Wanna bet some FDX >60 guys go back without a bid?
12-16-2007, 08:39 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,201
Ok, I understand you. Let's keep the issues separate. The first issue, and the one that determines everything is this...
Did they leave voluntarily or were they removed? The undisputable answer is that they were removed. Not a single one of them bid out of their seat on any previous bid.
The second issue is the choice they had to make which was whether to stay on the property and retain a seniority number - by going to the panel, or to retire.
That choice was made AFTER they were kicked out of the front seat.
Ok, your turn!
Did they leave voluntarily or were they removed? The undisputable answer is that they were removed. Not a single one of them bid out of their seat on any previous bid.
The second issue is the choice they had to make which was whether to stay on the property and retain a seniority number - by going to the panel, or to retire.
That choice was made AFTER they were kicked out of the front seat.
Ok, your turn!
They were not eligible to become pilots again until the new law passed.
12-16-2007, 08:53 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: A300CAP
Posts: 479
Sticking with your same pat answer does nothing to amplify or support your position.
You were in the military. Rules evolve. You should know your arguement about what the rules were when they accepted employment doesn't hold water.
And you still haven't addressed the issue I raised regarding the fact that the choice to go the panel has nothing to do with them being removed from the front. Two entirely separate events.
Wanna try again?
You were in the military. Rules evolve. You should know your arguement about what the rules were when they accepted employment doesn't hold water.
And you still haven't addressed the issue I raised regarding the fact that the choice to go the panel has nothing to do with them being removed from the front. Two entirely separate events.
Wanna try again?
12-16-2007, 08:57 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,201
Sticking with your same pat answer does nothing to amplify or support your position.
You were in the military. Rules evolve. You should know your arguement about what the rules were when they accepted employment doesn't hold water.
And you still haven't addressed the issue I raised regarding the fact that the choice to go the panel has nothing to do with them being removed from the front. Two entirely separate events.
Wanna try again?
You were in the military. Rules evolve. You should know your arguement about what the rules were when they accepted employment doesn't hold water.
And you still haven't addressed the issue I raised regarding the fact that the choice to go the panel has nothing to do with them being removed from the front. Two entirely separate events.
Wanna try again?
I'll agree to disagree - v-o-l-u-n-t-a-r-i-l-y
A'o Aloha
12-16-2007, 09:03 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,201
12-16-2007, 09:15 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Junior
Posts: 280
I am having a difficult time following the math wizard on this furlough issue.1. If the company is overstaffed, that means they have more pilots than they need to do the flying they have.
2. Lowering the BLG means less flying per line. I interpret this to mean spreading the available flying around, everybody makes less money but everyone stays employed.
3. If that doesn't work, THEN they start furloughing, which still means there is an excess of pilots, right?
So how does lowering the BLG equate to needing more pilots? I'm just not getting it...
Using the example, if 4000 pilots flew 85 hour lines, that would be 340000 hours. Divide that by the new 60 hour requirement = 5600 pilots minus a few hundred for the extreme optimization the company would undoubtedly use.
I could be way off...
12-16-2007, 09:28 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: A300CAP
Posts: 479
If you have a 5-week bid month, the min BLG is 85 with a max of 96. Prior to furlough, they would have to lower the lines to 60-71 hours. Each pilot is then not able to contribute as much to Fedex flying and they would need more pilots to fly the trips that were deleted from what would have been the 85 hour line.
Using the example, if 4000 pilots flew 85 hour lines, that would be 340000 hours. Divide that by the new 60 hour requirement = 5600 pilots minus a few hundred for the extreme optimization the company would undoubtedly use.
I could be way off...
Using the example, if 4000 pilots flew 85 hour lines, that would be 340000 hours. Divide that by the new 60 hour requirement = 5600 pilots minus a few hundred for the extreme optimization the company would undoubtedly use.
I could be way off...
The bottom line is this...the company wouldn't be furloughing if it needed the pilots it has to do the scheduled flying. There would have to be a reduction in flying (or something else, like age 60, created an overstaffed condition).
Am I making sense? I think I'm working my only remaining brain cell too hard tonight...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
