Displacement 20-08
06-04-2020, 06:10 PM
#71
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
Originally Posted by Al Czervik
Outsider question, why so many displacement bids? Why not just one and done like most other places? Isn’t this more costly to the company and more unsettling to the pilots? Just curious.
You don’t want the company making seasonal manpower changes or making rash decisions during mild downturns.
06-04-2020, 06:18 PM
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,151
Originally Posted by The stillest
The same union said they saved about 1500 positions from being cut..so yeah, I’m skeptical because:
all of a sudden we have leverage to save millions of dollars of payroll that the company thought necessary to cut for days prior?
Company made a huge mistake and we caught it?
did we just “strenuously object”?
someone with more insider info can maybe shed light on how the union can save that many displacements through negotiating / selling / advocating ..and with little to zero leverage.
all of a sudden we have leverage to save millions of dollars of payroll that the company thought necessary to cut for days prior?
Company made a huge mistake and we caught it?
did we just “strenuously object”?
someone with more insider info can maybe shed light on how the union can save that many displacements through negotiating / selling / advocating ..and with little to zero leverage.
06-04-2020, 06:26 PM
#74
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Position: B-737 Captain
Posts: 653
Originally Posted by MasterOfPuppets
you can’t just add the min max CAs and FOs. You have to add in all the WB FOs the could hold CA and all the WB CAs that will remain CA at the end of this bid. The number will be closer to 9000.
Last edited by guppie; 06-04-2020 at 06:45 PM.
06-04-2020, 06:58 PM
#75
Orbis Non Sufficit
Joined APC: Oct 2015
Posts: 730
Originally Posted by guppie
So TI is a liar? And so are the other LEC reps I've spoken with? Call them. Let them lie to you as well. There was a bigger displacement. ALPA didn't need leverage, just common sense along with the positive developments over the past week. The company decided to moderate the displacement. As far as min/max... go ahead and look at the min/max numbers from 20-07D and compare it to the final outcome. Min/max is meaningless in a displacement. Period. That's because displaced pilots can go anywhere they can hold.... irregardless of the min/max within a category.
06-04-2020, 07:26 PM
#76
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,068
Originally Posted by MasterOfPuppets
my thought is they talked the company out of right sizing some NB FO bases. Carlson doesn’t care because it’s not pressing and the Union gets to say they cut the displacement in half.
06-04-2020, 07:39 PM
#77
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Left - Dodge Caravan
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by 89Pistons
This displacement was supposed to drop two days ago. The day after the base trade closed. I believe MC Insler's comment.
I think this is SPOT ON!
The company was TALKING to ALPA before they published... any guesses why? Did they wanted to know if the displacement "made them look Fat?" The fact that our MC was engaged on this displacement means the company wanted something from them. Good Job MEC/MC for NOT sending us a concession in response. We have learned that lesson, and do NOT need to repeat it.
The company is setting up for the 30% reduction IF needed (and it MIGHT be needed). They have to lay the ground work now if they want that option this fall. This displacement and the furlough notices that will likely go out by the end of the month will give the company that OPTION. Backing away from that number is much easier for them than trying to increase it. A lot can change in 4 months, just think back to 4 months ago.
The company will try to exploit this opportunity to test the resolve of our pilot group to protect our UPA.
Glad our MEC/MC did not blink.
SP
06-04-2020, 08:28 PM
#78
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,709
Originally Posted by oldmako
Maybe I'm missing something here, but concessions will only come if we VOTE them in or the judge uses his pen.
Call/Write your reps. NoEffingwayNO.
They have been in monkey-spank mode since the day we agreed to a lousy extension! Then they blew through 9B. Now all of a sudden we're supposed to soil ourselves and dig out OUR wallets? Just shut up already with the concession talk. WHO CARES what SK wants? WE HAVE A CONTRACT.
Eat me. Pay me.
FUPM.
FPLD.
Call/Write your reps. NoEffingwayNO.
They have been in monkey-spank mode since the day we agreed to a lousy extension! Then they blew through 9B. Now all of a sudden we're supposed to soil ourselves and dig out OUR wallets? Just shut up already with the concession talk. WHO CARES what SK wants? WE HAVE A CONTRACT.
Eat me. Pay me.
FUPM.
FPLD.
And Kirby SUCKS! Special K is a huge mistake and Oscar messed up big time hiring this butt monkey.
06-04-2020, 08:34 PM
#79
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2019
Posts: 302
I’m only speaking for myself here but this latest displacement has solidified my resolve to vote no for any type of mitigation offered. Down 25% from lineholder to reserve then displaced to hold same seat on 2007D now not even close to holding captain seat so another 30-40% compensation cut. I’ve given to the cause. Sorry.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
06-04-2020, 09:06 PM
#80
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2015
Position: 777FO
Posts: 707
Originally Posted by CLazarus
So, this could result in another 800 or so being forced into Bus/737 right seat (I'll take some time later to try and make a more precise guess).
On the NB CA side, there were 2754 NB CAs system wide at the conclusion of 20-07D. 20-08D displaces 656 Bus/737 CAs. It appears to me that 323 WB CAs could bid into Bus/737 CA slots (unless they'd prefer to nap more as WB FOs). So, 2754 - 656 + 323 = 2421 Bus/737 CAs (which is higher than the combined total of 2238 cited this morning in PCs "System Headcount Targets"). If you take 5627 Bus/737 FOs and subtract 2421 Bus/737 CAs you get an excess of (multiple expletives deleted) 3206 junior FOs.
I never thought I'd say this, but I really hope management is just trying to screw with us. Better that than they actually try to follow all the way through with what foolishness they are telegraphing here. Here are a couple of positives I've noticed - the schedule update released this weekend shows Sep-Oct 787 service resumption from LAX to LHR/SIN/MEL/SYD/NRT/HND - if things keep trending up I think LAX 787 will not be closed. Also, 756 CA should grow a bit with no one being displaced this time. EWR 756 FO ended 20-07D with 380 FOs... none of whom are being displaced this time and only a few of whom might be within a furlough frag pattern. During May, I saw almost no trips come open in my base the entire month (thank God I didn't bid an empty line). So far in June I've been seeing a pretty steady flow of open trips popping up a couple of days prior, about 3-4 a day. That's all I got to say about that.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
