I’m sure I’m misunderstanding the latest email from the union but can someone tell me if BM is for or against displacements? (not sure if it matters to the company what he thinks but still...)

Last week an IPNN email had this paragraph:

Miller said that any talk of a displacement is premature, and that the Association believes a displacement is not in the best interest of either UPS or IPA.

Today I read:

Representatives of the Association presented a staffing analysis of the airline today to members of UPS management. "We believe the Company should aggressively post vacancies to accommodate scheduled aircraft deliveries," said IPA President Bob Miller.

I’m confused, does that mean BM wants displacements after all or am I misunderstanding the latest IPNN email? I failed my legaleze English college class.

Thanks.

Big difference between vacancy and displacement.
BM wants vacancy so everyone keeps their seats while the geezers can move to the front and take the new seats without anyone get displaced so that way the junior guy gets to keep what he/she has and the geezers are capt's again. WINDFALL FOR EVEYONE, go figure.

Got ya, thanks. Was hoping for buyouts of course.

Well, it's still better than a displacement, don't you think?

Still won't please everyone. The deliveries this year are AK bound. 76s for SDF (Z most likely) won't start being delivered until 09. If you think the Gz are going to sit around and smile just because the law was changed and future generation might benefit, think again! Now that legislation has been approved extending mandatory retirement to age 65, the clock has started ticking all over again but now the company and the union, rather than the government, will be to blame.

BMs and IPA have a difficult problem on their hands. They can push for a displacement and please the Gz while simultaneously alienating most FOs and some captains, or go with the vacancy plan which will aggravate the G team. Some members of the G team may bid for AK but, I would speculate, that productivity and moral from the group will be very low.

Many of us are very familiar with the difficulties associated with a commute, not to mention to AK. I am not without a certain amount of sympathy though. These guys worked for UPS during the very difficult years when pay was not so good and the schedule was even worse. They remained with the company, among other options, and now that pay has improved, won’t be able to fully benefit from their labors.

If you had been working from SDF for nearly 20 years would you choose to commute to AK for front seat pay? Additionally, each year that passes more FEs will reach age 63 negating the full effects of a displacement. Having said all of this, since the union and most others would be against a displacement, UPS could inflict maximum turmoil via displacement…

Time to play the broken record.....ta daaa dahhh dah dah.

Anywayz, I don't doubt that this year's deliveries are ANC bound. I just wonder where we are going to park them, how the facility will sort the increased volume, and if we are getting more men's and ladie's rest rooms, err, crew rest facilities.

ATC-wise, Anchorage was introduced a multi-direction, VNAV/PROF oriented arrival with the GASTO, et al., terminal arrival. This helps to allieviate the congo line-up beginning 600 miles prior to landing. But we still land on one runway and depart on the perpendicular runway (usually).

However, parking position-wise, during the morning push and afternoon push almost all 6 positions on the front side and the 4 in the back are full. I don't know if the -400s parking footprint is larger than the classic, but I presume there will be more -400s parked in ANC by year's end than there are Classics parked now-a-days. Put in simpler terms, in the future there will be more 747-400s on the ramp at any one time then there were Classics during the same time.

Why does this present a problem ?

I would have to check for verification, but I would presume that some of our side-by-side parking positions can not accomondate a -400 parked next to another -400. For example spot 7 and 8 on the backside or 1 and 2 on the front side.

Well, let me put the broken record away and we can get back to the thread. I'll be here all week, try the veal.

FF

Vman - I agree with everything you said except...

...They can push for a displacement and please the Gz while simultaneously alienating most FOs and some captains, or go with the vacancy plan which will aggravate the G team...

I think they'd alienate most if not all FO AND the majority of the captains. Even captains who supported the age 65 rule expected a gradual change, not one that'll displace them or drastically lower their quality of life. Basically some 85% of the pilots will have a lower quality of life for the benefit of 15% or even less.

Then again, the best union breaking move on the company’s part would be to retrain old guys back to the left seat and then furlough the most junior guys (buddy of mine at purple says the F word has been mentioned there by someone pretty high up).
Economically probably not a very smart move, however it’d be a brilliant way to split the union into haves and have-nots beyond repair.

I don't think it'll happen here but I can only imagine the cockpit environment if any company were to furlough their junior guys while the +60 guys continued to rake in millions...

1. Well, just like they were saying about the younguns........I guess they will just have to "deal with it" LOL!

2. Awwww......if you want to sit in the left seat, you'll have to go to ANC....awww poor baby! What do they expect? Just to bump everyone out of their seat???? Don't think so! Once again, I guess they will just have to "deal with it".

3. Sympathy? What sympathy do they have for anyone else besides themselves? If UPS sucked that bad, they had 20 years to leave. It was their choice to stay. That's a lame argument. I've had many jobs that have sucked in my life and guess what? I looked for a better one and left....I don't wanna hear that b.s.

Awwww......if you want to sit in the left seat, you'll have to go to ANC....awww poor baby! What do they expect? Just to bump everyone out of their seat???? Don't think so! Once again, I guess they will just have to "deal with it".

Maybe or maybe not. No one knows what the company will do so who knows what will happen? Remember that not too long ago no one believed age 65 rule would pass as fast as it did. I think a displacement is still a real possibility, I hope not but it's up to the company to decide.

They can listen to the union but they usually don't so what's stopping them now? Besides, they know the pilot workforce is very split on this issue and they could easily split us even more if they chose to.

So I wouldn't say "Don't think so!" quite yet because very soon they might be saying "yes we do think so!"

It's interesting to see that the bypassers will continue to be paid until they can hold their bypass seat or a different captain seat. Have you seen how many are bidding ANC as a bypass? If the next bid comes out and it's ANC, either they go or lose the pay.