At least the bar was lowered for CH 11 givebacks.

How so? If we announce that we are going to file for bankruptcy, the LOA terminates. Low MPG values are the last thing that the company would be asking for. They don’t want to pay more people to sit around and do very little. They want minimum staffing working as productively as possible. Besides, before we get to the cash balance where bankruptcy looks eminent, we will have already furloughed well beyond what the LOA allows and it will have been terminated. If we get to bankruptcy, they aren’t going to want to spend more for less, they are going to cut the airline to the bone and go after scope, pay rates, and work rules.

Yeah, the company would never want to reduce our pay during the slow months. MPG’s have gone from 78 to 75 to 70 and now to 60 (Since I’m A scale). Are you really trying to argue that ALPA has considered these reductions “wins” in the past? Give me a break.

Lower MPG’s (like those in the LOA) are not a win for anyone. The difference in our block hours in a slow month are not very far off from those in a peak month. The company has always offered more vacation and conducted the bulk of the training during these periods also. The whole migrant worker argument just doesn’t work. If the company could just pay those that they needed to meet the demand for that month then it would, but when they have to pay to carry a bunch of dead weight through the slow periods, the argument falls apart. Migrant workers are paid to harvest the crop and then leave. They aren’t paid to stick around and watch the next crop grow. I looked at this deal as the lesser of two evils, but it is definitely not something that the company would want to keep in a bankruptcy situation.

That makes no sense considering the company is currently utilizing the benefit of a lower MPG. The company is carrying migrant worker dead weight, it’s just costing them a lot less money. Aside from industry downturns, lower MPGs allow the company to shift flying from domicile to domicile without impunity. Case in point, look at the current 8 hr reserve split in MPGs between some domiciles for the same equipment, status, and scale. Even if one accepts your comment on line value variations, the company would love a low MPG for reserves during the spring and fall seasons.

Anyone remember this group?

Boston Consulting Variabilization

They are utilizing the lower MPG only because because they are temporarily willing to pay the workers to watch the crops grow for a few months while waiting for the rains to return so that they can determine the appropriate staffing level. If we find out this spring that we are in for a long drought, they will tell a big chunk of the workers to go home while those that stay will work long hours to pick what is there. In all but a COVID decimated climate, MPG levels at this point just wouldn’t matter. They are going to staff just enough to get the job done. We reduce training and vacation during the peak periods and offer premium pay to cover the flying. We don’t staff the airline for full peak coverage and then offer extremely low line values during the rest of the year. We staff somewhere in the middle. Peak season has greatly reduced training and vacation awards since we need everyone on the line flying hard. During the slow winter months we take advantage of the reduced flying and train aggressively to be ready for the next peak and offer the bulk of the vacation blocks, leaving enough people on the line to cover the flying. They don’t want to carry one extra employee. If demand doesn’t show a major improvement by spring/summer, we will quickly right size the company and 4,000 could be on the street by next fall.

if they furlough 4000 next fall 2021
they would have 7000 total pilots active
that’s man power for 380 aircraft at the most
thats not feasible

Remind me again who’s bearing the cost for the migrant workers to sit around and watch the crops grow?

You’re missing the point. Reserves get pounded in the summer and winter holiday season. Other months they are utilized less. The company would benefit from lower MPGs. Anyone remember when the company opened the Bus domicile in IAH? A ton of people sat reserve waiting for the flying to ramp up. What about when they opened the 87 in IAD? Again, a bunch sat around on reserve while others endured horrid lines. How would those pilots made out if the company had the benefit of a low MPG?

You guys love those high furlough numbers. I’m surprised you haven’t thrown in the rumors of closing hubs that were being pushed during and before the vote. Delta just announced they have $21,000,000,000 in liquidity and expect to be cash flow positive by next spring. I fully expect us to be in a similar position. Do you really think we are going to cripple this airline with mass furloughs when SWA is entering ORD and IAH if our burn rate is zero to positive? My guess is United will furlough 2000, maintain this agreement, and smile all the way to the bank.

We’ve been Variabilized.

I didn’t allow for the early outs. We could easily furlough to 9,000 pilots. Also, there is no guarantee that there will be 380 aircraft if we get to that point. Retiring the 756 fleet would eliminate a bunch of staffing. Getting smaller will involve aircraft, and employees.

What if when we are cash flow positive this Spring we just go back to the UPA as before (and once the criteria are met the UPA +5%), and this was just a unique short-term bridge LOA for a rare black-swan event that showed us the worst decline in passengers/revenue in the history of the airlines? What if we can just go back to dreaming about going fishing with oldmako’s friends? :D