to think 2558 are gone either way. If anything, the number of VEOP takers might affect if there are additional rounds of furlough beyond the initial wave.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
FWIW, I also happen to think 2558 are gone either way. If anything, the number of VEOP takers might affect if there are additional rounds of furlough beyond the initial wave.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
07-11-2020, 11:21 AM
#622
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,370
Agree, that would be a huge foul, IF said person knew they weren’t going to take it, but applied anyway.
At the same TH, they seemed to indicate the 350 category may have limited awards. Given how many they awarded in the 365 day AE, that would be a lot of 350 A and B takers in the 480-ish day VEOP period. That would also save/undo a ******* ton of secondary displacements.
At the same TH, they seemed to indicate the 350 category may have limited awards. Given how many they awarded in the 365 day AE, that would be a lot of 350 A and B takers in the 480-ish day VEOP period. That would also save/undo a ******* ton of secondary displacements.
07-11-2020, 12:03 PM
#623
Bracing for Fallacies
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
Posts: 3,543
Originally Posted by DALMD88FO
I hope we don't have too many of these. The question was asked in the last flight ops town hall if someone in a category got turned down for VEOP due to training constraints then someone in the same category pulls their package will the next one in line get the VEOP? The answer was not a straight one and leaned more towards no they won't redo them to add people if they didn't get it the first time. I'm hoping that no one gets turned down but it would really suck if someone that "just wanted to see when they would be offered the out" pulled their package and someone that really wanted to go didn't get a chance.
POINT.
Never thought of that.
07-12-2020, 06:36 AM
#624
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 146
Originally Posted by hookshot123
2558
Shock and Awe. No way it is that big.
Shock and Awe. No way it is that big.
07-12-2020, 08:04 AM
#625
Roll’n Thunder
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: Pilot
Posts: 3,604
Originally Posted by MSP7ERB
I hope I'm wrong but I'll be very surprised if they don't take the furloughs all the way down to the 76 seater penalty DOH. It's no coincidence that #2558 keeps all seats in the RJs. JL and BS even admitted to that fact one one of the Town Halls. I'm usually an optimist, but the realist in me doesn't see this playing out nicely.
07-12-2020, 09:13 AM
#626
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by tennisguru
I agree. If nothing changes then all the UNAs will be converted by 1 Oct. At that point we are literally dead weight to the company and there is no reason to keep us on active status any more.
07-12-2020, 09:34 AM
#627
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,247
Originally Posted by tennisguru
I agree. If nothing changes then all the UNAs will be converted by 1 Oct. At that point we are literally dead weight to the company and there is no reason to keep us on active status any more.
07-12-2020, 10:31 AM
#628
Roll’n Thunder
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: Pilot
Posts: 3,604
Originally Posted by Nantonaku
Would that mean grounding the whole 220 fleet for a while? If they can figure that out or want to move the flying to another plane then there is no reason not to furlough all 2558. By moving up all the UNA dates to October it seems to imply they are planning on flying a reduced 220 schedule until training catches up. There is no hope for beating the virus and travel rebounding as quickly as this fall. Let’s hope a vaccine comes out and next summer forces recalls.
07-12-2020, 11:44 AM
#629
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 3,038
Originally Posted by Nantonaku
Would that mean grounding the whole 220 fleet for a while? If they can figure that out or want to move the flying to another plane then there is no reason not to furlough all 2558. By moving up all the UNA dates to October it seems to imply they are planning on flying a reduced 220 schedule until training catches up. There is no hope for beating the virus and travel rebounding as quickly as this fall. Let’s hope a vaccine comes out and next summer forces recalls.
The million dollar question is when is travel going to come back? Probably not for a while judging by the current trajectory of things.
07-12-2020, 01:56 PM
#630
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2020
Posts: 742
Originally Posted by m3113n1a1
I think this is the plan. They'll just fly a reduced 220 schedule and switch the routes to other planes or RJs until they catch up with training.
The million dollar question is when is travel going to come back? Probably not for a while judging by the current trajectory of things.
The million dollar question is when is travel going to come back? Probably not for a while judging by the current trajectory of things.
My personal take is some of these governors have proven to be quite incompetent, while others may have ulterior motives to keep economic activity suppressed.
A5S
