|
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
(Post 789000)
What's with all the furlough talk recently?
|
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 788907)
Waves,
If you are talking no furloughs due to the economy - I would tend to agree, but even this is simplistic. Conversely if you bring scope, code-shares and JVs into the picture it gets a little muddled. FWIW 250 FM-2 guys got recalled with back pay due to our No Furlough clause in 2003. This was after the arbitrator ruled DAL could not furlough any more FM-1 guys. Who knows if it was worth what it cost in bargaining - but I bet the guys recalled due to the no-furlough clause think it was worth it. Finally I will say the issue is too complex to adequately discuss on a web-board. For example - if we had an ironclad no-furlough clause many people think this would often deter the company from hiring until it was way understaffed and keep the operation continuously running lean. Great for senior guys wanting green-slips - terrible for guys on reserve getting beat up. You could probably argue point counter-point on the no furlough clause for days, and then throw in the second and third order affects from Scope and JVs and pretty soon you are looking at a doctoral thesis. Scoop Scope could be argued as a completely different issue with similar goals in mind. My disclaimer: I’m not advocating not having some sort of “No Furlough Clause (NFC).” I am merely pointing out the very high cost of such an agreement and its ineffectiveness when it is truly needed. Unwittingly, you have actually cemented my point with your example. When it comes to negotiating, we all know that Management is not stupid. I have seen them do things during negotiations which makes us look like buffoons. They will often times test the waters of the no furlough clause to make sure we still believe it is worth the concessions we give in exchange for it. Your example is a perfect text book case for this view point. Two guys get re-instated with pay because of our NFC. Now if it were necessary to furlough 2000 guys, it could and most likely would be a totally different story. When a company declares they are bleeding red ink to a degree in which the company may not survive, then ALL the rules suddenly change. It doesn’t necessarily have to be true as we have seen before. This is normally when ALPA insists on seeing the books, and the company refuses, etc. We have been there several times before, which brings me to another point which I will discuss later in my dissertation. Ha Your next point is absolutely and positively a true statement. The NFC does indeed cause DAL to under staff. Our contractual manning formula has been blatantly violated time and time again. Simple math will confirm this, but when over 430 GS’s are awarded to one base/category/seat for one month, this should be a big red flag that we are under staffed. Everyone will agree that the airline industry is a highly cyclical and seasonal business. Maintaining the proper staffing balance isn’t an easy task, especially in the dynamic environment we currently find ourselves. No one wants to be the bottom Yo-Yo guy. Employed----Not employed----Employed----Not employed, but sometimes this becomes necessary in order to get that airline job in the first place. Think of it as part time employment until one works one’s way up the list over time. That is the way it used to work. In most cases it’s better to get that part time job rather than be sitting on the sidelines waiting for an interview. There are three basic methods for which management uses or has used in the past in their attempt at balancing the manning formula and negotiating the NFC. ALPA and the various pilot groups have made many sacrifices to mitigate the cyclical staffing needs throughout the years. The first was the “B Scale.” I’m sure everyone is familiar with the term, but it is simply a lower pay scale for the bottom guys to subsidize the hiring of more pilots to maintain balanced staffing. The B scale was invented by AMR, and quickly adapted by UAL, DAL, and several others. UAL management actually wanted a 19 year B Scale, which was even longer than AMR’s 17 year scale. At DAL we ended up with a 5 year B Scale of which I got to be on for 5 years. We got rid of this at high cost, around 1995 or 96. The next method is of course overtime flying and assignment flying. Management has successfully used this method and even sued some select DAL pilots for collusion with others to not do overtime flying. DAL lost this case three times, but finally found a judge that agreed with them, thereby making voluntary overtime mandatory. Later, UAL pilots found themselves in this same scenario. So once this case had set precedence, as a pilot concession, the GS rules were changed to make overtime flying nearly equal to straight pay. This has since been corrected to a degree. The third method was another subsidy paid for by the pilots remaining on the seniority list after or just prior to a furlough. Some refer to it as “Furlough Lock Down.” This is the contractual provision which limits the flying by each pilot, limits moving around bank time, and a few other undesirable things. In my opinion, this was probably the most evil method of all for the pilot group. This subsidy had far reaching implications to the guys working on their FAE before retirement and it was a huge pay cut for everyone else active on the list for sometimes as long as 5 years. At some point, the FAE guys got a reprieve from this, but this method is still in place today, albeit a different model. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have any answers or solutions and I am not necessarily advocating not having a NFC. Since the NFC issue has been raised here, and negotiations 2012 are just around the corner, and I just wanted everyone to think about how much we want to pay for something we will probably never use to its full cost basis. And for my next unwanted and unappreciated dissertation, I will focus on Scope. Just kidding. Blah, Blah, Blah. |
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
(Post 789000)
What's with all the furlough talk recently?
|
Originally Posted by Waves
(Post 788845)
I understand that, but what I'm saying here is that we got a side letter extension from the 175 over hour projection. I will email my guru ER buddy right now and ask him how it went down. Look for an update.
No Furlough Clauses I must add that I was a bit miffed when ALPA did this autonomously without our blessings. THIS IS IMPORTANT STUFF FOR FUTURE NEGOTIATIONS!!!!!! No Furlough Clauses are very deceptive and a complex issue to say the least. I could probably write a dissertation on the subject, but I will refrain and give the Reader’s Digest version instead. As a young 727 engineer, I had many discussions and enlightenments from Captains much wiser than I. I will attempt in a short span to relay their wisdom in a few short blurbs. I must admit, that this is short notice and I haven’t spent much time on this development. If I had, it would make much more sense. I will also add that as a new guy hanging on the bottom of the seniority list, their insights were not immediately and happily accepted. It was throughout the years, that I began to realize the wisdom of their guidance. ALPA cannot accept this view as it would appear to abandon the bottom dwellers. Nothing could be further from the truth. 1) Furlough clauses are very expensive clauses for which the pilot group as a whole pays dearly. 2) Airlines have always desperately needed the flexibility of varying the work force with demand. This is not a good thing for the junior people; nevertheless, it is generally mandatory for survival. 3) Secretly, management loves “No Furlough Clauses” because in general, they aren’t worth the paper they are written on, yet they are hugely concessionary to the pilot group. 4) Although Pilot politically correct, furlough clauses are many times renegotiated or simply changed under duress when times get rough, making them an unrecoverable cost/loss to the pilot group. 5) End result is generally a huge concession to attain a no furlough clause, but in the end, if the situation dictates, furloughs will be accepted by all parties regardless of previous agreements. 6) Bottom line: Don’t be lured into and let future negotiations be driven by worthless “No furlough clauses.” ALPA must be politically correct with this issue, but don’t be fooled into spending a large amount of your negotiating power on this issue. You will be wasting your hard earned cash which will never be redeemed. These are just thoughts I’d like to share with you from former Captains before us. These thoughts are most likely going to be viewed negatively by many. I would expect nothing less. I, myself viewed these ideas with disdain for many years, but I eventually settled on their realistic values. The fact is that “No furlough clauses” are extremely expensive with no intrinsic value. They only protect pilots in the good times. In the bad times, these “written in stone” agreements are shattered into rubble only to reflect a costly yet worthless agreement. Our brethren at the bottom are just as important as our brethren at the top, but these costly agreements are not the answer. I know this isn’t a topic of the hour, but it is just food for future thought. I'm just saying.............. |
Originally Posted by Dirty
(Post 789049)
Spoken like someone who's not in danger of being furloughed. If I was an SLC captain I wouldn't spend any negotiating capital it either because you ain't gonna be furloughed! :-)
|
Hey Dirty, I just noticed that I'm no longer the FNG here. Your are. :D As the former FNG, welcome to the forum. Waves Correction: Ooops, I just realized that just because you only have 10 posts to my 113, that you still joined up way before me. Damn, I'm still the FNG.
|
Originally Posted by Waves
(Post 789111)
Hey Dirty, I just noticed that I'm no longer the FNG here. Your are. :D As the former FNG, welcome to the forum. Waves Correction: Ooops, I just realized that just because you only have 10 posts to my 113, that you still joined up way before me. Damn, I'm still the FNG.
|
Originally Posted by Waves
(Post 789062)
I knew someone would have to say that. You are wrong of course. I felt the same way when I was close to the bottom being threatened with furlough. By the way, that is exactly what management wants you to beleive. Divide and concur. Read my 2nd dissertation and maybe you will understand where I'm coming from a little better. Additionally, just FYI, I voted yes every time for part of my salary to go to the Cobra benefits in support of our furloughees.
|
Originally Posted by Ragtop Day
(Post 789135)
No worry Waves, Ragtop Day is here to take the FNG title!! Enough about furloughs, anyone notice the Trim Tab statement about a 9 hole golf course being built at the G.O.?!? Guess short call won't be that bad anymore.
|
Originally Posted by Dirty
(Post 789137)
Waves... I'm not a hater... I would tend to agree with you ... if I was you. It probably isn't worth the paper it's printed on but I see it more like Sailingfun. There are some big disincentives for the company to furlough and it has given me a little job security at the bottom. I also see it as a round about scope protection which benefits everyone.
With that said, Whens the hiring window going to open up? :D More flying, airplanes, routes, and bodies is what we need to be talking about these days ;) |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:21 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands