FDX Feburary BLG
" at the end of that?
. No one wants a pay cut, and as much as I'd hate to delay getting a well earned raise it's an idea.
01-05-2009, 04:23 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 909
IMO, DW may not have as much people on his side anymore. Think about this...FDX may just have sounded the alarm for us. Cutting BLGs on SENIOR WB aircraft won't go unnoticed by alot of SENIOR guys/gals. Especially when the 727, which is junior, may be taking a less of a cut than the WB BLG.
This 'doesn't affect me' attitude is gone. After we see the BLG's come Thursday, I'm sure the senior will those aircraft will scream "Fight's on!"
And DW will get more than a few phone calls from his senior buddies.
Things would be alot different if the NB lines were being cut to Min BLG and the WB lines were not...completely different.
This 'doesn't affect me' attitude is gone. After we see the BLG's come Thursday, I'm sure the senior will those aircraft will scream "Fight's on!"
And DW will get more than a few phone calls from his senior buddies.
Things would be alot different if the NB lines were being cut to Min BLG and the WB lines were not...completely different.
Last edited by magic rat; 01-05-2009 at 04:29 PM.
01-05-2009, 04:23 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: FedEx
Posts: 666
This may be why the company is going to have another excess bid. The only way they can furlough is to get everybody into their lowest seat. They can't realistically furlough without doing that.
After the excess bid they announce that they are going to furlough, unless we agree to keep the MBPG at 48/60. That way they justify the reduction in MBPG (to avoid a furlough), and then build the lines at whatever level the freight volumes dictate.
We will then have to put up or shut up. Do we want them to furlough or will we accept the lower BLGs? IF so, for how long? What will signal a return to the normal contractual MBPG? I think most of us would rather take the short term hit in BLGs than have guys put out on the street.
Having aircraft types without bidpacks pay anything other than the fleet average would certainly seem to be a clear violation of the contract that we would have to grieve and let the lawyers figure out.
While all of this is going on the company cancels the excess bid and continues to build the lines low until we figure out a way to make them comply with the intent of the contract.
They save all the training and relocation costs that would be necessary to actually furlough anybody, and put that money in the bank figuring we will never be able to convince an arbitrator that they did all of it intentionally.
Worst case for them is that they have to pay us some of our lost hours in 10 years or so after all the lawsuits are finally settled.
Perhaps by then we'll be making even BIGGER PROFITS!
FJ
After the excess bid they announce that they are going to furlough, unless we agree to keep the MBPG at 48/60. That way they justify the reduction in MBPG (to avoid a furlough), and then build the lines at whatever level the freight volumes dictate.
We will then have to put up or shut up. Do we want them to furlough or will we accept the lower BLGs? IF so, for how long? What will signal a return to the normal contractual MBPG? I think most of us would rather take the short term hit in BLGs than have guys put out on the street.
Having aircraft types without bidpacks pay anything other than the fleet average would certainly seem to be a clear violation of the contract that we would have to grieve and let the lawyers figure out.
While all of this is going on the company cancels the excess bid and continues to build the lines low until we figure out a way to make them comply with the intent of the contract.
They save all the training and relocation costs that would be necessary to actually furlough anybody, and put that money in the bank figuring we will never be able to convince an arbitrator that they did all of it intentionally.
Worst case for them is that they have to pay us some of our lost hours in 10 years or so after all the lawsuits are finally settled.
Perhaps by then we'll be making even BIGGER PROFITS!
FJ
01-05-2009, 04:29 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: MD11 Kitchen Bi*ch
Posts: 263
The expenses involved in keeping a small number of planes active, let alone one, are enormous.
01-05-2009, 04:33 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
All this drama for $12 million a year in BLG buy-ups?
We still pay over $130 million/ year in dividends!
I don't think we should give them a penny. It's just business.
01-05-2009, 04:38 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,409
I did not know anyone remembered that great bluffing game called smiles. Those were happier times. We are being treated like we are wildly overpaid pilots. Do you realize that in 1997 a Delta Airlines wide-body Captain made $100,000 more a year than I do today? Of course I don't have any special skills according to a previous FCIF. Are you out of your mind? We are still making money. No more pay cuts.
01-05-2009, 04:38 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 909
Another giant excess is unlikely, (to set up for furlough). It is TOO expensive and will take way too much time to train and actually get the pilots in the order they want it. Even if they run a giant excess bid, it would take YEARS to get the bodies where they want them to be. Things 'should' be turned around by then. I still don't see that in the cards.
I think all this is right now (besides the blatant corn-holing via the contract loophole they found) is to put pressure on the DC10 guys to retire (as well as divide the pilot group, union-busting 101, save a little money, scare more people into HKG...all good objectives on the side).
I am actually looking forward to more word from the union. Anybody in the ranks at ALPA know if they're burning the midnight oil?
I think all this is right now (besides the blatant corn-holing via the contract loophole they found) is to put pressure on the DC10 guys to retire (as well as divide the pilot group, union-busting 101, save a little money, scare more people into HKG...all good objectives on the side).
I am actually looking forward to more word from the union. Anybody in the ranks at ALPA know if they're burning the midnight oil?
01-05-2009, 04:46 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 11 Left Side
Posts: 100
This may be why the company is going to have another excess bid. The only way they can furlough is to get everybody into their lowest seat. They can't realistically furlough without doing that.
After the excess bid they announce that they are going to furlough, unless we agree to keep the MBPG at 48/60. That way they justify the reduction in MBPG (to avoid a furlough), and then build the lines at whatever level the freight volumes dictate.
We will then have to put up or shut up. Do we want them to furlough or will we accept the lower BLGs? IF so, for how long? What will signal a return to the normal contractual MBPG? I think most of us would rather take the short term hit in BLGs than have guys put out on the street.
Having aircraft types without bidpacks pay anything other than the fleet average would certainly seem to be a clear violation of the contract that we would have to grieve and let the lawyers figure out.
While all of this is going on the company cancels the excess bid and continues to build the lines low until we figure out a way to make them comply with the intent of the contract.
They save all the training and relocation costs that would be necessary to actually furlough anybody, and put that money in the bank figuring we will never be able to convince an arbitrator that they did all of it intentionally.
Worst case for them is that they have to pay us some of our lost hours in 10 years or so after all the lawsuits are finally settled.
Perhaps by then we'll be making even BIGGER PROFITS!
FJ
After the excess bid they announce that they are going to furlough, unless we agree to keep the MBPG at 48/60. That way they justify the reduction in MBPG (to avoid a furlough), and then build the lines at whatever level the freight volumes dictate.
We will then have to put up or shut up. Do we want them to furlough or will we accept the lower BLGs? IF so, for how long? What will signal a return to the normal contractual MBPG? I think most of us would rather take the short term hit in BLGs than have guys put out on the street.
Having aircraft types without bidpacks pay anything other than the fleet average would certainly seem to be a clear violation of the contract that we would have to grieve and let the lawyers figure out.
While all of this is going on the company cancels the excess bid and continues to build the lines low until we figure out a way to make them comply with the intent of the contract.
They save all the training and relocation costs that would be necessary to actually furlough anybody, and put that money in the bank figuring we will never be able to convince an arbitrator that they did all of it intentionally.
Worst case for them is that they have to pay us some of our lost hours in 10 years or so after all the lawsuits are finally settled.
Perhaps by then we'll be making even BIGGER PROFITS!
FJ
I haven't been able to find that in the contract, but that doesn't mean it's not common knowledge.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
