Deleted for TOS Violations

OK, again. Why not just lower the monthly cap on every pilot so that furloughs wouldn't be necessary? That's the way it USED to be and the way that Southwest still does it.
Or would the pilots rather pay the .25% furloughee medical assessment? ... the good news is that only 1/3 of CAL's pilots voted against the assessment.

Didn't UPS and their union do this and the company still balked and furloughed even after the agreement? Point is, no matter what we accomplish as far as agreements, neither l-ual or l-cal mgmt will honor any thing as a legal and binding contract until they are forced to. At least with the assessment, money was going to the pilots that needed it.

I wish that we had this. It's sad, to me, when I see line credit on the WB fleet over 86 and over 89 on the Bus (I believe those are the "Voluntary" max values).

I, for one, have very little control over my schedule. Still, I've only gone over 70 hours three times in the last year and a half.

That's the way it will continue for me, as long as we have one pilot on furlough.

Andy,

For starters, the furloughs at CAL were NOT necessary. Stating the obvious, CAL did not park an entire fleet precipitating it's last round of furloughs. As I stated earlier, it was all a posturing from Flight Ops Mgt thus making the furloughee's their pawns. As any CAL pilot would agree, it was ALL BS. At that time, the staffing model could have ridden with the 147 STILL aboard. The Union showed/proved this information ad nauseam supporting that fact.

Since you took time to comment on what I wrote earlier, I'll once again address it for you......"D.F" asked the question/thus he was reminded that CAL-ALPA (via it's voting membership) opted for the assessment, that's WHAT THEY DID for their furloughs. The situation was NOT perfect, but it was something 'they did'. To be clear.....NO one is asking for a 'pat on the back' by voting yes on the assessment, but when 'someone' egregiously offers snide comments, expect to have it addressed. He may not have a flare for the obvious, but the "facts are the facts", apparently that alludes him.

Plain and simple.....

On the United side, I personally thank every crew I come in contact with for the furlough fund. I was out of work for 14 months and the only way I was able to keep it going was having the COBRA reimbursed. A 6 month emergency fund is all fine and dandy if you have it...but how many people would work a $1400 a month COBRA payment into the equation? The union saved my a$$ on this one and I go out of my way to thank the crews for it.

Just as an aside for the CAL side. I got into a conversation with a guy I used to fly with at another airline. He is a junior lineholder on the 737 and he said his 4 day was bought back from him for training. I was just asking about whether he was available to the schedulers and he said they couldn't use him unless he double dipped...flying on those days where his trip was bought. Is this common occurence on the CAL side? I know you don't have guys furloughed now...but it just struck me as dumb. (He picked up another 3 or 4 day and got paid for both).

Well let's see besides the assessment, guys like me gave dough out of our pockets for the Xmas Gift fund organized by ALPA. Broke buddy of mine was very glad to get that for his kids a couple years ago. Never mind line guys like me not even looking at open time and laughing at JM phone calls during the summers.

I'm as p!ssed off as anyone at Fred's furlough and you have all the empathy in the world for what the worthless ahole did to you. However, you wasting bullets if you hold anger at CAL ALPA for not mitigating the hostage situation the way you like. Quite frankly you come off sounding like a prick. Would you have preferred if ALPA would have given up on 70 seat scope in order to prevent the furloughs? That would of worked out great for all of us....:rolleyes:

From what I'm reading CAL ALPA has been much better with furloughees than UAL ALPA. UAL ALPA took steps after 9/11 that were clearly going to result in additional furloughs. And then there's the way they handled the bond money, denying it to furloughees and retirees.

I haven't talked to any UPS pilots for quite a while but I don't think that they fly as many hours as we do. ... I jumpseated on FedEx a couple of times and I'm VERY GLAD I didn't choose the cargo career path. I'd much rather be furloughed for 8 years than have to live like a freight dog (different strokes for different folks).

Here is how I would envision a furlough mitigation clause.
First, it needs to be in place in a contract well before needing to be implemented.
A clause could have multiple work choices for pilots. Once the first pilot gets furloughed, no pilot on property can work for more than 83 credit hours per month (arbitrary number; adjust as necessary). An unlimited number of pilots can drop down to 50 credit hours per month (another arbitrary number). An unlimited number of pilots can take voluntary leave of absence, offered in varying timeframes - 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months.

Would the company go for it? Companies are Godless money machines (to paraphrase Stephen Colbert's bear fears). If this approach minimizes training cycles - thereby reducing corporate costs - the company will be in favor of such an idea. And I would think that a clause such as this would reduce the company's training costs, thereby saving them money.

Did I read that right you would rather be furloughed for 8 years than work for fedex?

Ever jumpseat on FedEx? Brutal!
You fly for a few hours and then sit most of the night in MEM. Depart MEM just before sunrise and arrive at your destination shortly after sunrise. That kind of flying would take 20+ years off of my life.
To me, that was simply miserable flying; if I were flying there, I'd be ticked off at the world and everyone around me.
There's more to life than money and toys.