All the vibes coming out of the union and the ipnn says it all. get ready for the storm. I've been reading posts from captains that were told not to bid rdg in 10-02 and the recent post from our EB on B&G saying they're still talking to this minute thats after achieving 90% is not giving me any warm and fuzzy. HOPE I'M WRONG.

Because UPS wants the IPA to give up on the Management Pilots. It's called Bribery!!!

So I guess the question is, what is everyone's view on this. Acceptable?

I don't like it, personally. I think they are two separate issues.

I guess you could call it Brownmail.

I don't think thats the case. Ups is looking for ways to cut managment and cost. Why would they turn down 118 mil just to hold on to something they really want to get rid of/?

Brownie,

What I think will happen, and that they are talking about it now, is that UPS will take the money now, but they will require us to come up with the rest of it again in a year. I don't have any inside info - just my gut feeling.

As for not bidding RDG, if you went on and read further, UPS still awarded them an RDG line because the MOU is still currently in effect. We'll know soon enough...

I don't work there, but if that turned out to be the case could it be because they've already made a decision to furlough and costed it according to their models at a greater number than what IPA has come up with? They just throw in the management pilot thing as a red herring to get you guys talking, angry, and fighting amongst yourselves about an issue that isn't even an issue to them. Wouldn't be the first or last time in the industry. Hope it all turns out better than you guys are thinking.

A better question than why would they turn down 118 mil is:

Why would they walk away from the $246 mil the furlough is projected to save?

If UPS wanted to furlough, why did they wait this long?

Because they don't want to miss market share if things turn around. Think about it, they could drag their feet for a couple months (do you think the EB will force their hand) and see how the economy is doing then decide.

I hear what you are saying, but the bold part in your quote above assumes that people are out on the street for 3 years. At this point in time, I can't see a furlough going that long, thus the full savings wouldn't be realized.