![]() |
Originally Posted by deltabound
(Post 3084657)
Company has been saying consistently for months they want 7000 pilots on the property.
|
Originally Posted by WhiskeyDelta
(Post 3084883)
When was the last time they said they wanted only 7k pilots? I’ve watched every town hall either live or the replay read every company communication since this thing started and I can say they’ve not said it once publicly. Please show the times they’ve said it because that means another 5k pilots will be furloughed beyond the initial 2558.
I think I also saw that in print, but can’t remember which company piece it was printed. Maybe the Crew Resources Monthly update? I perceived it as a wedge to pat themselves on the back for “only” displacing 2500 or so to UNA. |
Originally Posted by WhiskeyDelta
(Post 3084883)
When was the last time they said they wanted only 7k pilots? I’ve watched every town hall either live or the replay read every company communication since this thing started and I can say they’ve not said it once publicly. Please show the times they’ve said it because that means another 5k pilots will be furloughed beyond the initial 2558.
|
Furlough pay
Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine
(Post 3084886)
Crew Resources stated in April or May that the schedule they built required 7,000 pilots. People seem to think that means the total pilot group will only be 7,000. When Crew Resources states the number of pilots they need to operate a schedule, they assume no one is on leave, no one calls out sick, and no flight is cancelled or delayed. Crew Resources never said they want to get the total pilot group down to that number. Later, they said the plan to have 10,700 active pilots for summer 2021. They provided us with too much info and unfortunately not the actual number we care about... the size of the total pilot group.
Originally Posted by FangsF15
(Post 3084885)
What they have said, at a minimum in the SkyHub TH’s, is in the short term, they only need 7000 -ish pilots to fly the schedule.
I think I also saw that in print, but can’t remember which company piece it was printed. Maybe the Crew Resources Monthly update? I perceived it as a wedge to pat themselves on the back for “only” displacing 2500 or so to UNA. Thanks, my peeps. I figured it dated back to April or May when things were the least clear. I do remember 7k briefly being mentioned but once the MOAD came out it was overshadowed by the more realistic 12k they seem to have settled on. Oh and I don’t think anyone can agree it’s been consistently mentioned so I’ll chalk up his comment as fear-mongering. |
Originally Posted by WhiskeyDelta
(Post 3084892)
Thanks, my peeps. I figured it dated back to April or May when things were the least clear. I do remember 7k briefly being mentioned but once the MOAD came out it was overshadowed by the more realistic 12k they seem to have settled on.
Oh and I don’t think anyone can agree it’s been consistently mentioned so I’ll chalk up his comment as fear-mongering. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 3084904)
7000 was put out as the number to fly the Oct 2020 schedule and is probably still correct. It has nothing to do with potential furloughs as that number is based on pilot requirements deep into 2021 and is 10700.
|
Fear-mongering is right...
|
Originally Posted by FL370esq
(Post 3084557)
Using the language "a circumstance over which the Company does not have control" encompasses a force majeure. A force majeure clause, by legal definition, is a clause excusing non-performance due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties.
21.B.9.a, 1.I.1 and 1.I.2 are some relevant ones. “the circumstance under which the company does not have control shall not include....the state of the economy, the financial state of the company, or the relative profitability or unprofitability of the company’s then-current operations.” |
Originally Posted by Gspeed
(Post 3085463)
21.B.9.b:
“the circumstance under which the company does not have control shall not include....the state of the economy, the financial state of the company, or the relative profitability or unprofitability of the company’s then-current operations.” |
Originally Posted by FL370esq
(Post 3085489)
Yup....ask Richard Bloch how he interpreted similar language after 9/11. Company continued to furlough for over a year after 9/11.
Be glad that your pilot group had a seat at the table in arbitration. Zero contractual language would have gotten you an audience of.....zero. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:20 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands