So no reduced credit hours for everyone?
05-06-2020, 07:15 AM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 737 fo
Posts: 908
The best guys I have seen lead are those that don’t think they are the smartest but go out and get the smartest to work for them. Gordon Bethune and Oscar did this.
The worst are those that think they are the smartest in the room. Jeff Smisek was definitely in that category. Kirby also seems to fall into this category. It is concerning.
The worst are those that think they are the smartest in the room. Jeff Smisek was definitely in that category. Kirby also seems to fall into this category. It is concerning.
05-06-2020, 07:23 AM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2017
Posts: 105
I understand where people are just discussing reduced hours to save the bottom guys like me. Couldn't this be done in a very specific way as to not destroy the contract?
Not saying this is the answer, but something laid out specifically like this
1) All line holder guarantee will decrease from 70 hours to 60 hours. Minimum days off increases from 12 to 14 days off.
2) All reserve pilots will decreases from 73 hours to 63 hours. Minimum days off increases from 12/13 to 14/15 days off.
3) No pilot may pick up flying that would go over 70 hours.
As a result of #1 and #2, we will save 10 hours per active pilot. Multiply each pilots savings on a dollar basis and that MUST be put into a pool to then be proven to be given to the most junior pilot that is on the chopping block. That pilot would be 60 hours at their blended rate and that money would be taken out of the pool.
When the company must increase line values as a result of an increase in demand, they shall begin with the most senior pilot and increase their rates back to 70 and 73 hours. They continue down the list until everyone is back to normal. Essentially, the most senior pilots would be made whole first while the more junior ones stay at the reduced pay but at least still have a paycheck.
I feel like if something is done very specifically and very thoroughly it wouldn't be a long term thing that would have to be negotiated back, but something that can be easily achieved.
Thoughts on why this can't work?
Not saying this is the answer, but something laid out specifically like this
1) All line holder guarantee will decrease from 70 hours to 60 hours. Minimum days off increases from 12 to 14 days off.
2) All reserve pilots will decreases from 73 hours to 63 hours. Minimum days off increases from 12/13 to 14/15 days off.
3) No pilot may pick up flying that would go over 70 hours.
As a result of #1 and #2, we will save 10 hours per active pilot. Multiply each pilots savings on a dollar basis and that MUST be put into a pool to then be proven to be given to the most junior pilot that is on the chopping block. That pilot would be 60 hours at their blended rate and that money would be taken out of the pool.
When the company must increase line values as a result of an increase in demand, they shall begin with the most senior pilot and increase their rates back to 70 and 73 hours. They continue down the list until everyone is back to normal. Essentially, the most senior pilots would be made whole first while the more junior ones stay at the reduced pay but at least still have a paycheck.
I feel like if something is done very specifically and very thoroughly it wouldn't be a long term thing that would have to be negotiated back, but something that can be easily achieved.
Thoughts on why this can't work?
1. A large portion of the cost of labor in this country is not your actual pay check. The company pays a ton of money just to keep you on property in the form of taxes, insurance, etc.
2. The changes you propose here are so insignificant that they would likely barely constitute a rounding error on the company balance sheets. Go dig into a 10K and take a look at labor costs and realize that your hourly pay check is just a small part of that.
There are a great many things about this time that are indeed different, the futility of concessions is not one of them. You can learn it the hard way or you can learn it the easy way. It didn't work last time and the severity of this situation is several orders of magnitude greater than anything this industry has ever faced, I guarantee you it won't work this time.
UAL, and all the airlines for that matter, are facing an existential crisis. It is highly likely that at least a few of them will not make it through this. Pretty much the only thing that matters is whether or not people choose to go back to traveling in short order.
Right now UAL needs about 1350 pilots to cover all the flying, that's not a typo, 1350. Let that sink in...
05-06-2020, 08:15 AM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 963
I thought management would have accept the higher costs in being overstaffed at 50 hours in order to remain agile for when demand returns. They had another way though: a flush bid and then short cycle us into our old seats when demand returns. I was pro-50hrs before the displacements. But now there's nothing left to save, really. 50 hours could have kept us in our seats, a major advantage, now gone. There's really not much point in accepting fewer hours now.
05-06-2020, 08:45 AM
#64
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 1,358
I thought management would have accept the higher costs in being overstaffed at 50 hours in order to remain agile for when demand returns. They had another way though: a flush bid and then short cycle us into our old seats when demand returns. I was pro-50hrs before the displacements. But now there's nothing left to save, really. 50 hours could have kept us in our seats, a major advantage, now gone. There's really not much point in accepting fewer hours now.
05-06-2020, 09:03 AM
#65
Orbis Non Sufficit
Joined APC: Oct 2015
Posts: 735
I thought management would have accept the higher costs in being overstaffed at 50 hours in order to remain agile for when demand returns. They had another way though: a flush bid and then short cycle us into our old seats when demand returns. I was pro-50hrs before the displacements. But now there's nothing left to save, really. 50 hours could have kept us in our seats, a major advantage, now gone. There's really not much point in accepting fewer hours now.
This situation sucks hugely, but if we are honest with ourselves we can’t say they are mismanaging it. Not yet, anyhow....
05-06-2020, 10:10 AM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2019
Posts: 177
The best guys I have seen lead are those that don’t think they are the smartest but go out and get the smartest to work for them. Gordon Bethune and Oscar did this.
The worst are those that think they are the smartest in the room. Jeff Smisek was definitely in that category. Kirby also seems to fall into this category. It is concerning.
The worst are those that think they are the smartest in the room. Jeff Smisek was definitely in that category. Kirby also seems to fall into this category. It is concerning.
05-06-2020, 10:12 AM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 425
I understand where people are just discussing reduced hours to save the bottom guys like me. Couldn't this be done in a very specific way as to not destroy the contract?
Not saying this is the answer, but something laid out specifically like this
1) All line holder guarantee will decrease from 70 hours to 60 hours. Minimum days off increases from 12 to 14 days off.
2) All reserve pilots will decreases from 73 hours to 63 hours. Minimum days off increases from 12/13 to 14/15 days off.
3) No pilot may pick up flying that would go over 70 hours.
As a result of #1 and #2, we will save 10 hours per active pilot. Multiply each pilots savings on a dollar basis and that MUST be put into a pool to then be proven to be given to the most junior pilot that is on the chopping block. That pilot would be 60 hours at their blended rate and that money would be taken out of the pool.
When the company must increase line values as a result of an increase in demand, they shall begin with the most senior pilot and increase their rates back to 70 and 73 hours. They continue down the list until everyone is back to normal. Essentially, the most senior pilots would be made whole first while the more junior ones stay at the reduced pay but at least still have a paycheck.
I feel like if something is done very specifically and very thoroughly it wouldn't be a long term thing that would have to be negotiated back, but something that can be easily achieved.
Thoughts on why this can't work?
Not saying this is the answer, but something laid out specifically like this
1) All line holder guarantee will decrease from 70 hours to 60 hours. Minimum days off increases from 12 to 14 days off.
2) All reserve pilots will decreases from 73 hours to 63 hours. Minimum days off increases from 12/13 to 14/15 days off.
3) No pilot may pick up flying that would go over 70 hours.
As a result of #1 and #2, we will save 10 hours per active pilot. Multiply each pilots savings on a dollar basis and that MUST be put into a pool to then be proven to be given to the most junior pilot that is on the chopping block. That pilot would be 60 hours at their blended rate and that money would be taken out of the pool.
When the company must increase line values as a result of an increase in demand, they shall begin with the most senior pilot and increase their rates back to 70 and 73 hours. They continue down the list until everyone is back to normal. Essentially, the most senior pilots would be made whole first while the more junior ones stay at the reduced pay but at least still have a paycheck.
I feel like if something is done very specifically and very thoroughly it wouldn't be a long term thing that would have to be negotiated back, but something that can be easily achieved.
Thoughts on why this can't work?
05-06-2020, 11:24 AM
#68
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2013
Position: 737 IAH
Posts: 44
I'm not negotiating in public. What I did was present a very specific example in that may not even be feasible. In no way did I say that the pilot group, including me, would even accept that. What I'm saying is why wouldn't we consider something that is very specific? Everyone says it's not possible to help out the junior folks because it tears down the UPA and we'll never get it back. What I'm saying is that the MEC and NC do not have to negotiate something that ruins the UPA by being generic and vague, but make something specific that makes it impossible for them to take advantage of us long term all while maintaining jobs. Yes, there are additional costs other than just the hourly paycheck. You have the B-fund, all the other types of insurance, etc. But those are easily calculated since they seem to do just fine doing that every paycheck. I'm sure the company knows what the cost savings in a dollar amount is per each pilot and can use that number to apply it to a more junior person. Now: do they want to? Probably not. Too much work. They don't care. Core4 is just a marketing strategy.
05-06-2020, 12:38 PM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,085
I'm not negotiating in public. What I did was present a very specific example in that may not even be feasible. In no way did I say that the pilot group, including me, would even accept that. What I'm saying is why wouldn't we consider something that is very specific? Everyone says it's not possible to help out the junior folks because it tears down the UPA and we'll never get it back. What I'm saying is that the MEC and NC do not have to negotiate something that ruins the UPA by being generic and vague, but make something specific that makes it impossible for them to take advantage of us long term all while maintaining jobs. Yes, there are additional costs other than just the hourly paycheck. You have the B-fund, all the other types of insurance, etc. But those are easily calculated since they seem to do just fine doing that every paycheck. I'm sure the company knows what the cost savings in a dollar amount is per each pilot and can use that number to apply it to a more junior person. Now: do they want to? Probably not. Too much work. They don't care. Core4 is just a marketing strategy.
getting it accepted by comparison or pilot group is another issue but the logic is completely sound and would not compromise the UPA as the company has every incentive to increase productivity at the first possible opportunity.
05-06-2020, 04:25 PM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 425
i fully agree - your proposal should work just fine.
getting it accepted by comparison or pilot group is another issue but the logic is completely sound and would not compromise the UPA as the company has every incentive to increase productivity at the first possible opportunity.
getting it accepted by comparison or pilot group is another issue but the logic is completely sound and would not compromise the UPA as the company has every incentive to increase productivity at the first possible opportunity.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
