FDX-A game of chicken?
01-03-2009, 09:10 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: On the corner, covered in Stickum
Posts: 376
His source? The contract.
01-03-2009, 10:21 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: On the corner, covered in Stickum
Posts: 376
01-03-2009, 12:04 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
Crying wolf? Maybe not?
Just spoke to the crew scheduling control center. My ANC-MEM flight is "at least significantly delayed, maybe canceled due to lack of volume." We had only 35,000#'s of cargo flying in from Asia. Judging from the altitudes of the other FDX call signs they probably didn't have much more freight than we did?
So ... I suppose it's possible that the company is leveling with us about the current state of the company and not just posturing to get an upper hand in contract negotiations (they would never do that would they?).
So ... I suppose it's possible that the company is leveling with us about the current state of the company and not just posturing to get an upper hand in contract negotiations (they would never do that would they?).
01-03-2009, 12:40 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,333
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.
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.
01-03-2009, 01:06 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
If this is the source...it's speculation.
In order to force 4a2b on us the company has to show we are overmanned enough to furlough.
But after 48/60 is exercised the extra bodies available for furlough might be needed. Someone mentioned about 190 is a manageable fat manning level. It's even desirable when change is imminent. At least historically speaking.
Perhaps that's why buyups occured until overmanning reached a particular level.
Oh Snap! (See, I can do it too..)
In order to force 4a2b on us the company has to show we are overmanned enough to furlough.
But after 48/60 is exercised the extra bodies available for furlough might be needed. Someone mentioned about 190 is a manageable fat manning level. It's even desirable when change is imminent. At least historically speaking.
Perhaps that's why buyups occured until overmanning reached a particular level.
Oh Snap! (See, I can do it too..)
Last edited by Gunter; 01-03-2009 at 01:12 PM.
01-03-2009, 01:16 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
But just because we are a little fat, it doesn't mean furlough or 48/60 should happen.
As JG says, we should not pay for management errors. There were some big errors in judgment that led to overhiring right before age 65 was passed.
As JG says, we should not pay for management errors. There were some big errors in judgment that led to overhiring right before age 65 was passed.
01-03-2009, 01:17 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: On the corner, covered in Stickum
Posts: 376
If this is the source...it's speculation.
In order to force 4a2b on us the company has to show we are overmanned enough to furlough.
But after 48/60 is exercised the extra bodies available for furlough wouldn't be there. Someone mentioned about 190 is a manageable fat manning level. It's even desirable when change is imminent. At least historically speaking.
Perhaps that's why buyups occured until overmanning reached a particular level.
Oh Snap! (See, I can do it too..)
In order to force 4a2b on us the company has to show we are overmanned enough to furlough.
But after 48/60 is exercised the extra bodies available for furlough wouldn't be there. Someone mentioned about 190 is a manageable fat manning level. It's even desirable when change is imminent. At least historically speaking.
Perhaps that's why buyups occured until overmanning reached a particular level.
Oh Snap! (See, I can do it too..)
Ok....Quote the section of the contract that explicitly says BLGs have to touch 48 before furloughs commence. You won't find it. It will be determined in court.
Oh, and before your panties waded up any further, it was not I that said "Oh, snap". And I guess you missed my subsequent post so I'll say it again. "Or more precisely, it is the company's interpretation of a very poorly worded section of the contract."
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
