|
|
Originally Posted by johnso29
(Post 1292596)
I do have to give LM credit here. The layers of furlough protection kept me off the street. I know Delta was very close to furloughing at the end of 2008.
|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1292584)
If you were able to negotiate such a clause do you think it would have a long term positive or negative effect on the furloughed pilots verses the current system where GS's increase the manning formula? It certainly would force the company to make a choice. Accept large operations disruptions when IROPS occur or keep a lot of pilots on the payroll not working. If they choose option two it would prevent some furloughs. I think however they would go with option one and take the revenue hit rather then keep the extra bodies. Either option would be expensive for the company so negotiating such as clause would have a significant cost. In light of the current fleet plan and retirement outlook do you feel that would have been money well spent in the current contract or perhaps wasted?
Lee Moak came up with a all new concept to prevent furloughs. He championed the idea of laying in lots of very small penalties to the company in a furlough situation. Each individual item did not seem that significant but in total the penalty to the company becomes quite large if they choose to furlough. Lots of pilots posting on this forum would have been furloughed in 09 were in not for that concept. I think it worked well and is the way to go in the future. On a side note I found the following to be true with most pilots. If they were in a category where they could not get GS's then the pilots who flew them were greedy bastards. If the situation in their category changed and they could now get GS's then the would fly them and then say, "Everyone else is flying them so why not me". In essence the the debate hinged on the availability of GS's to each pilot. The company is 'fat' on pilots right now, fuel prices are very high, yet we just posted one of the highest earning quarters in history, so having extra bodies on the payroll 'doing nothing' is not hurting them at all, in fact, it probably saves them quite a bit of money with every weather event, like Hurricane Sandy. Having extra bodies on reserve 'doing nothing' is part of the cost of running a RELIABLE, ON TIME, Airline. There are MGT bean counters who are just as greedy as the GS'ing pilots. They would gladly cut manning to have every reserve flying 78hrs. per month, every month, and cover irops only with GS's. There are lots of Pilots who would like to fly 100 a month. Problem is, when nobody answers the phone on Christmas or Superbowl Sunday, or any snow storm in NYC, things go to heck. The company could be run a whole lot more efficiently, body count wise (to say nothing of MX spare parts costs!) if they would thin out the fleet types, but they just added a whole new fleet! That takes more pilots off the line for more training, more sitting around waiting for your IOE, etc. The PILOTS don't decide which airframes the company is going to buy, but Management always wants us to "Be more productive, like SWA!" when they buy them! The biggest reason SWA is sooo much more efficient and productive than any one else is, they figured that out (single fleet type) a long time ago.:rolleyes: I had Jerry the Genius on my Jumpseat going to AMS about 3 months before bankruptcy, he said back then, they wanted to get down to 2 fleet types, the 737 for domestic, and the 787 for Int. They are obviously doing the 737 thing, but what about the 787? Or A350, Or...? From what I've seen out of King Richard, he likes all the old, used, cheap airframes he can get. I guess since we train at home on our own dime most of the time, it doesn't cost him as much to train us as it did in the "before time", but still, would think the spare parts night mare alone would make him want to slim down the fleet types to as few as possible. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1292612)
I had a new hire FE back in 99 who was complaining about almost everything. He hated ALPA because we had a cap and it restricted his ability to pick up time. I asked him how much he would fly with no cap and he thought he could credit around 110 hours a month. I said how much would that pay you. He did the math and gave me a number. I said your incorrect!. If we had no cap your pay rate would be zero because you would be on the street furloughed, are you sure you want ALPA to negotiate that?"
I am not sure he really got it. There are pilots right now on the DALPA forum asking for all pickup restrictions to be removed. They don't get it either. We need to work to reduce the pickup limits not increase them. The increase in allowable ALV was one of my bigger stumbling blocks on the new contract. We flew the same number of system wide pilot block hours in 2007 as we did in 2001. We did it however with 2500 fewer pilots. How? Work rule changes and cap increases. I would rather fly in a higher paying category working fewer days a month then a lower paying category with more hours per month. Exactly! More Money, More Time Off! You get more by flying less, as you move up. Problem is, as more guys in front of you fly more, you don't move up at all, and probably move backwards....and then start picking up more time to make up for the loss, which exacerbates the situation. Bringing back the Cap/Bow Wave/Spill Back would help solve that. Too bad we aren't negotiating a new contract any time soon...:eek: |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1292617)
DL would have burned themselved big time in 2010 if they furloughed in 08-09. The "savings" would have been more than eaten up in the massive training churn as well as the lost revenue they could not possibly have ramped up for in time. The layers of protection arguement is still somewhat valid, but at times a bit exagerated.
|
Originally Posted by Bainite
(Post 1292423)
Hmm...I've got Airbus CQ in my early month in Dec, and then projected for MD-88 training in Jan. I assume the training dept would want to just cancel the CQ to free up assets, but what will that do to My Dec schedule? Pick up extra reserve days to make up the diff or something?
I know, call and aks'em tomorrow... |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 1292612)
I had a new hire FE back in 99 who was complaining about almost everything. He hated ALPA because we had a cap and it restricted his ability to pick up time. I asked him how much he would fly with no cap and he thought he could credit around 110 hours a month. I said how much would that pay you. He did the math and gave me a number. I said your incorrect!. If we had no cap your pay rate would be zero because you would be on the street furloughed, are you sure you want ALPA to negotiate that?"
I am not sure he really got it. There are pilots right now on the DALPA forum asking for all pickup restrictions to be removed. They don't get it either. We need to work to reduce the pickup limits not increase them. The increase in allowable ALV was one of my bigger stumbling blocks on the new contract. We flew the same number of system wide pilot block hours in 2007 as we did in 2001. We did it however with 2500 fewer pilots. How? Work rule changes and cap increases. I would rather fly in a higher paying category working fewer days a month then a lower paying category with more hours per month. |
NYC 7ERB available backdoor.
|
Originally Posted by cni187
(Post 1292666)
NYC 7ERB available backdoor.
|
Backdoor LAX ERB also out....Anyone host me for Christmas in NYC? LOL!!!
Baja. |
Originally Posted by Going2Baja
(Post 1292705)
Backdoor LAX ERB also out....Anyone host me for Christmas in NYC? LOL!!!
Baja. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:44 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands