BLG return
03-13-2009, 06:40 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: Heavily Involved
Posts: 473
4a2b is a blessing in disguise because it (even though it was improperly implemented by the company according those who thought they had to drop lines to 48 first) is keeping all of us on the property. It is having the intended effect if not the one envisioned by those who drafted the language. There is only flying for say 4200 pilots. We have nearly 4700. The only way to distribute the work is to lower BLGs. If the company had to buy up the lines they would simply furlough 500 guys and then bump up the BLGs to more normal levels.
Should they buy up the lines and keep everybody onboard when they only need 4200? That would be great, but I don't see it happening. (Of course my numbers are simply for illustrative purposes) Sharing the pain is what we say we're all about as a union. If we didn't have this provision in our contract we'd be like the UPS guys with a 50M+ gun at our head for contractual concessions in lieu of a furlough.
The only problem I see with 4a2b (other than I agree that the company improperly implemented it) is that there is no language on when it snaps back. But if the company can unilaterally implement it, we seem to be stuck with them unilaterally retracting it. Hopefully the economy will rebound, the freight will pick up, and that day will come soon.
Meantime I'm glad that there is a way for us to share the pain and keep everybody on the seniority list. I also hope that the union and the company are able to agree on some carryover limitations and monthly caps (to also snap back at the appropriate time) to better share the pain of the reduced BLGs.
Should they buy up the lines and keep everybody onboard when they only need 4200? That would be great, but I don't see it happening. (Of course my numbers are simply for illustrative purposes) Sharing the pain is what we say we're all about as a union. If we didn't have this provision in our contract we'd be like the UPS guys with a 50M+ gun at our head for contractual concessions in lieu of a furlough.
The only problem I see with 4a2b (other than I agree that the company improperly implemented it) is that there is no language on when it snaps back. But if the company can unilaterally implement it, we seem to be stuck with them unilaterally retracting it. Hopefully the economy will rebound, the freight will pick up, and that day will come soon.
Meantime I'm glad that there is a way for us to share the pain and keep everybody on the seniority list. I also hope that the union and the company are able to agree on some carryover limitations and monthly caps (to also snap back at the appropriate time) to better share the pain of the reduced BLGs.
Listen, the company ILLEGALLY implemented 4a2b. Why? They were NOT in a position to furlough on the day they filed for protection under this section of our CBA. If they were, as they put it, 686 pilots fat they could NOT furlough without shutting down ANC and HKG or at least without serious operational impact. Now had they done the giant excess, flushed everybody out, then filed for 4A2B they would have a leg to stand on.
As it is, they have scared most of us into believing the sky is falling, thereby accepting to work for far less.
If we don't tell 'em NO to any LOA with a provision to drop our grievances then WE GET WHAT WE DESERVE.
How much more bull are we going to eat before we see what is going on here?
The company is conducting all trunk flying and skirting the CBA requirement to pay us for it. And we just go around acting like it's ok, cuz we're SHARING THE PAIN.
03-13-2009, 06:44 PM
#12
Proponent of Hysteria
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 3B
Posts: 1,052
P, I agree completely about the reserves. According to the latest from LEC 26 rep, the manager for the flexes ok'd the reduction in work days for them. Apparently somebody up high in the company took exception and that order was countered with a work the 15/19 edict.
Again, hopefully the "global" solution will fix it for both groups, because there is no way the reserves should still be on the hook for 15/19 with RLGs what they are.
Busboy I understand that if they meet RLG (about 10 days of trips) they would then be released for the month, but you know schedules can spread the wealth enough to ensure those guys sit every one of those R days. Line holders at least get an extra day or two off for their reduced BLG, certainly the reserve guys deserve a day or two extra off as well.
Again, hopefully the "global" solution will fix it for both groups, because there is no way the reserves should still be on the hook for 15/19 with RLGs what they are.
Busboy I understand that if they meet RLG (about 10 days of trips) they would then be released for the month, but you know schedules can spread the wealth enough to ensure those guys sit every one of those R days. Line holders at least get an extra day or two off for their reduced BLG, certainly the reserve guys deserve a day or two extra off as well.
03-13-2009, 06:49 PM
#13
Proponent of Hysteria
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 3B
Posts: 1,052
Convair: Ever try decaf? I hope that we win the grievance. Time will tell. In the meantime what do you propose we do? Standing firm is ok, but it isn't going to stop the company from having the excess bid. A lot of folks are taking it in the shorts.
You want to rant about the backward movement, that is fine, but that is more a function of the age change and the economy. Not much we can do about either of those anymore.
You want to rant about the backward movement, that is fine, but that is more a function of the age change and the economy. Not much we can do about either of those anymore.
03-13-2009, 09:00 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,409
Convair: Ever try decaf? I hope that we win the grievance. Time will tell. In the meantime what do you propose we do? Standing firm is ok, but it isn't going to stop the company from having the excess bid. A lot of folks are taking it in the shorts.
You want to rant about the backward movement, that is fine, but that is more a function of the age change and the economy. Not much we can do about either of those anymore.
You want to rant about the backward movement, that is fine, but that is more a function of the age change and the economy. Not much we can do about either of those anymore.
03-13-2009, 11:14 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: Heavily Involved
Posts: 473
Convair: Ever try decaf? I hope that we win the grievance. Time will tell. In the meantime what do you propose we do? Standing firm is ok, but it isn't going to stop the company from having the excess bid. A lot of folks are taking it in the shorts.
You want to rant about the backward movement, that is fine, but that is more a function of the age change and the economy. Not much we can do about either of those anymore.
You want to rant about the backward movement, that is fine, but that is more a function of the age change and the economy. Not much we can do about either of those anymore.
Basically what I am saying is:
A. The company KNEW Age 65 was imminent
B. The company KNEW what they were doing when they padded the list during our last round of contract talks.
C. The company KNOWS it's not losing money.
A and B are MIS-MANAGEMENT.
But YOU AND I and most of the rest of us are paying for these blunders.
03-13-2009, 11:15 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: Heavily Involved
Posts: 473
I agree decaf and less JD, but he has some valid points. We junior guys are getting the shaft while our senior brothers are willing to stand silently by. So don't get all indignent he is just blowing off steam. This is not the Marine Corps and I don't expect anyone to take a bullet for me, however... Just the facts, some guys who have got theirs are not going to do squat to help the other guys out.
03-14-2009, 06:51 AM
#18
Proponent of Hysteria
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 3B
Posts: 1,052
I agree decaf and less JD, but he has some valid points. We junior guys are getting the shaft while our senior brothers are willing to stand silently by. So don't get all indignent he is just blowing off steam. This is not the Marine Corps and I don't expect anyone to take a bullet for me, however... Just the facts, some guys who have got theirs are not going to do squat to help the other guys out.
It actually appears, however, that the company and the union are finally getting around to discussing this disparity in pain and we might get a chance to vote on an LOA to more equitably distribute that pain by reducing carryover and instituting a monthly cap. So long as there are definite snap backs for when times are better I don't consider that a concession. At least the majority will get to voice their opinion and if they don't agree so be it.
03-14-2009, 06:57 AM
#19
Proponent of Hysteria
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 3B
Posts: 1,052
Decaf? That's like drinking an O'Douls! I think you are forgetting managements desire to "ramp up" the seniority list during our last round of contract talks in the event there was a job action. Remember, that was communicated to us by an ALPA rep not long ago.
Basically what I am saying is:
A. The company KNEW Age 65 was imminent
B. The company KNEW what they were doing when they padded the list during our last round of contract talks.
C. The company KNOWS it's not losing money.
A and B are MIS-MANAGEMENT.
But YOU AND I and most of the rest of us are paying for these blunders.
Basically what I am saying is:
A. The company KNEW Age 65 was imminent
B. The company KNEW what they were doing when they padded the list during our last round of contract talks.
C. The company KNOWS it's not losing money.
A and B are MIS-MANAGEMENT.
But YOU AND I and most of the rest of us are paying for these blunders.
Fair enough. What do you propose we do about it? ALPA has filed the grievances, those will take time. Right now they are talking with the company to ensure that everybody on the seniority list pays for those blunders more equitably. I hope they come up with something. Until the grievances play out we are going to eat the shandwich that the company is feeding us anyway, why not prevent the ultra senior from making 100 hours a month while reserves are working 15 days for 60 hours?
That's all I'm saying.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
