a300fr8dog

Guess I was speaking out of my axx

Spur

Where are you getting this??? It may be in some obscure LOA or ruling or side letter but I have yet to locate it. This is the 3rd time I've asked... Please enlighten me with a reference.

Daniel Larusso

Like the rest of us, I don't know one way or another whether they'll be any furloughing around here either. Imo, the fact that they mentioned the word officially is noteworthy regardless of whether they in fact do it or not. I have been around the airline block a bunch of times as well and my experience was that it turned from from a mountain to a molehill at warp speed. There was a whole lot of 'don't worry, slow down, we have this much $$$, etc' and then boom, hammer, and out the door.

That said I'm not sure furlough is what they want. My opinion since well before the FDA LOA came out has been that the company wants the no displacement to the FDA clause out of the contract. As you've pointed out above, international commerce is the future the company sees and FDA's are the linchpin in that strategy for them. Long term, I think they want maximum flexibility to staff those domiciles and right now they don't have it STV aside. My fear is that this sets the classic opportunity to eat our young. I've seen the reaction of senior pilots at other properties when they were hit with contractual measures designed to delay/prevent furlough-in short many wanted to throw junior pilots overboard rather than take any hit themselves. If the contract said that they could offer reduced BLG lines for pilots not to show up at all to help on staffing/cost issues like some other airlines have in their contracts, I actually think our pilot group would find many takers and all would be well. However, I can't see the top portion of our pilot group being too copacetic about 48/60 min BLG lines, when they could just furlough and get their regular BLG. The question is what will our union leadership do when the whining starts? I hope they tell those pilots to pound sand and that we are union and protecting our own is where we will ultimately find our strength. I fear that they will negotiate a deal that allows the company to force people to FDA's involuntarily in exchanged for leaving the BLG alone and maybe some other perk that we haven't thought of yet.

Daniel Larusso

Spur,

I think he is referring to the fact the block hour spread in the new contract went to 13 hours-25.D.1.e(Regular Lines). So that means if they flex down to 48/60 for the min BLG per 4.a.2.b than the max BLG would be 61/73.

Daniel Larusso

I hope so too. Reading the BLG section, it seems that it's an all or nothing thing on the 48/60 which is probably why PC wants relief from ALPA. I don't see any way that they can say reduce the BLG to 48/60 on the -10, 757 and the Boeing while leaving say the Bus and Mad Diggity at normal min BLG levels. What will King DW do???

HIFLYR

[quote=Daniel Larusso;289051]

That said I'm not sure furlough is what they want. My opinion since well before the FDA LOA came out has been that the company wants the no displacement to the FDA clause out of the contract.

Bingo, we have a winner!!!! I too believe this is what they want. Hard to furlough as long as that is in the contract. It also would keep them from having to sweeten the LOA to get people to bid it. Just glad we would have to vote on a LOA, I don't see 51 % of the guys giving that clause up. But what do I know I voted no on the FDA LOA.

Young Jack

Its all still up in the air, Im one SOB that would not mind going overseas if they sweetned the pot. Ive talked to a few guys in my position who are childless who have mentioned that either domicile would be fine if we could get the same deal as the SFS guys originally had. The tax protection alone and polly vous france or nehama my arse would be.

Daniel Larusso

[QUOTE=HIFLYR;289060]It's all about context HIFLYR. If they just ask us to give up that clause for no reason or nothing in return than I agree with you that it's a big no vote. However both the company and the MEC are smarter than that and likely wouldn't present such an agreement to us. It's a tougher call on what the vote would be if the options were 48/60 min BLG vs. give up displacement clause, higher 777 rates, ambiguous promises to ease up on the optimizer, or something else that we haven't thought of.

jagplt

hmmm sweetneding a pot... and they would do that because? they just found 150 or so old guys that may be interested in taking a crappy deal to get back into one of the front seats of glory again.. and after all that's what we are all in this for right. glory?

Young Jack

trust me Im not betting on it.