fdxShark

I understand where you are coming from. But...this green light would have to come in the form of a LOA. Enough with the crappy LOAs where we give something up in return for a turd. We have a contract that covers this situation. The union's job is to hold the company to the contract. If the company strays, grieve it right away. Currently, our entire pilot group has one place to concentrate our frustrations. Another LOA will shift our frustrations to our fellow pilots and our union leadership.

Just my 2 cents.

Balut

Why tell the company to do something that you don't actually want them to do? I don't like playing games, especially with jobs. I understand your intent, but I don't think it would be a good move. And yes, I am also in jeopardy of being put on the street.

1800 RVR

For argument's sake, how deep would 700 numbers go in terms of DOH?

Wishing you guys all the luck you can get!

Deuce130

Somewhere around Feb-Mar 2005 I think.

bluejuice

To be specific, the very large class in Mar 2005.

⌐ AV8OR WANNABE

Can you share with us, Brown Bubbas what your management is proposing? You know, in simple terms that non-purples will understand…

Yesterday I rode on USair to BWI and to my total surprise several of their pilots and also an AE jumpseater asked me (like I would know anyways?) if it was true FDX was furloughing up to 1,000 pilots?! I think my response was something like HUH?!

The captain said a good buddy of his who’s a check airman at FDX gave him the latest 'scoop'... The Eagle guy heard something similar from one of his friends...

I don’t believe any of that crap, I'm thinking they saw some of the doom & gloom postings here and on some other message boards and now the rumor storm is in full swing...

So what exactly did your management tell you would happen?

Remember, whatever y’all do – we’ll happen here too just because “FDX did it so it must be good”…

pilot141

And here we have the Golden Nugget that FDX management was looking for - the line in the sand that they were looking for to divide the pilot group.

I am not dogging anyone here for posting it because it was bound to come out; but the number of pilots "vulnerable" is the dividing line they want.

Anyone close to or behind this imaginary "date" would be willing to take any sort of LOA on the 777 if it kept their job intact. I don't blame them; if the options are stay a 727 SO or hit the street, how many would actually hit the street?

The company knows this, and is willing to play that game of chicken.

They are betting that they can scare enough people to downbid so that their training costs are minimal.

The solution? I don't know, but I DO know that it begins with no one bidding the 777 without an LOA.

EDIT:I KNOW that not everyone wants to be a 727 SO, but I used it to illustrate apoint. Let it go!


Can I say that again? NO ONE should bid the 777 without an LOA.

After that, I expect guys to bid very carefully and ensure that their quality of life does not decrease.

FDXLAG

FDX is (at this time) furloughing no one. Management has said we are overmanned by ~700 pilots. They are planning to reduce hours below our floor of 68 hours on some acft to fix this. We have a floor of 48 hours before they can put someone on the street. They have not told us how much they are planning to reduce flying. A number closer to 68 than 48 is likely.

Our gripe is the language is vague but the intent was that all acft should be reduced somewhat equally. We know they can not fly their MadDog schedule below current levels.

Daniel Larusso

That's where the MEC/MC come in, by not putting such a piece of garbage in front of us. Companies always love to frame the 'options' and timeframe for pilots, because it works well with our personalities. We're decision oriented by nature and tend to pride ourselves on the ability to make the tough ones under pressure, but those traits betray us miserably when it comes to negotiations. We often fail to realize that there are other viable options and that the timeframes presented are by and large arbitrary. I know I'll get flak for saying this on here, but there are times where it is best for the MEC to protect us from ourselves by not putting things out for vote or discussion. This scenario would be one of them.

Gunter

Then why announce 48?

Who do you know to make the assumption?