So no reduced credit hours for everyone?
05-03-2020, 02:50 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: CA
Posts: 1,226
Wouldn’t reduced credit max of 60hrs for example do just that and buy us more time to evaluate demand and see if it bounces back? The top of the list may not be worried. However, if we furlough too early and demand shoots up and we’re undermanned, SWA could get our gates and pillage our domestic route structure. That starts to impact everyone in terms of growth, profit sharing, and overall earning potential.
Also, I have yet to see any facts for why reducing credit can be applied at FDX but not United, both ALPA pilot groups.
Also, I have yet to see any facts for why reducing credit can be applied at FDX but not United, both ALPA pilot groups.
05-03-2020, 03:24 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 126
To play devil’s advocate, since I’m naturally inclined to trust the majority that say full pay till the last day, but also smart enough to do my own research...
Wouldn’t reduced credit max of 60hrs for example do just that and buy us more time to evaluate demand and see if it bounces back? The top of the list may not be worried. However, if we furlough too early and demand shoots up and we’re undermanned, SWA could get our gates and pillage our domestic route structure. That starts to impact everyone in terms of growth, profit sharing, and overall earning potential.
Also, I have yet to see any facts for why reducing credit can be applied at FDX but not United, both ALPA pilot groups.
Wouldn’t reduced credit max of 60hrs for example do just that and buy us more time to evaluate demand and see if it bounces back? The top of the list may not be worried. However, if we furlough too early and demand shoots up and we’re undermanned, SWA could get our gates and pillage our domestic route structure. That starts to impact everyone in terms of growth, profit sharing, and overall earning potential.
Also, I have yet to see any facts for why reducing credit can be applied at FDX but not United, both ALPA pilot groups.
Fair question. I don’t want to copy my entire post from the furlough thread, and don’t know how to link it...but I recommend reading it lol. FedEx and SWA have different business models and many other variables for starters.
How do you choose the number of hours and how do you get an equitable return on that concession? One that works for the entire group? And most importantly, how do you guarantee it sticks for now, and snaps back later?
Answer: we cannot control any of those variables, and many of us have experienced the highly negative repercussions of past concessions; in fact, your job would likely be even better today if we hadn’t voluntarily taken concessions in the past. Furlough mitigation is an illusion, and such concessions are not quantifiable because there are too many variables. I’ve been out for half my career here, and I empathize (and am uncertain of my future here as well).
All we have control over is our current contract, and we must defend that in unity so that this job is worth having and returning to. The industry pattern is to scare us into concessions, and then demand more, and then use BK for even more. I have the t-shirts. As soon as we crack our contract for (wrong-way) “openers,” we will have changed the inertia of a couple years of management dragging feet on this very same contract...don’t do it.
05-03-2020, 03:41 PM
#43
On Reserve
Joined APC: May 2020
Posts: 17
Way back in 2002 or 2003...
but the idea was voted down pretty convincingly. Maybe there might be more of a chance now with our pilot group but I can't recall much support for the new folks back then.
05-03-2020, 05:25 PM
#44
Banned
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Position: B-737 Captain
Posts: 657
Call your reps then because it is NOT Todd that brings anything to the pilot group for a vote. The MEC members from the councils make that determination. They will give direction to the negotiators and then listen to any proposal they come back with. The reps will then vote to send it to the pilot group or not. None of the four officers get a vote on that. Don’t pass the buck to anyone and hold your reps feet to the fire. They alone are responsible and need to own their votes.
Done. Thanks. NO CONCESSIONS. PERIOD.
05-04-2020, 06:45 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2013
Posts: 941
Total pilots needed is based on two things.
1. Total pilot hours scheduled
2. Hours per month per pilot
If you were to change the line construction and trip trading rules to say: (just examples not suggesting these as a negotiating stance)
Lines built between 50 and 60 hours
Reserves get 53 hours (say 15 days off instead of 12)
Trip trading hard ceiling at 65 hours of credit time (prorated for months with absences)
You would absolutely need more pilots to fly the pilot hours in item 1 than you need under our current contract.
The problems are many with this. First can you get the company to agree to something like this? Second can you get enough of our current pilots to agree to something like this?
The company says in public they want to have reduced hours for employees so they can more easily expand back when the time comes. However, historically when the actual negotiations come what they really want is to cut expenses as much as they possible can, and that comes with having a lot less pilots that fly a lot more. Not the other way around.
So, in the past the company has wanted to cut your hourly pay and increase the number of hours you work. Keep in mind that reducing hourly pay to $0/hr for pilots would increase item 1 above about .001%, so taking a pay cut does not help the company furlough less. Obviously increasing hours worked per pilot helps them furlough more. We will see when the rubber meets the road in discussions with ALPA if United really is willing to even consider cutting costs in a less efficient manner (reducing flying per pilot) so that they can flex back up faster.
Even if the company is willing to do that, I am not sure we would get the support necessary for it to pass. Certainly not if there are also paycuts in the proposal. Just with the changes to line construction limits and trip trading limits, it would be a tough sell because there would have to be guarantees of when things would return to normal line construction and what other "snap ups" would be guaranteed.
I for one would be willing to consider a narrow approach along these lines that was coupled with the new(overdue) contract on the back side. It would need to have very serious limits and triggers that would determine the length of effectivity as I have no interest in having to negotiate a snap up. I am not too optimistic that we will get offered something that will have enough protections for us on the back end. I think it is going to be a too broad sh!t sandwich that is mostly about cost cutting on our hourly rate side and not nearly enough about true restrictions that could actually mitigate furloughs with no defined end. With that approach there will have plenty of areas that trigger enough outrage to get it shot down.
No matter what they come up with, I believe they are going to furlough. Also, no matter what they come up with, they will try to sell it as a way to mitigate furloughs. The only ways to mitigate furloughs is by reducing the hours flown per pilot or incentivizing pilots to leave. If they tell you cutting our pay per hour is going to cause them to furlough less, they are lying. We have seen that movie and it doesn't end well! So, when they present whatever is negotiated, ask an honest question. How does this reduce furloughs? If the answer has to be explained in a detailed process that will result in less pilots being furloughed, then you know you are being sold ocean front property in Wyoming. If instead the answer is that pilots will only be allowed to credit X numbers of hours per month no matter what and X is below our current values, then we might be getting somewhere.
As always, the devil is in the details, but fundamentally there must be a rock solid no waivers no favors Cap on allowable work for it to actually force the company to keep more pilots. If pilots can waive and go higher, some will, the company knows this, and they will plan their manpower with that assumption so we won't save even 1 furlough.
Be very careful of the salesman that will be coming soon.
05-04-2020, 07:16 AM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Position: NBC
Posts: 781
Concessions don’t save jobs. The company will ask for concessions, then furlough the number of pilots they don’t have work for.
Airlines are businesses, not jobs programs.
05-04-2020, 07:27 AM
#49
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2020
Posts: 26
Once you take a concessionary contract, good luck regaining pay and benefits in the future (maybe in 2-3 contracts down the road).
Concessions don’t save jobs. The company will ask for concessions, then furlough the number of pilots they don’t have work for.
Airlines are businesses, not jobs programs.
Concessions don’t save jobs. The company will ask for concessions, then furlough the number of pilots they don’t have work for.
Airlines are businesses, not jobs programs.
05-04-2020, 07:39 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,085
Total pilots needed is based on two things.
1. Total pilot hours scheduled
2. Hours per month per pilot
If you were to change the line construction and trip trading rules to say: (just examples not suggesting these as a negotiating stance)
Lines built between 50 and 60 hours
Reserves get 53 hours (say 15 days off instead of 12)
Trip trading hard ceiling at 65 hours of credit time (prorated for months with absences)
You would absolutely need more pilots to fly the pilot hours in item 1 than you need under our current contract.
The problems are many with this. First can you get the company to agree to something like this? Second can you get enough of our current pilots to agree to something like this?
The company says in public they want to have reduced hours for employees so they can more easily expand back when the time comes. However, historically when the actual negotiations come what they really want is to cut expenses as much as they possible can, and that comes with having a lot less pilots that fly a lot more. Not the other way around.
So, in the past the company has wanted to cut your hourly pay and increase the number of hours you work. Keep in mind that reducing hourly pay to $0/hr for pilots would increase item 1 above about .001%, so taking a pay cut does not help the company furlough less. Obviously increasing hours worked per pilot helps them furlough more. We will see when the rubber meets the road in discussions with ALPA if United really is willing to even consider cutting costs in a less efficient manner (reducing flying per pilot) so that they can flex back up faster.
Even if the company is willing to do that, I am not sure we would get the support necessary for it to pass. Certainly not if there are also paycuts in the proposal. Just with the changes to line construction limits and trip trading limits, it would be a tough sell because there would have to be guarantees of when things would return to normal line construction and what other "snap ups" would be guaranteed.
I for one would be willing to consider a narrow approach along these lines that was coupled with the new(overdue) contract on the back side. It would need to have very serious limits and triggers that would determine the length of effectivity as I have no interest in having to negotiate a snap up. I am not too optimistic that we will get offered something that will have enough protections for us on the back end. I think it is going to be a too broad sh!t sandwich that is mostly about cost cutting on our hourly rate side and not nearly enough about true restrictions that could actually mitigate furloughs with no defined end. With that approach there will have plenty of areas that trigger enough outrage to get it shot down.
No matter what they come up with, I believe they are going to furlough. Also, no matter what they come up with, they will try to sell it as a way to mitigate furloughs. The only ways to mitigate furloughs is by reducing the hours flown per pilot or incentivizing pilots to leave. If they tell you cutting our pay per hour is going to cause them to furlough less, they are lying. We have seen that movie and it doesn't end well! So, when they present whatever is negotiated, ask an honest question. How does this reduce furloughs? If the answer has to be explained in a detailed process that will result in less pilots being furloughed, then you know you are being sold ocean front property in Wyoming. If instead the answer is that pilots will only be allowed to credit X numbers of hours per month no matter what and X is below our current values, then we might be getting somewhere.
As always, the devil is in the details, but fundamentally there must be a rock solid no waivers no favors Cap on allowable work for it to actually force the company to keep more pilots. If pilots can waive and go higher, some will, the company knows this, and they will plan their manpower with that assumption so we won't save even 1 furlough.
Be very careful of the salesman that will be coming soon.
1. Total pilot hours scheduled
2. Hours per month per pilot
If you were to change the line construction and trip trading rules to say: (just examples not suggesting these as a negotiating stance)
Lines built between 50 and 60 hours
Reserves get 53 hours (say 15 days off instead of 12)
Trip trading hard ceiling at 65 hours of credit time (prorated for months with absences)
You would absolutely need more pilots to fly the pilot hours in item 1 than you need under our current contract.
The problems are many with this. First can you get the company to agree to something like this? Second can you get enough of our current pilots to agree to something like this?
The company says in public they want to have reduced hours for employees so they can more easily expand back when the time comes. However, historically when the actual negotiations come what they really want is to cut expenses as much as they possible can, and that comes with having a lot less pilots that fly a lot more. Not the other way around.
So, in the past the company has wanted to cut your hourly pay and increase the number of hours you work. Keep in mind that reducing hourly pay to $0/hr for pilots would increase item 1 above about .001%, so taking a pay cut does not help the company furlough less. Obviously increasing hours worked per pilot helps them furlough more. We will see when the rubber meets the road in discussions with ALPA if United really is willing to even consider cutting costs in a less efficient manner (reducing flying per pilot) so that they can flex back up faster.
Even if the company is willing to do that, I am not sure we would get the support necessary for it to pass. Certainly not if there are also paycuts in the proposal. Just with the changes to line construction limits and trip trading limits, it would be a tough sell because there would have to be guarantees of when things would return to normal line construction and what other "snap ups" would be guaranteed.
I for one would be willing to consider a narrow approach along these lines that was coupled with the new(overdue) contract on the back side. It would need to have very serious limits and triggers that would determine the length of effectivity as I have no interest in having to negotiate a snap up. I am not too optimistic that we will get offered something that will have enough protections for us on the back end. I think it is going to be a too broad sh!t sandwich that is mostly about cost cutting on our hourly rate side and not nearly enough about true restrictions that could actually mitigate furloughs with no defined end. With that approach there will have plenty of areas that trigger enough outrage to get it shot down.
No matter what they come up with, I believe they are going to furlough. Also, no matter what they come up with, they will try to sell it as a way to mitigate furloughs. The only ways to mitigate furloughs is by reducing the hours flown per pilot or incentivizing pilots to leave. If they tell you cutting our pay per hour is going to cause them to furlough less, they are lying. We have seen that movie and it doesn't end well! So, when they present whatever is negotiated, ask an honest question. How does this reduce furloughs? If the answer has to be explained in a detailed process that will result in less pilots being furloughed, then you know you are being sold ocean front property in Wyoming. If instead the answer is that pilots will only be allowed to credit X numbers of hours per month no matter what and X is below our current values, then we might be getting somewhere.
As always, the devil is in the details, but fundamentally there must be a rock solid no waivers no favors Cap on allowable work for it to actually force the company to keep more pilots. If pilots can waive and go higher, some will, the company knows this, and they will plan their manpower with that assumption so we won't save even 1 furlough.
Be very careful of the salesman that will be coming soon.
ultimately, the company is very motivated to increase pilot productivity and would want to increase hours anyway as demand improves.
the UPA already has caps on line values once people get furloughed - so this is not a new concept. You can easily extend it with a lower number.
The bigger question is whether pilots are willing to go for it. The answer is obviously no looking at the limited sample size of comments on this thread.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
