UPS Furlough (Part III)
08-20-2010, 08:15 AM
#91
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 122
Why doesn't the UPS do something similar to what FedEx did to stop furloughs? UPS decided they need to cut some costs. So there are two ways to do it.
1. Furlough pilots
2. Temporarily cut pilot pay by the same amount of money to result in no furloughs.
If there are 2800 pilots at UPS, and about 300 need to be furloughed to generate that cost savings, what if every UPS pilot just took a temporary 10% pay cut. Then UPS would get the cost savings it needs, no one would be furloughed, and UPS would still be able to fly more cargo which would lead to more profits that eventually the pilots could leverage and get back anyway.
1. Furlough pilots
2. Temporarily cut pilot pay by the same amount of money to result in no furloughs.
If there are 2800 pilots at UPS, and about 300 need to be furloughed to generate that cost savings, what if every UPS pilot just took a temporary 10% pay cut. Then UPS would get the cost savings it needs, no one would be furloughed, and UPS would still be able to fly more cargo which would lead to more profits that eventually the pilots could leverage and get back anyway.
Where have you been? The IPA volunteered savings using the "MOU." UPS turned it down and wanted something they could "wrap their hands around..." So, they chose to furlough instead.
08-20-2010, 12:10 PM
#92
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 397
I thought the BT administration in the IPA was against it? When he became elected didn't the plug get pulled?
08-20-2010, 01:13 PM
#94
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: I was acquired, Not Hired
Posts: 1,784
Why doesn't the UPS do something similar to what FedEx did to stop furloughs? UPS decided they need to cut some costs. So there are two ways to do it.
1. Furlough pilots
2. Temporarily cut pilot pay by the same amount of money to result in no furloughs.
If there are 2800 pilots at UPS, and about 300 need to be furloughed to generate that cost savings, what if every UPS pilot just took a temporary 10% pay cut. Then UPS would get the cost savings it needs, no one would be furloughed, and UPS would still be able to fly more cargo which would lead to more profits that eventually the pilots could leverage and get back anyway.
1. Furlough pilots
2. Temporarily cut pilot pay by the same amount of money to result in no furloughs.
If there are 2800 pilots at UPS, and about 300 need to be furloughed to generate that cost savings, what if every UPS pilot just took a temporary 10% pay cut. Then UPS would get the cost savings it needs, no one would be furloughed, and UPS would still be able to fly more cargo which would lead to more profits that eventually the pilots could leverage and get back anyway.
Our CEO took a year over year increase according to an article I posted earlier.
In addition, UPS made a profit of $845 million during 3Q10. The IATA predicted that the US pasengers airlines will make $1.2 billion in profits for 2010. UPS single-handedly will make nearly double that amount.
Hard to justify the need for pay cuts.
08-20-2010, 02:22 PM
#95
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Leftof longitudinal
Posts: 1,899
Why doesn't the UPS do something similar to what FedEx did to stop furloughs? UPS decided they need to cut some costs. So there are two ways to do it.
1. Furlough pilots
2. Temporarily cut pilot pay by the same amount of money to result in no furloughs.
If there are 2800 pilots at UPS, and about 300 need to be furloughed to generate that cost savings, what if every UPS pilot just took a temporary 10% pay cut. Then UPS would get the cost savings it needs, no one would be furloughed, and UPS would still be able to fly more cargo which would lead to more profits that eventually the pilots could leverage and get back anyway.
1. Furlough pilots
2. Temporarily cut pilot pay by the same amount of money to result in no furloughs.
If there are 2800 pilots at UPS, and about 300 need to be furloughed to generate that cost savings, what if every UPS pilot just took a temporary 10% pay cut. Then UPS would get the cost savings it needs, no one would be furloughed, and UPS would still be able to fly more cargo which would lead to more profits that eventually the pilots could leverage and get back anyway.
1. They were getting the money. IPA offered all the cost via voluntary givebacks. We were $13 million short of the goal and IPA could easily make the numbers on another sign up 9 months later in the multiyear plan. They took $100 million in one year. They still furloughed for the $13 million shortage.
Oh, we got offered a doubled bill (amounted to extortion). We could have agreed to gutting our current contract worth hundreds of millions more.
Hopefully you know how well concessionary givebacks work. Unions always lose.
UPS simply chose a model to get rid of business and cut lift. Shrink to profitability. Our competitors chose to grow.
2. Sure, but you leave out that UPS decided to not pursue ready, profitable DOD business. DOD business alone could have prevented a furlough at UPS.
UPS decided to shrink and furlough instead. No surprise that line pilots have taken to reading the contract more than ever before in the union history.
If I were management, would have kept union complacent, appear benevolent, and keep taking MOU volunteer money.
They virtually did the opposite on all counts.
08-20-2010, 03:46 PM
#96
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 397
Maybe if our EB pres wasn't such a hot head the IPA wouldn't have had to raise dues to cover the furloughed pilots medical insurance since a furlough may have been averted. And no I'm not talking concessions, If you remember there was an MOU in place to mitigate the over staffing. Both BT and TK were adamantly opposed to this, after they were elected they achieved their goal the MOU failed after which UPS announced a furlough, the old cause and effect.
You are forgetting one important fact the members of the IPA failed to reach the agreed upon MOU amount that is what caused the MOU to fail. If we would have met the MOU goal it would have been much harder for UPS to pull the crap they did.
IMHO the lack of MOU support from BT and TK had a direct relationship with the MOU coming up short.
Please don't lecture me on how the company has brain washed me. I understand completely who (UPS) is responsible for my lack of employment. But as I have said in previous posts I believe the outcome may have been different with someone else leading the IPA.
IMHO the lack of MOU support from BT and TK had a direct relationship with the MOU coming up short.
Please don't lecture me on how the company has brain washed me. I understand completely who (UPS) is responsible for my lack of employment. But as I have said in previous posts I believe the outcome may have been different with someone else leading the IPA.
It is correct that we were overmanned, and it is correct that there are many alternatives to furlough. UPS got its panties in a bunch because "my way or the highway" got elected, and decided the extra effort of alternatives to furlough were not worth it. The IPA is still (correctly) making every effort to fight the furlough: open time ban, organizing FQS drive, lobbying and PR.
You are correct in saying that UPS was looking for heavy, int'l 121 experience. I don't discount that. I did not have the heavy time when hired. But it doesn't make me any less of a pilot hired here. You guys were not a temporary bridge - UPS doesn't hire just for temporary issues. They hired because of growth, new contract, etc. Age 65, recession, World port expansion reversed that.
There was some unity last time, but not as much as everyone is preaching. I mean, look at the majority of contributers to the MOU. The bottom 300 who didn't have a choice!
Unless they really sweeten the retirement part of the MOU, this next go around is gonna fail miserably. Unity my a$$!
On the plus side, I hear that Air Astana is hiring expats in Kasakhstan. DOH!
Unless they really sweeten the retirement part of the MOU, this next go around is gonna fail miserably. Unity my a$$!
On the plus side, I hear that Air Astana is hiring expats in Kasakhstan. DOH!
Actually we control it. UPS and the IPA have signed the MOU. If we the IPA meet the MOU savings goals then UPS won't furlough until at least 2012. The ball is in our court. If we fail to meet the MOU savings goals and UPS furloughs it is our fault.
If we get close UPS may choose not to furlough because they see and uptick in business or the FAA duty time limits will require additional pilots. I would like to see us meet the goals and shut them up through 2011.
If we get close UPS may choose not to furlough because they see and uptick in business or the FAA duty time limits will require additional pilots. I would like to see us meet the goals and shut them up through 2011.
Im asking to become better informed.
08-20-2010, 04:42 PM
#98
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: MD11 CPT
Posts: 1,077
Im asking to become better informed.[/QUOTE]
Actually, it is you who needs to become better informed. Take the time to review the packet IPA recently sent the FQS' so as to cut through the Lick Ball haze job.
Happy reading!
Actually, it is you who needs to become better informed. Take the time to review the packet IPA recently sent the FQS' so as to cut through the Lick Ball haze job.
Happy reading!
08-21-2010, 03:34 PM
#99
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 62
I have read the benefits comparison from the IPA contracted attorney. Among a few other significant errors this attorney makes, the assumptions made in this analysis are totally off the mark. Her analysis quantifies the total pension packages of an IPA crewmember vs. an FQM after a 20/25/30 year career. This assumes the two individuals are hired at the same time, and stay in their plan their entire career. With all due respect, she did not do an analysis on what is being proposed. What is being proposed is that the FQM exit their current plan at whatever it is worth, and enter the IPA plan at the $3,000/1%-yr accrual. The plans are vastly different in the manner in which the benefit is accrued, and (without boring anyone with details) this transition would decimate the typical FQMs pension. The correct analysis would be to show the total pension benefit if the FQM exited their current plan and entered the IPA plan, vs. staying in their current plan for the remainder of their career.
Or, maybe she actually did this analysis and knew that the integration would be a dead issue if she published the figures. In any case, I'm quite sure that a freshman-year intern in the UPS benefits department could rip this analysis to shreds - and probably is doing that as we speak. Again, I guess you can't turn the clock back.....
08-21-2010, 04:17 PM
#100
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: Left
Posts: 37
If this is such a "bad deal" for the FQS's then it undoubtedly will be supported by UPS.... Don't you think that our benevolent employer would want to shed additional liabilities of the FQS pensions. So which way is it...
I think you realize that the cards will fall towards class and craft and unity. It is just the self interest of the individual contractors under the umbrella of a "management" title that hold back an early decision.
I am glad this information package went out.... It needs to be read by each family so they can (individually) make a decision on their longterm welfare.
Need for Speed you are near the end so "you got yours".... how about the rest of the FQS cadre.... Do they have the same protections as outlined in the package (long term disability, vacations that can be held long term, decision on schedule, choices on where to live etc).
This is truly a win-win for the pilots of UPS. One force that will move together to move the "business" forward. Until we are one group there will always be a detriment to our bottom line. Look at Patagonia, Southwest, Amazon and other successful companies and how they work together.
Time to be on the same page and turn our focus on "growing the business" instead of being mired in labor relation issues.
Your thoughts?
I think you realize that the cards will fall towards class and craft and unity. It is just the self interest of the individual contractors under the umbrella of a "management" title that hold back an early decision.
I am glad this information package went out.... It needs to be read by each family so they can (individually) make a decision on their longterm welfare.
Need for Speed you are near the end so "you got yours".... how about the rest of the FQS cadre.... Do they have the same protections as outlined in the package (long term disability, vacations that can be held long term, decision on schedule, choices on where to live etc).
This is truly a win-win for the pilots of UPS. One force that will move together to move the "business" forward. Until we are one group there will always be a detriment to our bottom line. Look at Patagonia, Southwest, Amazon and other successful companies and how they work together.
Time to be on the same page and turn our focus on "growing the business" instead of being mired in labor relation issues.
Your thoughts?
Last edited by Capt TedStriker; 08-21-2010 at 04:18 PM. Reason: spelling (doh!!)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
