Notices

1,500 Pilots

Old 04-21-2021, 09:29 PM
  #51  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ReadOnly7's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2019
Posts: 1,320
Default

Originally Posted by AxlF16 View Post
I'll agree that in hindsight we didn't 'NEED' it. But I will disagree if you think it didn't make a difference in our post pandemic future.
I still can’t really unpucker yet. We might be hiring, but levels just BARELY exceeded 50% recently, and all this hope can crumble again rather quickly. In February of 2020 I thought we were unstoppable. So it’s pretty hard to say we didn’t need the LOA or use terms like “post pandemic future” when a BUNCH of planes are still parked and Karen is EVERYWHERE just waiting for you to do the mask thing wrong. I wouldn’t even call it “hindsight” until it’s actually BEHIND us. Hopefully I’m wrong, and just a little too spooked by the near collapse of everything I count on to support my family with.
ReadOnly7 is offline  
Old 04-22-2021, 12:43 AM
  #52  
Gets Weekends Off
 
hummingbear's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,310
Default

Originally Posted by AxlF16 View Post
If you disagree that the TA provided the predictability that enabled the company to aggressively plan the recovery then you're being obtuse - or have no idea how planning works in complex environments. I don't have inside company or ALPA info, but I can guarantee you that we would not be in the same position without the LOA. There is no chance the company would've kept us this intact. We are hiring because we anticipate demand - AND because we have airplanes and we have training capacity (and we have several hundred spots created by early retirements). The CARES funding doesn't explain as much as you assert. I guess we'll wait for you to see what is obvious to most of us... I'm not optimistic that you'll see it though.

The ENTIRE POINT of the LOA was to position UAL to spool up capacity faster than our competitors when demand returned. THAT is what's being laid out in front of us right now...yet you don't see it? So yes, IMO we would be hiring this year (maybe not May, but certainly late summer or fall) if CARES 2 & 3 were not passed. Once again - the entire point was to maintain the airline in a state that could be ramped up quickly. We were planned to be heavy in NB captains - for a reason. I'm not making this up - it was in writing and words for all of us to see and hear. They are doing exactly what they said they would do.

Admit it.
I think something that’s clouding the dialogue is that there are really two separate conversations here. The first is how appropriate a solution to the pandemic crisis the LOA was, and the second is how effective has it been in practice. These considerations operate independently of one another.

The first point I’m setting aside. I think most of us on either side of the discussion agreed that the LOA was an imperfect solution whose alternatives were dire and depressing. We all had to pick what we felt the lesser evil was. I’m totally comfortable with that, & I don’t begrudge anyone their vote or opinion. But let’s at least be honest that we’re all assessing its value from within the bubble of full pay & employment provided by CARES funding. That money turned the worst disaster in our industry’s history into a relatively consequence free year. LOA or no, without this aid we’d be in a much different position today. I might not feel so confident in my stance from the unemployment line & you might not be so happy to see pilot hiring while you and/or a third of the airline were 7 months in on 50% pay.

To the second point I’m only arguing we never really got to see the LOA in action, as the airline has been HEAVILY subsidized by government funding every month but one since its implementation. We can’t just brush off the significance of that & pretend we’ve been seeing it perform in a vacuum. Yes, keeping the staffing at ready levels was a stated goal. How big a role that played we can only guess. All I can look at is 50% block hours & bleeding $1.4B in a good quarter. We’ve got BES that are going RSV at 30%-40%. That’s happening today. I just don’t see a world where an airline hires under those circumstances unless someone else is writing the checks. If that makes me obtuse, I’m obtuse.

One of the great things about CARES $$$ was that it put the airline in a position to operate in an anemic market as though it were a booming one. I for one am thrilled they’ve decided to use that opportunity to act aggressively & come out ready to fight, rather than going into defense positions, which is exactly what I think they’d be doing today absent the billions in federal support they’re getting.
hummingbear is offline  
Old 04-22-2021, 02:21 AM
  #53  
Gets Weekends Off
 
hummingbear's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,310
Default

Originally Posted by AxlF16 View Post
The ENTIRE POINT of the LOA was to position UAL to spool up capacity faster than our competitors when demand returned.
And this is really a misrepresentation. A HUGE part of the LOA’s intent was to reduce company costs through credit reductions in exchange for furlough protection. Some ancillary stuff mixed in, too, but no- returning to capacity was not the ENTIRE POINT by a long shot.
hummingbear is offline  
Old 04-22-2021, 03:56 AM
  #54  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 787 Captain
Posts: 1,512
Default

Originally Posted by hummingbear View Post
And this is really a misrepresentation. A HUGE part of the LOA’s intent was to reduce company costs through credit reductions in exchange for furlough protection. Some ancillary stuff mixed in, too, but no- returning to capacity was not the ENTIRE POINT by a long shot.
This is one point I'd love to nail down in the future! My understanding is that, lacking CARES $$, the LOA is a cost increase for the company. Of course it depends upon which path they took right? If you believe they weren't going to furlough if it didn't pass, then it's easy to see it as a cost reduction. If you believe, as I do, that (at least) the Oct-Dec 2020 furloughs were going to happen, then the LOA likely increased their costs.

I appreciate the discussion and your thoughtful points. Let's just ride this out and see how it looks in a year.

I bristle at 'anti-LOA' posts because it's still a key issue in union elections (specifically C5). Some of us apparently think it's never too late to derail the train. In my time here we've sabotaged ourselves way too many times.
AxlF16 is offline  
Old 04-22-2021, 04:15 AM
  #55  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2008
Position: 787 Captain
Posts: 1,512
Default

Originally Posted by hummingbear View Post
I think something that’s clouding the dialogue is that there are really two separate conversations here. The first is how appropriate a solution to the pandemic crisis the LOA was, and the second is how effective has it been in practice. These considerations operate independently of one another.

The first point I’m setting aside. I think most of us on either side of the discussion agreed that the LOA was an imperfect solution whose alternatives were dire and depressing. We all had to pick what we felt the lesser evil was. I’m totally comfortable with that, & I don’t begrudge anyone their vote or opinion. But let’s at least be honest that we’re all assessing its value from within the bubble of full pay & employment provided by CARES funding. That money turned the worst disaster in our industry’s history into a relatively consequence free year. LOA or no, without this aid we’d be in a much different position today. I might not feel so confident in my stance from the unemployment line & you might not be so happy to see pilot hiring while you and/or a third of the airline were 7 months in on 50% pay.

To the second point I’m only arguing we never really got to see the LOA in action, as the airline has been HEAVILY subsidized by government funding every month but one since its implementation. We can’t just brush off the significance of that & pretend we’ve been seeing it perform in a vacuum. Yes, keeping the staffing at ready levels was a stated goal. How big a role that played we can only guess. All I can look at is 50% block hours & bleeding $1.4B in a good quarter. We’ve got BES that are going RSV at 30%-40%. That’s happening today. I just don’t see a world where an airline hires under those circumstances unless someone else is writing the checks. If that makes me obtuse, I’m obtuse.

One of the great things about CARES $$$ was that it put the airline in a position to operate in an anemic market as though it were a booming one. I for one am thrilled they’ve decided to use that opportunity to act aggressively & come out ready to fight, rather than going into defense positions, which is exactly what I think they’d be doing today absent the billions in federal support they’re getting.
Good points, but not surprisingly I disagree with your conclusions :-).

Yes, demand is depressed overall, but we see the uneven, early signs of recovery already in all sectors. We are getting ready to put the lift in place early or on time. That's the point - we will beat our competitors to the market. We didn't just avoid furloughs, we kept fleets staffed and pilots current (for the most part). The CARES $ actually led to some of the currency issues because we are at UPA LPA with tons of reserves vs spreading the flying out in more low time lines.

CARES $ helped the entire (DOMESTIC) industry but UAL is uniquely positioned for the recovery. It's a strategy and we'll see if it pays off. You could actually argue that UAL would be BETTER positioned without CARES 2 and/or 3 since other airlines would've been in far worse shape today.

