fecav8r

Is this a life lesson you figured out first hand...

Dadof6

Oh, didn't need that visual!

fedupbusdriver

The truth stings.

CI9994ME

We may be forced to live on lower BLG's very soon, and just watch the M/U monsters munch their way thru open-time.

If we could ALL just get it thru our craniums to stick together, yeah right, what was I thinking!? It will NEVER happen.

jagplt

Then how do we make the leadership "do the right thing" as they are so fond of doing these days?

most will admit, unless they're picking up an extra 20 - 40 hours extra a month that the system is a bit unfair... won't they? or is this another "I got mine" issue?

hyperone

I just did a quick and dirty analysis of the LAX FO Feb. bidpack (easier to wrap my head around numbers for 64 lines, rather than for the 500+? lines in MEM). All of the following numbers are approximations.

Those 64 LAX FO lines contained 5252:19 total hours when carryover hours are included. 4540:35 hours within the Feb. period and 711:44 carryover hours. So, a little over 13% of the flying on those 64 lines is carryover.

26 lines have carryover trips with 711:44 total carryover hours. 11 of those lines have carryover trips that start on the last Sunday of the bid month. Those 11 trips have 435:42 total hours, of which 326:23 are carryover hours.

So, if the start of the bid month was moved from Monday to Sunday, that would move 435:42 hours, or 6 additional lines of worth of flying, into the March bidpack.

I know the other bidpacks might not contain the exact same percentages, but before we as a union entertain any reduction in BLG, we MUST push our ALPA reps to negotiate this simple change. It is by far the most equitable way of spreading out the hours.

Albief15

Guys,

I have NOT been to a single meeting yet as a formal rep, but in discussions I have heard and pireps from other members who attended Sunday--I seriously doubt ANY BLG give-backs would be accepted by the union.

I think PC's comments were designed to create a buzz and measure the result. Right now--lots of folks are buzzing.

Here's what I got...

As of now BLG will go towards low end but not below...

If in fact BLG did get threatened I would (and I think most others would as well) eliminate carryover first, along with vacation buybacks, VLT, etc etc.

And if ALL of that did fail...I think paid MEC positions would take a corresponding downward hit.

All that said--I dont' think ANY of that is necessary.

Breathe deeply...and learn to play poker. Don't let a "boo" email/FCIF scare you.

DLax85

Top to bottom...well put, Albie.

FDXLAG

Maybe some of the conversation on this and other forums had a slight influence on the MEC's new found backbone. I hate to think what could have been the result if the company and the MEC had started discussions in a vacuum. We may have ended up with some more reverse seniority brokeback sessions.

Glad to hear the MEC is talking about it. It is easier to lead if the guys behind know the general direction your going. That poker thing could have worked well on the FDA loa.

Some guy

Will someone please tell DW...at the hub turn meeting he was all doom and gloom about the economy/our future growth (although he did reiterate no furlough on the horizon).

I already informed my block rep that I expect no reductions in BLG unless carryover goes away first among other things, like the optimizer...

SG