MIA 767 maybe, but MIA 777 is too senior and even if it wasn't, there is a long list of reinstatements that would be filled before a vacancy was awarded as a preference. Maybe this guy is yanking your chain.

 

Are you sure this wasn't the guy who was terminated for being a compulsive liar? The junior FO on the 777 in MIA was hired in 1992 and there were no 777 vacancies filled in MIA on the last run. There is something amiss with his story no matter what he "told" you. If he's in 777 training he is not showing up on the vacancy bid runs. Maybe he's been promoted early and is already in training to be a 777 Check Airman.

 

A different reserve system is going to be included because the company and the union both want changes. Whether it will be a better system will depend on which point of view you are coming from, union or management, and how badly management wants a contract signed because the timetable is completely in management's hands.

LOS for furloughees IMHO will not be part of the contract because management wants to minimize the numbers of those returning from furlough. They'd prefer to get a new hire off the street at first year pay rather than reacquire a furloughee at 2nd,3rd, 4th,... year pay who may be bitter about their extended furlough. They are also talking about changes to the pension for new hires which will make costs more predictable for management.

I think that after AMR has gone through the list and all furloughees have exhausted their recall rights, AMR may give LOS to the furloughees in exchange for something else outside of contract talks. I'm talking years down the road. That way they withhold any carrot in order to minimize the numbers returning but they will give them a carrot later to get something else. It's less cost for AMR that way and that's how they've done it in the past.

 

Actually many of the furloughees are former TWA and are topped out at 12 years. The recent flowthru's are in the 4-5 year pay range, so even they are relatively cheap (perhaps one reason why they were broomed over so fast). Additionally, most furloughees being older and with families are probably looked upon as more expensive health-care cost wise.

Turning my hat around and thinking like a moustache-twisting management bean-counter and also not sure how the furloughee return situation works, but if they pass on the first "run" and then comeback at ANY time regardless of whether there is a new-hire class available for them to claim a spot in that's one thing and there would seem no advantage in strategizing and/or manipulating the rate of furlough return, but if they have to have an actual new-hire class to return, then AA might like to max a lot of hiring off the street grabbing up young cheapies and then slam the door before a lot of topped out furloughee's can claim a slot to return in. They could then close the door to any hiring (and thus any return mechanism for furloughees) for a long (or longer) period of time, increasing the liklihood of any given "expensive" furloughee moving on and building (or maintaining) a career elsewhere.

Again, if the second half of the above paragraph doesn't apply, disregard, but I wouldn't put it past a "bottom-line" oriented company like AMR to consider how to minimize employee expense.

 

Quagmire - it doesn't appear to add up. Six guys got MIA 777 FO before this summer and 6 guys got it in June. Their employee numbers match the guys around them, which AE guys do not.

Also looked up an AE f/t got that came over before it stopped(2001). He's 1500 numbers too junior to hold 777 FO in MIA.

Like I said, it doesn't seem to add up.

 

Eaglefly - deferrals can't return at anytime. There has to be recalls, or hiring, for a deferral to return.

 

So it would seem my Snidley Whiplash hypothetical possibility is indeed possible. I suppose that is one risk of deferral, i.e., ending up deferring involantarily for far longer then intended. I suppose a furloughee would have to watch a lot of classes go by though and AMR would have to have flawless timing (not one of their strong-points).

 

My cursory looksee also shows it's not possible.......gotta be 767.

 

767, 777...whatever it takes.

 

It's VB...