Question regarding pilot furloughs.

Andy S.

Member
Dec 21, 2002
26
0
Does anyone have information on total United pilot furloughs to date and approximately how many more are expected under the new working agreement?

thanks in advance!

Andy S.
 
1402 to date.
30 more on May 1.
Expect reductions of approximately 50/month for quite a while.

The company estimates 1000 additional furloughs; UAL ALPA estimates that the new contract leaves the pilots overmanned by about 700 in three years.
At 350/year retirement, that means 1750 less pilots.
I''d tend to lean toward ALPA''s estimate; the new contract reduces quality of life for pilots greatly.
 
----------------
On 4/3/2003 1:25:05 PM iflyjetz wrote:

1402 to date.
30 more on May 1.
Expect reductions of approximately 50/month for quite a while.

The company estimates 1000 additional furloughs; UAL ALPA estimates that the new contract leaves the pilots overmanned by about 700 in three years.
At 350/year retirement, that means 1750 less pilots.
I''d tend to lean toward ALPA''s estimate; the new contract reduces quality of life for pilots greatly.

----------------​
Where does this lay in terms of hire date? An old friend of mine was hired mid 97. Will he (not) make the cut?

FF
 
Mid ''97 will be OK. Even 1000 furloughs would go to appx. early ''98. (March/April) It would take around 18 months to furlough 1000 pilots. As we all know, a lot can happen in 18 months.

I still think ALPA''s # of 700 is more accurate, but no one knows for sure. 700 would go back to around October ''98.
 
----------------
On 4/4/2003 9:22:05 AM 767jetz wrote:

Mid ''97 will be OK. Even 1000 furloughs would go to appx. early ''98. (March/April) It would take around 18 months to furlough 1000 pilots. As we all know, a lot can happen in 18 months.

I still think ALPA''s # of 700 is more accurate, but no one knows for sure. 700 would go back to around October ''98.


----------------​

I have been corrected on my assumption of 50 furloughs/month. With the new contract, they could furlough 200/month for several months, gradually increasing the number of hours in FO lines on the A320 and 737. Under that scenario, it wouldn''t be too hard for the company to shed 1500 more jobs by the end of the year.
 
----------------
On 4/5/2003 10:09:05 AM iflyjetz wrote:

I have been corrected on my assumption of 50 furloughs/month. With the new contract, they could furlough 200/month for several months, gradually increasing the number of hours in FO lines on the A320 and 737. Under that scenario, it wouldn''t be too hard for the company to shed 1500 more jobs by the end of the year.

----------------​

Just wondering where you got the new info from. Is ALPA now saying more than 700? Has the company estimate of 1000 changed? Or were those your own best guess based on previous info?
 
P.W. said in both DEN and SFO there would be approximately 700 furloughs, taking into account retirements over the time to implement the agreement.

Denver,CO
 
----------------
On 4/5/2003 3:13:15 PM 767jetz wrote:

Just wondering where you got the new info from. Is ALPA now saying more than 700? Has the company estimate of 1000 changed? Or were those your own best guess based on previous info?

----------------​

I cranked out a few numbers; it''s my best WAG.
PW said that it''ll UAL three years to fully implement the work rule changes. Bull.
UAL can chop a ton of 737 & A320 FOs and start building the FO lines to 95 hours.
They don''t need to wait until replacements are trained before furloughing; they can start whacking away at the seniority list immediately. I''d expect a few large surpluses, keeping TK busy for quite a while.
How many pilots do you figure could be furloughed on Jun 1 if UAL built 737 and A320 lines to 95 hours?

I don''t know if you''ve read APA''s letter to its pilots. They were specific on how many jobs were lost for each work rule change, and they compared their changes to UAL''s. Makes you wonder how PW made the statement that he did (only 700 furloughs). Maybe PW''s banking on a lot of early retirements? Doubtful now that the A fund''s safe.
 
----------------
On 4/7/2003 10:28:27 AM iflyjetz wrote:


UAL can chop a ton of 737 & A320 FOs and start building the FO lines to 95 hours.
They don''t need to wait until replacements are trained before furloughing; they can start whacking away at the seniority list immediately. I''d expect a few large surpluses, keeping TK busy for quite a while.
How many pilots do you figure could be furloughed on Jun 1 if UAL built 737 and A320 lines to 95 hours?

I don''t know if you''ve read APA''s letter to its pilots. They were specific on how many jobs were lost for each work rule change, and they compared their changes to UAL''s. Makes you wonder how PW made the statement that he did (only 700 furloughs). Maybe PW''s banking on a lot of early retirements? Doubtful now that the A fund''s safe.

----------------​

Actually I believe, for good reason, that PW''s numbers are pretty close. Here''s why:

1. Over double the number of Guard/Reserve pilots were activated for Gulf War II than in the first war. This number is over 200 and affects mostly junior pilots.

2. Yes, a higher number of early retirements will impact total furlough numbers. 250+ since the BK filing on 9 December. Even though the A & B funds are still in the current agreement, the 30 year cap for credit on years of service, higher retiree medical, and lower wages in the out years makes going early (prior to 1 May) a very sensible move for dozens of guys that have maxed out their best years and are within a year or two of retirement and over 30 years service. I think we''ll see another 15-30 early retirements prior to 1 May.

3. When has UAL ever scheduled with 100% efficiency? In theory you''re right, they could immediately go to 95 hours on the 300/320 fleets. I don''t think that''ll happen anytime soon.

4. PBS most likely won''t be implemented system-wide for 6-12 months. (I believe contractually they have 18 months.) Again, unless it''s in place you don''t get the efficiency it''s expected to deliver (i.e. pilots out the bottom).

I believe the biggest factor in the short term affecting furloughs will be the continued softness of the economy and the impact of SARS on our Pacific operations. However, having said that, the danger of cutting too much too soon (i.e. 89/95 hours) and thinning the ranks is that if/when things turn around it takes much longer to spool up. A more likely scenario is the Company will be building LOW lines (65-70 hours), especially in the wide-body fleets that are likely to be more affected by the SARS scare in the Pacific and the associated pull-back in flying. This of course (hopefully) will be short-lived and then the hours will flex back to a more normal range.

Just my thoughts.

Cheers,
Z
 
ZMAN777,

Thanks for the positive perspective. I tend to agree with your assessment. I find that ALPA (and particularly PW) is cautious about what''s said in public. If he is quoting 700, then I would believe that the # is pretty close.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top