----------------
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