Thanks for the discussion & keep hoping for the best!
AxlF16 is offline  
Old 04-25-2021, 05:48 PM
  #56  
New Hire
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 5
Default EU to allow travel for vaccinated Americans

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/04/25/world/europe/american-travel-to-europe.amp.hamburger

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.for...accinated/amp/
Pop smoke is offline  
Old 04-26-2021, 05:53 AM
  #57  
Gets Weekends Off
 
duvie's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: WB Bunkie
Posts: 1,246
Default

Originally Posted by hummingbear View Post
And this is really a misrepresentation. A HUGE part of the LOA’s intent was to reduce company costs through credit reductions in exchange for furlough protection. Some ancillary stuff mixed in, too, but no- returning to capacity was not the ENTIRE POINT by a long shot.
As axl16 said, the “cost reduction” is dependent on your view of furlough likelihood. I don’t think a brand new CEO would have the leeway to not furlough in the face of 30% demand. Maybe not 3900, but without government funds, 2850 would’ve still seen us hemorrhaging cash and our survival wouldn’t have been guaranteed. When the WARN letters were sent, the vaccine wasn’t even a sure thing...

a simple counter factual is American. They didn’t have an agreement and they are still in the process of figuring out which way to go. To say that the flexibility the LOA provided doesn’t allow us to move back more quickly is simply intellectually dishonest. You might not have liked the gamble, but how can you argue the displacement cancellation alone didn’t have huge affects for pilots in the right seats going forward?
duvie is offline  
Old 04-26-2021, 07:07 AM
  #58  
777 - ret
 
Huell's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2020
Position: Waco CG-4 center seat
Posts: 863
Default

Originally Posted by duvie View Post
As axl16 said, the “cost reduction” is dependent on your view of furlough likelihood. I don’t think a brand new CEO would have the leeway to not furlough in the face of 30% demand. Maybe not 3900, but without government funds, 2850 would’ve still seen us hemorrhaging cash and our survival wouldn’t have been guaranteed. When the WARN letters were sent, the vaccine wasn’t even a sure thing...

a simple counter factual is American. They didn’t have an agreement and they are still in the process of figuring out which way to go. To say that the flexibility the LOA provided doesn’t allow us to move back more quickly is simply intellectually dishonest. You might not have liked the gamble, but how can you argue the displacement cancellation alone didn’t have huge affects for pilots in the right seats going forward?
Good post.
Huell is offline  
Old 04-26-2021, 04:30 PM
  #59  
Gets Weekends Off
 
hummingbear's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,310
Default

Originally Posted by duvie View Post
As axl16 said, the “cost reduction” is dependent on your view of furlough likelihood.
Not really- I have little doubt the company planned to furlough. Where we’re not seeing eye to eye is that yes, the LOA would cost the company more than doomsday furloughs, but much less than keeping the airline staffed for growth under the UPA. The primary goal of the LOA was never keeping the airline staffed for growth- that’s how we sold it to the company. The primary goal was preventing furloughs by reducing payroll costs. The company could have staffed for growth without an LOA, it just would have cost too much. The LOA was our way of saying “Rather than reducing costs through furloughs, here is an alternate way to cut those costs.”

So yes, it was very much about reducing cost.

Originally Posted by duvie View Post
To say that the flexibility the LOA provided doesn’t allow us to move back more quickly is simply intellectually dishonest.
Again, people want to counter the argument they wish I had made instead of what I actually said. I never claimed the LOA didn’t allow us to move back more quickly, I said that benefit was insignificant in comparison with the impact of federal bailout money. I believe that. The government has been paying our way through practically this entire pandemic, and the impact of that can almost not be overstated.

Take away the LOA for one minute. We’re building up to 60% block hours in June. That frees up a lot of manpower for requal training, etc without impacting the operation. Would it be enough to hit the same 2022 staffing goals we’re targeting now? Perhaps not, but it could be a lot closer than some are painting it. My belief is absent the LOA but with CARES funding still in place, we would still be behaving similarly- if not to scale- as we are now. Probably would have done some furloughing in NOV, then promptly brought everyone back when CARES was reinstated (in DEC) & begun realigning manpower for the rebound from there.

Now take away CARES funding. We’re talking about BILLIONS in free money & govt loans that would otherwise be cash UAL would have to burn to increase staffing while we’re at 50% block hours. That’s IN ADDITION TO what they’re already losing just keeping the operation running. Would the airline really try to justify that kind of gamble with their last remaining cash in a still anemic economy to their shareholders? I don’t see it. I think they would be behaving far more conservatively, even with the LOA in place.

(A bit of a tangent, but if they were hiring under the LOA absent CARES, just imagine the nightmare of bringing on new hires while the entire pilot group is making reduced monthly credit- many as low as 50%! That is the breeding grounds for a toxic labor group- “are you an LOA hire?”- for years to come!)

Understand I’m not trying to bash the LOA in the context of this conversation. I’m only weighing its real-world significance in comparison with govt CARES funding. And if we’re talking about intellectual dishonesty, I just don't think you can waive off billions in government aid for nearly a year now as if it’s not having a major impact on corporate decision making. How could it not?!
hummingbear is offline  
Old 05-06-2021, 09:05 AM
  #60  
Gets Weekends Off
 
LeeFXDWG's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: B737 CAPT IAH
Posts: 1,129
Default

Originally Posted by hummingbear View Post
Not really- I have little doubt the company planned to furlough. Where we’re not seeing eye to eye is that yes, the LOA would cost the company more than doomsday furloughs, but much less than keeping the airline staffed for growth under the UPA. The primary goal of the LOA was never keeping the airline staffed for growth- that’s how we sold it to the company. The primary goal was preventing furloughs by reducing payroll costs. The company could have staffed for growth without an LOA, it just would have cost too much. The LOA was our way of saying “Rather than reducing costs through furloughs, here is an alternate way to cut those costs.”

So yes, it was very much about reducing cost.


Again, people want to counter the argument they wish I had made instead of what I actually said. I never claimed the LOA didn’t allow us to move back more quickly, I said that benefit was insignificant in comparison with the impact of federal bailout money. I believe that. The government has been paying our way through practically this entire pandemic, and the impact of that can almost not be overstated.

Take away the LOA for one minute. We’re building up to 60% block hours in June. That frees up a lot of manpower for requal training, etc without impacting the operation. Would it be enough to hit the same 2022 staffing goals we’re targeting now? Perhaps not, but it could be a lot closer than some are painting it. My belief is absent the LOA but with CARES funding still in place, we would still be behaving similarly- if not to scale- as we are now. Probably would have done some furloughing in NOV, then promptly brought everyone back when CARES was reinstated (in DEC) & begun realigning manpower for the rebound from there.

Now take away CARES funding. We’re talking about BILLIONS in free money & govt loans that would otherwise be cash UAL would have to burn to increase staffing while we’re at 50% block hours. That’s IN ADDITION TO what they’re already losing just keeping the operation running. Would the airline really try to justify that kind of gamble with their last remaining cash in a still anemic economy to their shareholders? I don’t see it. I think they would be behaving far more conservatively, even with the LOA in place.

(A bit of a tangent, but if they were hiring under the LOA absent CARES, just imagine the nightmare of bringing on new hires while the entire pilot group is making reduced monthly credit- many as low as 50%! That is the breeding grounds for a toxic labor group- “are you an LOA hire?”- for years to come!)

Understand I’m not trying to bash the LOA in the context of this conversation. I’m only weighing its real-world significance in comparison with govt CARES funding. And if we’re talking about intellectual dishonesty, I just don't think you can waive off billions in government aid for nearly a year now as if it’s not having a major impact on corporate decision making. How could it not?!
All good. Not disputing any of your points but would like to remind you there was pay protection with caveats that minimized the pay hit for many and we have now have had V bids moving the majority back to their prepandemic seats.

None of it was perfect. But it was a paradigm shift where the initial two furloughs would have happened, then all those displaced would have been at both lower pay albeit without reduced hours/MPG.

We would also be looking at a training pipeline that was clogged trying to get folks back into a different seat to make room for recalls that would take longer in my opinion. We also have to recognize the impact the furloughs would have had on TK Manning.

Bottom line is CARES version x, y, z was a gamble. In my mind it was a well thought out wager. Not like we doubled on a pair of 8’s. We found a way to split them.

FWIW, I didn’t get bumped but after watching two prior furloughs, relatively happy with our current situation.

Opinions vary. Be well.

Lee
LeeFXDWG is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Flogger
GoJet
41
10-01-2022 06:29 PM
Guard Dude
Delta
201720
04-06-2022 06:59 AM
WARich
Delta
11220
06-10-2020 07:42 AM
Route66
American
6
04-08-2015 06:38 AM
ERJ135
American
26
02-26-2013 05:54 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices