Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
Alaska Airlines to cut as many as 165 pilots >

Alaska Airlines to cut as many as 165 pilots

Search
Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

Alaska Airlines to cut as many as 165 pilots

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-05-2008, 09:31 AM
  #21  
Line Holder
 
GolfKilo73's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 57
Default

Originally Posted by SoCalGuy View Post
If they do furlough up to the 165, what hire date would that be??
Hire date would go back to June of 2006.

As far as the ETOPS training, for FO's it's only a two day class on procedures and additional raft training. The Captains are the only ones that need a line check. Unfortunately it probably wouldn't be that difficult to train up another group for ETOPS. The logistics should still apply as to a particular base of pilots being trained. Unless they wanted to train all of SEA, they would have to train a certain amount of folks, then have a base reduction and pay to move all the new ETOPS FO's to ANC. We'll see if it actually plays out that way.

Saretsky has said a lot of things that don't pan out. Just before the 165 number he was saying 50-70 at the ANC base roadshow. What "truth" do you want to believe?
GolfKilo73 is offline  
Old 09-05-2008, 01:05 PM
  #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ArcticDog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: On the aluminum Arctic snow sled
Posts: 127
Default

I heard from someone at todays roadshow in LAX that Saretsky said "it could be closer to 200 furloughs...but thats squishy".

If he wants to see squishy maybe he should look in the mirror...oh wait...that's slippery!
ArcticDog is offline  
Old 09-05-2008, 02:20 PM
  #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
skid's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 228
Default

What is the full training req for the ETOPS cert at alaska? I have read the 2 day training thing or whatever, but why is the flight portion on there is that an FAA requirement for all carriers? Just wondering I have never done it.

Also why wouldn't they just run a recurrent type class to qualify everyone on the ground part of it. Seems like a pain in butt to deal with only certain crews being able to do it. Then just do the flight portion as needed when someone is scheduled to fly that kind of a trip.

I know it sux to be on the short end of the furlough stick. (personal experience) I wish all of you the best of luck. Hopefully those that are faced with it dont have to go through it for too long.
skid is offline  
Old 09-05-2008, 05:27 PM
  #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Green Banana's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 160
Default

Originally Posted by skid View Post
What is the full training req for the ETOPS cert at alaska? I have read the 2 day training thing or whatever, but why is the flight portion on there is that an FAA requirement for all carriers? Just wondering I have never done it.

Also why wouldn't they just run a recurrent type class to qualify everyone on the ground part of it. Seems like a pain in butt to deal with only certain crews being able to do it. Then just do the flight portion as needed when someone is scheduled to fly that kind of a trip.
The ETOPS is an add on. After you finish your check ride in the sim and are completely finished ground school. The class then divides into LAX/SEA guys that are scheduled for line OE and ANC guys that come back for two days of ETOPS/CLASS II NAV. You learn regs, procedures, raft drills, exc.. For FO's there is no line experience. For CA's you will have a check airmen in the jump for your first ETOPS flight to help guide you.

All they have to do to train new crews that are displaced from LAX/SEA to ANC is one mass 2-day class for FO's and CA's, then schedule a check airman with a CA for their first crossing. It is really no big deal and will not effect the training program that much.
Green Banana is offline  
Old 09-06-2008, 11:09 AM
  #25  
Looking for a laugh
 
Justdoinmyjob's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,099
Default

Originally Posted by WaterBoarder View Post
Hey,

here is an idea - why don't you get a union with could negotiate some furlough protection?
Oh, wait - you already have one?
And people wonder why there is no unity between pilot groups. Kinda makes me halfway hope oil goes to $200.00 a barrel, just to put pressure on your "set in stone, company promise" not to furlough. Although, if JBU ever did furlough, I'm guessing you won't be posting here to have the above comment thrown back at you.
Justdoinmyjob is offline  
Old 09-06-2008, 12:57 PM
  #26  
Line Holder
 
GolfKilo73's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 57
Default

Originally Posted by WaterBoarder View Post
Hey,

here is an idea - why don't you get a union with could negotiate some furlough protection?
Oh, wait - you already have one?

This negotiation process is obviously way over your head WB. Management is deep into the union busting playbook and are playing hardball. Why wouldn't they? Afterall, there are millions of dollars at stake. They don't want to give an inch until it is absolutely necessary and are doing what they can to control the negotiation process and the pilot group.

Wait a second...I'm trying to explain this to someone who can barely write at the fifth grade level. Oops.
GolfKilo73 is offline  
Old 09-06-2008, 01:27 PM
  #27  
Need More Callouts
 
757Driver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Unbridled Enthusiasm
Posts: 2,143
Default

Originally Posted by WaterBoarder View Post
Hey,

here is an idea - why don't you get a union with could negotiate some furlough protection?
Oh, wait - you already have one?
Jet-Blow,

Say no more.
757Driver is offline  
Old 09-06-2008, 06:34 PM
  #28  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,480
Default

Originally Posted by FR8Dingo View Post
If they furlough 165, that's to seniority number 1440. In ANC that would be 53 (55%) of the FOs. That's ETOPs training as well a fair amount $$ for moves to ANC unless they significantly decrease the domicile.
Not a factor, I suspect. Most of the pilots displaced to ANC will NOT move there. They'll commute until they can hold SEA/LAX again. I'm sure the Company is counting on this and has empirical data to support it. Given the MD ANC base experience very few people will actually take advantage of the contractual moving expenses.

I suspect the 165 number has more to do with contract negotiations/mediation than to do with 5% reductions.
Now they're talking 11-12% sked reductions and 165 would be about an equal staffing reduction.

Originally Posted by QCappy View Post
There has been no talk of furloughing out of seniority. The contract does not allow for it. They know all the ramifications of furloughing with the ETPOS guys being most of the furloughs. It is a bluff, pure and simple. There could be a few just to prove that they are willing to do it, but there is no way they would furlough 11% of thier pilots.
I'm not so sure about that, Cappy. There are virtually NO ramifications of furloughing ETOPS guys. Two days of GS and you're good to go. Send a Check Airman on your first overwater leg and its done. The only hitch would be the moving expenses that the Company would be exposed to in a displacement bid and see above for why they're not worried.

If you guys notice in all the mention of furloughs they always say "up to 165". They have no clue how many they are going to send letters to since they have not even put out the incentive package for the over 60 guys or the 12 and 24 month leave offer. They have to wait and see how many guys take the offers and then decide how many people to furlough to prove their point.
Probably true. If a significant number of the guys who are over 60 and turn 60 in the next couple years take the early out, the number of furloughs could be significantly reduced.

Originally Posted by Moose View Post
Isn't ETOPS training a two day class and then a check? The folks in the training dept said that would not be hard to spin up new ETOPS guys even with the MD guys clogging up the house. Saretsky said with the capacity cuts they would only really need 99 planes next year to fill the schedule.
In all my prior dealings with Saretsky I've found him to be intelligent and forthright. It always made me wonder how he managed to survive at Angle Lake.

He may be full of BS but I am just relaying what he said. Maybe folks that are a bit smarter on this can comment. He also said their game now is cash preservation and holding market share with minor expansions where they make sense.
Makes sense to me.

Originally Posted by Justin Case View Post
but, but, but Saretsky told me I would upgrade in five years.
That's the Company line. They've been preaching that since I got hired. Some of you young guys may not remember it, but in '98/'99 they were all hot on "2000 (pilots) by 2000". There have been various versions of that projection back to the '80s.

Originally Posted by ArcticDog View Post
I heard from someone at todays roadshow in LAX that Saretsky said "it could be closer to 200 furloughs...but thats squishy
That just means they're waiting to see how many old-timers pull the ejection handle. If I was eligible, I probably would.

Originally Posted by 757Driver View Post
Jet-Blow,

Say no more.
No comment.
Fishfreighter is offline  
Old 09-07-2008, 07:20 AM
  #29  
Line Holder
 
KKKBTAXI's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Unknown - Progressive Please!
Posts: 80
Default

I am curious as to how many pilots at ALK are now and will be flying past the age of 60? (Or any anirline) It is NOT a junior pilots faults that a 60+ pilots managae thier retirement poorly, so in my opinion STOP dicking with us junior guys chance to build a retirement!
KKKBTAXI is offline  
Old 09-08-2008, 06:48 AM
  #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Moose's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 466
Default

[QUOTE=WaterBoarder;457351][quote=GolfKilo73;456987]Management is deep into the union busting playbook and are playing hardball. Why wouldn't they? Afterall, there are millions of dollars at stake. They don't want to give an inch until it is absolutely necessary and are doing what they can to control the negotiation process and the pilot group.


Your deep understanding of the negotiating process qualifies you for a management position. Keep paying those union dues.
I don't get your comment. GolfKilo hit the nail right on the head in his comments. Our union reps are keeping us well informed and we are unified. Is it not good that a pilot has a good grasp of the negotiating process??? I would hope so because so much rides on it. If our management was as free as Jetblues to do what they want then you would see no pension here, a 3% 401 match, the lowest pay scale in the industry, horrendous work rules and guys being fired for almost anything. They are terrible in regards to employee relations here. When you let a bean-counter run an organization everything and everyone becomes a cost unit and leadership is scarce.
If you work at Jetblue, then I would be a bit worried because you have little leverage on anything. Are you supporting the JBPA? If so, good on you! If not, then maybe you should look into a management position because you believe they actually have your best interests at heart! Doesn't jetblue retain Ford and Harrison? Are they part of the ATA? Are they not on the Airline Industrial Relations Conference? Makes you go hmmmmm...but hey, they have your interests at heart!
Moose is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
A320Flyer
Major
5
09-02-2008 04:05 AM
DLax85
Cargo
3
08-30-2008 07:00 PM
vagabond
Major
1
08-07-2008 12:33 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices