![]() |
Originally Posted by ROFF
(Post 3142978)
So how many furloughs are they talking? Should have a pretty good idea since they “need” 10% (not 9.45% or 11.23% etc) salary reduction.
Seems silly to reduce pay when you’re paying green bars. I’m no expert but to me it makes more sense to reduce MPG which would self correct. |
Originally Posted by Smooth at FL450
(Post 3143028)
Because they want to squeeze savings out of the guys on ExTO too, and a reduced tfp would do that while a reduced LG would not.
Despite this very ugly opening salvo from the company, proffered by the biggest pile of human excrement to ever hold an ATP, I'm not completely resigned to driving a school bus (or, even worse, flying corporate) for the next two to three years. The next round of bailouts could forestall some of the worst of this. And if a vaccine truly becomes available in January, we might see the bounce in numbers we've all been hoping for. There's also a chance that CK will get hit by an asteroid. So, chin up. Lots of balls in the air still. |
Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski
(Post 3143173)
There's also a chance that CK will get hit by an asteroid.
So, chin up. Lots of balls in the air still. One can hope. |
The force majeure clause snuck in there at the end in the last bullet might be interpreted to apply to the entire contract because of the other words in the bullet point it's attached to. That alone is a huge red flag. The entire issue and reason for the concession ask is one huge unforeseen catastrophic circumstance ALREADY, so that last point, if agreed upon, could be immediately acted on to void the whole contract.
It's a trap, plain and simple. |
Originally Posted by Smooth at FL450
(Post 3143028)
Because they want to squeeze savings out of the guys on ExTO too, and a reduced tfp would do that while a reduced LG would not.
|
Originally Posted by Salukidawg
(Post 3143287)
Exactly right. The other thing they are telegraphing is that they don’t intend to let you fly less per month than you are right now, they expect you to fly your full schedule but with a 10% TFP reduction. Lowering the MPG doesn’t allow them to achieve this. Don’t fall for this or the threat of furloughs. They are going to fly as much of a schedule as they possibly can and they are going to need all of their pilots to execute their plans. If they can get you all to fly said schedule for 10% less, then even better for them.
|
It’s already far less than 90% of what we are worth.
FUPM |
Originally Posted by RJSAviator76
(Post 3142628)
Except 1 airline going under would remove all those ASM’s from the market which would be a big boost for the remaining airlines.
|
So they just announced an intent to expand into IAH and ORD. That, combined with the MIA announcement, gives us a pretty good blueprint of what Gary hopes to do moving forward.
We are not retrenching, as are the legacies. We are looking to fill a vacuum, as we always have done. And that will take pilots. All of which leaves me to wonder just how dire Gary et al really feel things have gotten and how serious the furlough threat is. I feel this ask on pay was a big trial balloon. I mean, why the heck would they not ask? We gave them the 800 side letter, we gave them the MOU’s. If you can get your biggest labor group to just give up ten percent of its pay, and all you have to do is ask, why wouldn’t you at least try? i think we all just need to take a deep breath, wind our watches, and see what Casey and Jon come back with. Don’t get stampeded and don’t get emotional, because that plays right into what the guys sitting on the other side of the table hope to see. Poker faces, people. |
The ask on the pay may have been a trial balloon, but the force majeure clause was a kick in the nuts followed by a smirky "what are you and your plumber friends gonna DO about it?"
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:08 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands