MD11Simnerd

UPS

filler

NotMrNiceGuy

The reasoning is that it would be be unwise. It would indicate gross incompetence of management, ruthlessness, and disdain for employees. Who would want to work for that? It runs off good employees.

Pilots have a long memory. I always wanted to work for Brown. I grew up just outside of Louisville. But when they called, I had real issues with the 109 they furloughed during the recession even though they still made over $1 billion in profit.

Corporations don’t have to do anything from a business standpoint, but how they treat employees will be remembered by potential prospects and have downline effects.

Adlerdriver

Valid. Saying the F choice is a bad idea from a PR or optics perspective is another discussion. I’m certainly not saying I think they should furlough.
Merle and others are trying to make the argument that FedEx is profitable and therefore has no reason to furlough. That makes no sense. All I’m saying is that there is no specific correlation there. If we are overmanned (not necessarily accepting that premise), then those profits can still be made without the extra pilots which saves on overall costs. Of course there are a lot more factors involved in making that decision and costs associated with bringing those pilots back if and when they return.

Merle Haggard

There's a little thing called corporate ethics that seems to have been completely lost - they used to teach it in business schools. Apparently ethics aren't part of your calculus on this issue.

PEOPLE SERVICE PROFIT. We didn't create that slogan - FDX management did. Furlough a few hundred and save a few million or treat the bottom few hundred well and secure loyal 30-40 year employees. That is also a business decision that can be profitable - it just requires vision that extends beyond the next quarterly earnings call.

Ask any WN employee how things have gone since they stopped concerning themselves with treating their employees well.

Adlerdriver

I'm not arguing ethics or optics. If you want to go that way, you won't get any push back from me.
I can only go off what you post.
When you say this:
You're not arguing ethics You're making a monetary argument.

KC10 FATboy

You’re correct. And revenge by the furloughed employees doesn’t end. I’ve worked with many Captains who were furloughed and they never forgot. It sounds childish and unprofessional but these scorned pilots directed their anger at the company by taxiing with all engines burning/slow taxis, not flying at optimal speed or altitude, not taking shortcuts or flying fast causing more passengers to miss connection flights.

Merle Haggard

Actually, no. Furloughing while making billions is an ethical problem. Furloughing to keep a company viable and preserving remaining jobs is potentially ethically defensible.

You cannot separate the money and the ethics. Furlough of necessity vs. furlough of convenience or choice. In the case of FDX, any overmanning was the direct result of poor management decision making. Management should live with those consequences, not junior crew members. I don't really understand why you've chosen this of all things to argue about.

BlueMoon

because it’s logical. The BOD and CEO have a duty to the shareholders, not employees. This company has already laid off employees, while making plenty of money. We are not some privileged group. If it makes sense they’ll do it, I’d argue it doesn’t make financial sense (it’s a lot harder and more expensive due to our contract to lay us off vs a courier) at the moment and don’t think we will get to that point.

Adlerdriver

Cue the unicorns and rainbows. That’s some Kumbaya stuff right there.
If only this were the case. I’m arguing this because you have a skewed viewpoint of the concept of furlough and why it happens.
Look, there are a lot of hurdles between now and an actual furlough. I don’t think it’s likely. My ONLY point initially in this whole semi-stupid discussion is that profitability doesn’t not preclude a furlough if that’s deemed appropriate by the ones calling that shot.
If the company chooses not to furlough it will be because it doesn’t make sense financially or they don’t think the negative optics will be worth the savings in the long run or they’re worried they’ll lose many of the furloughees given the current job market in the pax industry, etc.
It won’t be because someone in management feels obligated to own the bad hiring decisions that put us in this position because they feel bad for the junior pilots and it won’t be because someone says “hey, we can’t do that, we’re makin’ money!” Our company cries poor when the billions in profits are only single digit. Ethics? Sh!t, we can’t even get management to pay our way to MEM, provide hotels and rental cars for a 3n3 without a grievance. You think anyone in the ivory tower gives a hoot about ethics?

UnusualAttitude

You guys are engaged in a really interesting conversation and all have made good points. This is stockholder theory vs stakeholder theory.

Here is a good read: Towards Accountable Capitalism: Remaking Corporate Law Through Stakeholder Governance