US Pilot Labor Thread 11/3-11/9

[traderjake]

Name one other labor organization in which 40% of the potential members have failed to participate.

Name another labor organization where 60% are trying to steal the jobs of the 40%.

 

[Elevation]

Can anybody comment on the the latest pilot bid 9-01 on what it means for furloughs? It looks to me that they will be short in FEB 09 but I don't think I follow logic of that system.

 

[Phoenix]

Name another labor organization where 60% are trying to steal the jobs of the 40%.

Yesterday the accusation was "stealing seniority" today its "stealing jobs". What's next? "stealing the oxygen out of the air"?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Can anybody comment on the the latest pilot bid 9-01 on what it means for furloughs?

It's a shift of A320 time (increase in CLT offsets losses in PHL & LGA), a loss of 757D (looks like 2 airplanes worth), and a gain in E190 time (loss in PHL more than offset by gain in CLT, net about 3 planes worth).

They're doing what they've done every furlough since 91 - shrink the number of jobs (by cutting reserve count) to match net attrition - in this case 26 jobs. For example, the CLT 757D loses 10 primary lines in each seat, but loses 6 Capt/9 FO jobs reserve jobs. The CLT A330 is keeping the same number of primary lines but losing 2 Capt and 3 FO reserve positions. Spread that here and there around the system and 26 jobs disappear.

Jim

 

[GorgeousGeorge]

It's a shift of A320 time (increase in CLT offsets losses in PHL & LGA), a loss of 757D (looks like 2 airplanes worth), and a gain in E190 time (loss in PHL more than offset by gain in CLT, net about 3 planes worth).

They're doing what they've done every furlough since 91 - shrink the number of jobs (by cutting reserve count) to match net attrition - in this case 26 jobs. For example, the CLT 757D loses 10 primary lines in each seat, but loses 6 Capt/9 FO jobs reserve jobs. The CLT A330 is keeping the same number of primary lines but losing 2 Capt and 3 FO reserve positions. Spread that here and there around the system and 26 jobs disappear.

Jim

Funny how that attrition works. It can provide the benefit of job advancement or help protect against job loss/furlough.

 

[Freighterguynow]

For example, the CLT 757D loses 10 primary lines in each seat, but loses 6 Capt/9 FO jobs reserve jobs. The CLT A330 is keeping the same number of primary lines but losing 2 Capt and 3 FO reserve positions. Spread that here and there around the system and 26 jobs disappear.

Jim

Partly true there Jim. The 26 count reduction is certainly tied to attrition.

The rest is trying to find the proper way to handle ( IMO ) the International fluctuations. You are correct that CLT will lose 35 757 domestic positions but PHL gains 34. CLT A-330 is down by 5 but PHL is up by 12.

RP just keeps tweaking the numbers assuming pilots will follow the equipment. In reality, they do not - they simply displace into another equipment type and push someone else down the line. So, we all train and train and train .....

 

[BoeingBoy]

If you'd read the sentence prior to the part you quoted:

They're doing what they've done every furlough since 91 - shrink the number of jobs (by cutting reserve count) to match net attrition - in this case 26 jobs.

you'd see that what you quoted was refering to the loss of reserve positions to offset the net attrition. The two examples I gave were to illustrate that point, not to be a recap of every change systemwide.

Jim

 

[Freighterguynow]

Thank you for so clearly summing up the heart of the DFR case in one sentence.

Tyranny of the Majority to evade final and binding.

I see many parallels between the union vote and Prop 8 in California.

“We're going through the democratic process,â€￾ Hamer said. “We've seen the will of the people two times in California, first with Proposition 22 in 2000 and this year with Proposition 8. In both cases, the people have spoken.â€￾

vs

“We will send the message to California that although Prop. 8 passed, we will not give up. We will fight this fight until we have our civil rights.â€￾

I'm not taking sides on either issue BTW, just asking if not Democracy then what?

 

[Phoenix]

I see many parallels between the union vote and Prop 8 in California.

It is also ironic that both issues rest upon the definition of long accepted terms, and a couple "judges" that "discovered" the historical definitions were wrong.

 

[electricjet98]

hp fa,

Can you explain in layman's terms, how a hybrid DFR may differ from a regular DFR in terms of venue, timeframe etc?

