2cylinderdriver

simple answer: NO, they can operate as they see fit. Fleet averages and even seat averages can be vastly different. Our CBA Language is simply a new FLOOR of pay protection. ALPA obviously has different interpretations of this language.

MaxKts

First question: There aren't any caps at any time, only spread requirements when building lines.

Second question: It's called "Intent" what was negotiated but not necessarily put into words! The company has used "Intent" against us many times. Now it is our turn.

Also, if a specific aircraft flying is reduced due to the aircraft being phased out - the company is still required to meet the contractual spread across the fleet when building lines. Why would it be any different when invoking 4.a.2.b?

Sluggo_63

Remember, we have already taken a hit. Long before Fred announced his 20% pay cut, and a 7.5-10% pay cut for other senior FedEx executives. Just looking at my 2007 net pay vs. my 2008 net, I have lost 10.7% of my spendable income. That's even after 2 raises in 2008. We have already taken a pay cut on par with the senior executives. Which, when you think about it, it ludicrous, since we are really labor with "no special skills." It's funny how, when it came to the HK LOA, we were just blue collar workers, not worthy of any 'perks' afforded to more highly skilled members of the FedEx 'team,' but now when it comes to paycuts, we must now shoulder a burden 3 times as much as a senior executive.

It's also quite interesting, looking at other airlines on the passenger side, how they view 'normal' levels of pilot BLG. Recently, at United, and previously at Delta, those respective companies took the pilot force to court for illegal 'job actions' and won based on the fact that pilots were not picking up overtime. The company showed how many hours pilots normally flew, and when there was a drastic drop off, they deemed it an illegal job action. But yet, in 2007, when our average BLG was about 75/92, and now the company has cut it to 68/85 in 2008 and much lower in 2009, where is our legal leg to stand on? But rest assured, if this pilot group ever got some unity and refused to pick up over time, volunteer, or draft, and just flew our line, I'm sure Fred would have his lawyers in court asking for an injunction against our 'job action.'

I'm fed up and I'm asking ALPA to defend our contract to the end.

Shuckers86

Sluggo, Using your 2007 BLG of 75hrs for a 4week month and management's proposed 48hrs for a 4 week month for 2009 isn't that a 36% pay cut? That is FAR more than even Fred Smith.

We as a company made over $300 million last quarter.

Like you I am making much less than last year. I think we have contributed to helping the company through this difficult time.

Did I mention we made over $300 million last quarter.

Sluggo_63

It sure is. That was my point... we have already quietly, without too much *****ing (or acknowledgement from management), taken a 10% pay cut from 2007. Now they want to take another 30%?!? Crazy for a company that, like you said, made $300 million plus last quarter.

RedeyeAV8r

No and this is part of the problem. When things were good, this Pilot group liked the fact that we could fly as muh as we wanted and make extra $$.
The membership didn't want to see a Pay Cap in the last contract.

Many here were somewhat naively arrogant with ideas of "That could never happen here".

Ironically our furlough language in Sec 4, for a lack of better term, allows MGT to reduce monthy hourly guarantees while still not capping extra flying.

FlybyKnite

Historic Norm -74
Current Avg -- 68 = -8%
Proposed ----- 58 = -22%
Minimum ------ 48 = -35%

So they effectively reduced our pay 8% long before they announced the executive and other pay reductions. Someone remind me how much the pay reduction was for management. Perhaps this is the disproportionate burden JG was talking about.

Now not only do they save $$ by no longer buying up lines, but they get an additional ~15% savings by going from 68 to 58.

Gunter

We are in this pickle due to contractual language.

I don't remember being asked what language should be in the contract.

Gunter

For the folks wondering about the timing of this and how earlier notice could have encouraged over 60 guys to retire--

This was heavily telegraphed. When the dance started early '08 it had only so many probable outcomes. Traffic needed to pick up, more dudes than forecast needed to retire or what we have right now. What we have now could be different if the company chose to work with the membership. This is obviously the hard ball option being run right now.

The company decision to go to arbitration on the 777 and union announced company intent to reengage on manning issues early '09 was the big foot stomp. Did you not realize they wanted everyone bright and shiny for peak as they were preparing for this?

Granted, the fall off in freight sped it along. You can make a case that was the cause this turn of events. In that case, you still had 4-6 weeks notice.

I submit to you that the last 2 months was only a small blip. Most of the slowdown had already occurred. The combined effects of transition from 3 to 2 man aircraft and, to a smaller extent, over 60 was a much bigger player. Not to mention the management decision to over hire right before over 60 passed.

Anyone surprised was simply not paying attention.

Daniel Larusso

You're absolutely correct Gunter. I find it funny to hear people say that the union is only giving good comm on this now, they've been talking it about almost constantly for all of 2008, and if no one noticed that how could they have missed the excess bids and PC's other communications which weren't any different than his latest missive except that he clarified the details on BLG reductions.