⌐ AV8OR WANNABE

Very good points Roberto.

Folks, again I am not talking about our current situation as I think we'll be ok. However, in our next contract I would like to see some kind of provisions which would protect our junior guys/gals from a furlough or at least mitigate the circumstances...

Look at the current CAL situation… Folks are laid off there yet many senior (and some junior) pilots over there keep picking up open time thus extending the furlough time for their junior brothers and sisters. Recently they had a collection where each furloughed CAL pilot received a $50 (I think?) gift card from the union. I think it was a commendable act however, I’d rather see the senior guys stop picking up open time and maybe even fly & make a bit less (temporarily lower guarantee) than for him/her to give me a few bucks in gift certificates.

A huge majority of our guys/gals are truly top-notch individuals who’d never try to make an extra buck while their brothers and sisters are on the street. However, the fact is we are all human and even with our contractual open time ban provisions some would still try to get richer on the backs of the furloughed pilots (you know, “my wife is sick,” “kids in college,” “my houses (!) need to be paid off,” etc, etc.).

Note! - this is NOT a reflection of how I feel about our pilot group because I believe, as I said earlier, that the vast majority would support their junior coworkers. Unfortunately, some people simply don’t care about others whether employed here or at other places; it's a fact of life and there's nothing we can do about it – for now that is...

My point is that IF we had a furlough prevention clause in our next contract, whatever we decide to do EVERYONE would have to share the burden, including those who're looking for excuses to pick up open time - the simple premise of the FDX contractual lower guarantee deal (which as Cactus pointed out might be flawed and possibly not the best solution)...

»»» if 1 guy gets furloughed --- we all suffer together «««

...and I have to admit I really like the idea behind that premise...

I know I’m biased here because I am junior myself but I promise you that I’ll feel the same way when I am a senior captain in 20 years. Of course, by then the new & improved “age-70-fair-pilot-act” will keep me in the right seat but you get the point… ( sarcasm light is ON) .

So basically I’m brainstorming here on how we could improve our future contracts to protect the junior guys on property…

For example, since we have the no-open-time clause in our contract – could we legally expel a person from the union for making extra money while his/her co-workers are furloughed?

The way thing are now, IF furloughs were to happen, the only people paying the price would be the junior folks while for example those who’re reaping the benefits of the age 65 ruling wouldn’t notice a bit… I’d like for all to share the pain if needed…

Again, not trying to start another age 65 debate but rather to see what others think about this idea of everyone sharing the burden should the need arise in the future…

SaltyDog

I disagree with the notion that it's the only way to prevent a furlough. For purpose of this discussion, would not give UPS the rope. They would hang us, and like govt, not use it as wisely as us, the members. Would instead propose to the membership contractual language that would always lower max cap hours and other responses/triggers that would have IPA members fund a furlough endowment to pay a percentage (like a Mutual Aid plan) to furloughed members and have the fund pay the company for the furloughed pilots medical. The members would be in control of their own members and UPS couldn't unilaterally interpret the language ( the rope thing) . Simply, if every Purple driver is going to fund a potential furloughee anyway to the tune of up to 29.4% of their pay, why let management take a cut? I'd rather give the furloughee the whole cut, and let management decide if they need to furlough on its own merits without giving them incentive to make a commission on the deal.
Example: At Fedex, management is able to lower BLG all the way down to 48 from 68 in a 4 week period. A 20 hour reduction or 29.4%!!. That means Fedex management immediately recaptures 1/3 in direct pilot payroll expenses including the less social security payment share (7.65%). The net savings to Fedex management incentivizes management to say "furlough", and then not furlough because of the huge savings at the expense of pilots without a real furlough. Would rather let UPS furlough, and then IPA immediately have a contractual trigger to pay each furloughed pilot something like 50% of guarantee for up to 24+ months + medical for the duration funded by our own contractual provision that says something like 20% of each remaining pilot pay goes toward the furlough fund. How would it expense out? Lets use UPS max Capt rate, to pay one furlough pilot $5000 + medical every month (about $1600), would take just under 2 Capts at 20%. That would save the Capts 9% over the Fedex deal and be only applied when an actual furlough occurs, not when they are threatened! (When would UPS stop that threat????they would milk it to a exhorbitant cost to ALL our collective wages!
Therefore,
Cheaper to ALL IPA members still working and even those furloughed since would have been on property during furlough threat anyway at a 30% pay cut (Fedex style). I say a lot more productive to the furlough guys to make 100% compensation up till the last day on the property and then the IPA plan takes over via the contract. UPS doesn't have any savings other than just a straight furlough. Gives UPS a clean slate to decide if they need to furlough, if they do, the IPA makes it more than survivable for our furloughed folks. Much cleaner. Keeps the IPA earned compensation completely in the IPA 's realm of control, not UPS. Around 60K + medical to not fly at UPS. Not so bad to share the pain, certainly would be industry leading and let the union share the pain without undue incentive for management to play us like Fedex folks are discussing.

⌐ AV8OR WANNABE

Salty, please reread my post - I never said this was the ONLY way to prevent a furlough, in fact I said I think we will be fine...

I was talking about future furlough mitigation ideas and frankly reading your post it feels like we are saying almost the same thing - let IPA police ourselves into not picking up open time etc. rather than the company...

I think your "Mutual Aid" style IPA "Furlough Fund" concept sounds like a very good idea...

Has a similar idea ever been proposed before?

SaltyDog

AV8OR,
I understood your statement as an ONLY, why (poorly I guess ) stated it the way I did <g>, my proposal responds to a real furlough and simultaneously does not incentivize management to pursue a bogus furlough claim!
The lowered credit language is instant savings that I disagree with, a contractual give back that Fedex management found to good to pass up. Furlough mitigation done mostly by credit capping less than 104 per pay period (make it 90 or something). Would push productivity down and would be a real debate with all parties! Second, the idea is my own and would take a hard sell to the membership, but it would need to be contractual to make all play. Would never pull that off as a standalone proposal. Still a cheaper and more effective alternative for the IPA though.

gremlin

Salty Dog has it right. There's better ways to mitigate a furlough and I think talk of cutting the guarantee is irresponsible. Just sitting here thinking about the company getting the info on here they must be getting a serious woody. Lesson number one of airline negotiating: Give up money - kiss it goodbye!

You will NEVER get it back.

I apologize for my rhetoric to the junior guys. I was a furloughed legacy guy and I know how you feel. Lucky for me this job came along (and lucky for you too.) And wouldn't it be nice (if furloughed) to come back to the pay you are NOW getting (or more?) Lower the guarantee and the company will inevitably find a loophole (they always do) to keep it where it is. Even a trigger point to restore it may actually prolong the furlough period. Nice.

You guys are best served by 13.K.9. and should be pestering the EB to resolve now to invoke it immediately upon a furlough announcement. Let the line guys know now that they need to get ready for it. There will be a major financial sacrifice right there. Bob Miller suggested the open time ban would be invoked when the rumor first surfaced a few months ago. I have no reason to think he would change his mind about that.

Now for a little lesson I learned at Brand X: A pay cut AND a furlough make a BAD, BAD combo. That happened at my old carrier and the open time pickup went through the roof. When an open time ban was needed the most (because of the furlough) you got countless guys saying "I got to make up the money I lost", yada, yada, yada. Sure played into the company's needs and put big bonuses in their management's pockets while the furlough dragged on and on.

It didn't help that the union at Brand X never suggested an open time ban but you would like to think their pilots would come up with it on their own. Really nice to be on the furlough list and the guy next to you is flying the trip on open time and doesn't care.

The IPA guys are different I sincerely believe. There is a good track record of most guys following open time bans (and this was before it was in the contract to call one) and although there will be mercenaries they will be few. But I fear if pay was cut significantly (such as a 10 hour drop in line guarantee) it might not work as well and this would further divide and weaken the union.

13.K.9. is a gift from above. It will be used in the event a furlough is announced I am certain and might actually prevent it. Lower the guarantee in anticipation of it might prevent a furlough that never was going to happen anyway. It is so confusing and irrational my head hurts just thinking that it is even being discussed.

Would we even be talking about this if the FedEx guys didn't have this little nugget in their contract? Just like their opener coming during our negotiations. Thanks again.

I am not terribly far from the bottom and would at least get displaced to ANC if there's a furlough so I don't want one either. I know many near the bottom are furloughed legacy guys and I know the thought of this sucks. But there is one difference between us and the legacies: This is a real good job to come back to. Let's keep it that way.

So how about we stop this nonsense of cutting the guarantee? I gotta wonder where the loyalties lie.

g

⌐ AV8OR WANNABE

Gremlin - again, this is a discussion about our next contract - in other words what kind of furlough protection we could put in effect there.

I thought that maybe parts of FDX's furlough mitigation plan made some sense but like you I agree that Salty's idea makes much more sense...

JustUnderPar

Is this a joke or did this really happen?

⌐ AV8OR WANNABE

No joke, 2 1/2 months ago...

1800 RVR

Gremlin,

Great post, and I agree with you 100%. I have been down the same road as you, in fact 3 times, fairly recently. I highlighted the above part of your quote because Miller HAS come out and said that we would invoke that clause immediately. I remember getting an IPA email from him explicitly stating that we would do this. I'm not so sure what else he can do right now. And, think about it this way: why wouldn't we enforce a part of our contract? Our biggest challenge, if this occurs, is to keep the "wayward sheep" on the straight-and-narrow.

gremlin

There is the rub. Someone on the B&G suggested a resolution charging people not complying with the open time ban with an "Act against the association." I would like to think we wouldn't need it but it would definitely help.

Additionally there are undoubtedly hundreds of crewmembers who don't read APC or the B&G and might not be aware a furlough and open time ban may be on the horizon. Everyone needs to know and get their house in order accordingly.

Still though I side with the optimists and don't believe a furlough will happen as long as UPS is making money. Or to better put that as long as they don't believe the changes we are seeing in the economy will last far beyond 2009. The number crunchers will need to see a break even point - how long will this downturn needs to be to see all the training events level the balance sheet.

Fed Ex on the other hand has had rapid growth in the last 10 years, partly brought on by the postal contract, and is getting rid of a considerable number of 727s and DC-10s, UPS's numbers on 3 seaters doesn't come close to them. For them furlough and downgrades are inevitable in this economy. Again quoting the B&G someone said "UPS and FedEx have two things in common - we fly planes and carry stuff." That is all.

g