 

[hp_fa]

hp fa,

Can you explain in layman's terms, how a hybrid DFR may differ from a regular DFR in terms of venue, timeframe etc?

Nope.

I didn't have much experience in labor law (and none in the area of DFR suits) and would not care to hazard what would essentially be a guess. I do believe that Judge Wake will fashion his Order, whatever that may be, with careful consideration of the positions of the parties and the applicable law. I also found it interesting that Judge Wake apparently announced that if there are any triable issues that he would have that proceeding in January 2009. That caught my attention because it is much sooner than most matters are set for trial.

 

[Elevation]

It's a shift of A320 time (increase in CLT offsets losses in PHL & LGA), a loss of 757D (looks like 2 airplanes worth), and a gain in E190 time (loss in PHL more than offset by gain in CLT, net about 3 planes worth).

They're doing what they've done every furlough since 91 - shrink the number of jobs (by cutting reserve count) to match net attrition - in this case 26 jobs. For example, the CLT 757D loses 10 primary lines in each seat, but loses 6 Capt/9 FO jobs reserve jobs. The CLT A330 is keeping the same number of primary lines but losing 2 Capt and 3 FO reserve positions. Spread that here and there around the system and 26 jobs disappear.

Jim

What does the vacancies for Feb mean at the bottom of the bid? looks like they have 109 vacancies and 91 displacements. Does that mean they will reduce furloughs by 18? Thanks again Jim.

 

[electricjet98]

I didn't have much experience in labor law (and none in the area of DFR suits) and would not care to hazard what would essentially be a guess.

Well that hasn't stopped a bunch of others here!

Thanks for offering your "other" unbiased opinions.

 

[electricjet98]

And just to throw in my own two cents, I believe that AOL's resistance to offer bond to indemnify LCC may be the tipping point for the Judge to find against the injunction. I believe he feels that their is a probable claim against USAPA and LCC, but with the lack of bond, will elect to have it settled in his court starting in January. Never the less, I believe his future statement may send a strong message to all parties regarding his opinion of their actions to this point.

 

[BoeingBoy]

What does the vacancies for Feb mean at the bottom of the bid? looks like they have 109 vacancies and 91 displacements. Does that mean they will reduce furloughs by 18? Thanks again Jim.

Unfortunately not, although changes between the time the bid was posted and when awarded can affect the furloughs - increasing or decreasing them.

The info at the bottom of the bid is based on changes that have happened since the last bid was awarded - pilots leaving the line as well as returning to the line. Taking the CLT 757D for an example again. If you look at the October bid (08-04) and February bid (09-01) positions, you'll see that total positions go from 100/101 Capt/FO to 84/82 Capt/FO. That's a reduction of 16 Captain and 19 FO positions. However, the table at the end shows reductions of 16/18 Capt/FO - the same for Capt but 1 less for FO. What likely happened is that in the mix of people returning to or leaving the line since the last bid, there is already one less FO than the October bid award shows (100 instead of 101) so the actual reduction in currently filled positions is 18 instead of 19.

The same can happen with the vacancies shown in the table at the end of the bid. Take a look at CLT A319 - total positions go from 200/191 Capt/FO on the Oct bid to 200/197 Capt/FO for the Feb bid, showing no change in the Capt seat and 6 additional positions in the FO seat. Yet the table at the end shows 2/10 Capt/FO vacancies. That tells you that there are 2 empty Capt jobs and 4 empty FO jobs on top of the increase of 6 FO jobs. So since the last bid was awarded, a net of 2 CLT A319 captains left that position, creating the 2 vacancies. Likewise, 4 FO's net left their jobs creating the 4 additional vacancies.

The pages for the last bid and this bid show the changes in actual positions, as do the tables at the beginning of the bid (net gain/loss and primary lines summary). The table at the end gives actual vacancies/reductions expected when the current bid was posted. Like always, though, the movement of individual pilots as the award process is carried out can change those numbers up or down.

I guess the best way to sum it up is this - pretty much everything in the bid packet shows the change in the number of jobs, while the table at the end shows the number of vacant jobs (vacancies) or number of extra pilots actually in a particular job (reductions).

Jim