johnso29

I do have to give LM credit here. The layers of furlough protection kept me off the street. I know Delta was very close to furloughing at the end of 2008.

ExAF

Yes...it is a perfect match to go with the 1970s icons on the screen when using current ICrew and Ecrew!

johnso29

Very true Timbo. I know a guy doing the latest DALPA phone call survey. Speaking to a DTW 7ER A, he asked what would this CA like changed. His response..."I think we should be able to fly as much as we want. I'm tired of never being able to pick up open time!!!". To which the DALPA volunteer responded..."If that was the case we wouldn't need as many 7ER A's. Would you still hold that position?" He was back pedaling after that...."Gee....I never thought about that".

REALLY???

sailingfun

I had a new hire FE back in 99 who was complaining about almost everything. He hated ALPA because we had a cap and it restricted his ability to pick up time. I asked him how much he would fly with no cap and he thought he could credit around 110 hours a month. I said how much would that pay you. He did the math and gave me a number. I said your incorrect!. If we had no cap your pay rate would be zero because you would be on the street furloughed, are you sure you want ALPA to negotiate that?"
I am not sure he really got it. There are pilots right now on the DALPA forum asking for all pickup restrictions to be removed. They don't get it either. We need to work to reduce the pickup limits not increase them. The increase in allowable ALV was one of my bigger stumbling blocks on the new contract. We flew the same number of system wide pilot block hours in 2007 as we did in 2001. We did it however with 2500 fewer pilots. How? Work rule changes and cap increases. I would rather fly in a higher paying category working fewer days a month then a lower paying category with more hours per month.

gloopy

DL would have burned themselved big time in 2010 if they furloughed in 08-09. The "savings" would have been more than eaten up in the massive training churn as well as the lost revenue they could not possibly have ramped up for in time. The layers of protection arguement is still somewhat valid, but at times a bit exagerated.

Timbo

I agree about all the penalties helping to prevent furloughs, I would just add, "NO OVERTIME FLYING" to the list.

The company is 'fat' on pilots right now, fuel prices are very high, yet we just posted one of the highest earning quarters in history, so having extra bodies on the payroll 'doing nothing' is not hurting them at all, in fact, it probably saves them quite a bit of money with every weather event, like Hurricane Sandy.

Having extra bodies on reserve 'doing nothing' is part of the cost of running a RELIABLE, ON TIME, Airline. There are MGT bean counters who are just as greedy as the GS'ing pilots. They would gladly cut manning to have every reserve flying 78hrs. per month, every month, and cover irops only with GS's. There are lots of Pilots who would like to fly 100 a month.

Problem is, when nobody answers the phone on Christmas or Superbowl Sunday, or any snow storm in NYC, things go to heck.

The company could be run a whole lot more efficiently, body count wise (to say nothing of MX spare parts costs!) if they would thin out the fleet types, but they just added a whole new fleet! That takes more pilots off the line for more training, more sitting around waiting for your IOE, etc.

The PILOTS don't decide which airframes the company is going to buy, but Management always wants us to "Be more productive, like SWA!" when they buy them!

The biggest reason SWA is sooo much more efficient and productive than any one else is, they figured that out (single fleet type) a long time ago.

I had Jerry the Genius on my Jumpseat going to AMS about 3 months before bankruptcy, he said back then, they wanted to get down to 2 fleet types, the 737 for domestic, and the 787 for Int. They are obviously doing the 737 thing, but what about the 787? Or A350, Or...?

From what I've seen out of King Richard, he likes all the old, used, cheap airframes he can get. I guess since we train at home on our own dime most of the time, it doesn't cost him as much to train us as it did in the "before time", but still, would think the spare parts night mare alone would make him want to slim down the fleet types to as few as possible.

Timbo

Exactly! More Money, More Time Off!

You get more by flying less, as you move up. Problem is, as more guys in front of you fly more, you don't move up at all, and probably move backwards....and then start picking up more time to make up for the loss, which exacerbates the situation.

Bringing back the Cap/Bow Wave/Spill Back would help solve that.

Too bad we aren't negotiating a new contract any time soon...

johnso29

And part of that training churn was due to the Compass flow back, one of the layers of furlough protection. We as employees are IMO fortunate enough to have managers who are smart enough to realize that the furloughs would've cost more then they were worth. And as you said RA was smart enough to know not only would be ZERO savings from the furloughs, but having the pilots on line allowed quick ramp up of the operation. DAL was the only one NOT to furlough.

RockyBoy

If they can do it without having to use a seat filler for you being gone then they will approve it. If they have to use a seat filler, it costs them more and causes issues with training scheduling. That's what I was told once. Sometimes it takes more assets to let you off than it does to just make you go through.

johnso29

Well said. I agree.