ABX furloughs

[HeavyjetDC8]

The question I think is one of how many DC-9s they won't have to staff rather than how many 767s they will.

Last nights meeting was very disappointing. Either the gross contractual violations aren't taking place or 1224 is at a loss as to what to do about it. Furloughs have been thrown in as a diversion to pull resources away from the ANA issue, although furloughs would now seem inevitable with probably more to come.

I agree that a profitable airline cannot grow without co-operation, but a marginally profitable one can readily be shrunk with no co-operation at all.

 

[xspud]

The company doesn't seem to be in any hurry to get this contract done, so I don't see any reason for us to be. I don't see how our contract will affect parking aircraft or furloughs one way or the other. Both are going to happen or not due to circumstances outside of our control. The only thing that could save some crewmembers jobs is a radically different contractural approach to open flying and that's not going to happen, is it?

Meanwhile, if they build ANA flying to current contract, that's OK with me. If they don't, then we'd better be seeking an injunction ASAP! I'm all in favor of the additional flying, but this job isn't worth keeping if the company won't honor our contract! I was pretty interested in flying over there, but I'm beginning to question the wisdom of 23 days away. So it's probably good that the company stalled and has given us a chance to re-examine this issue. If the company is sincere when it says that furloughs are not negotiation tactics, then it doesn't make any difference how long it takes us to get a contract. Let's stay the course and get the best contract we can.

If I thought that the companies last proposal could save any jobs, I'd call the e-board and say let's put it out for a vote! But I don't believe it for a minute. I'm not speaking from any ivory tower, either. If we don't start buying a bunch more 767's I'll be out the door soon enough myself!

 

[ABXbooger]

Why can't there be a different approach to open flying? A limit on OPF to save a crewmembers job or to allow a person to upgrade to the 767, in either seat?
OPF has become such a thorn in our side it is ridiculous.

Tell me, why can't people make it on just their base salary? You cannot tell me that even the lowest paid crewmember can't make it. It's embarrasing. I try to tell people outside the profession and they can't even believe it.

Sadly, I think I see the first cracks in our unity appearing.

 

[HeavyjetDC8]

Meanwhile, if they build ANA flying to current contract, that's OK with me. If they don't, then we'd better be seeking an injunction ASAP! I'm all in favor of the additional flying, but this job isn't worth keeping if the company won't honor our contract!

Yes indeed. So where's the injunction? I though we were going to hear about one last night, but this wasn't the case. An injunction is sort of like a real bullet, a bullet point isn't. Enough of the bullet point lists - it's now time to fight.

 

[Bitter]

I am ready for War!

 

[xspud]

Why can't there be a different approach to open flying? A limit on OPF to save a crewmembers job or to allow a person to upgrade to the 767, in either seat?
OPF has become such a thorn in our side it is ridiculous.

I agree with you, booger. I wish we could rewrite the whole program. The problem is not just on the pilot's side, though. To preserve jobs the amount of flying that is placed in open time would have to be reduced and the company doesn't want that--reduced productivity. As I understand it, open time came into being because the company wanted more productivity and the pilots wanted more money. This was the compromise. And it worked OK for the pilots while the company was growing. Since we've been stagnant and shrinking it hasn't worked well for a lot of us.

Personally, I have never been interested in working extra days. So I can't claim to be especially virtuous when I say that I've never bid open flying. But I did make a conscious decision to never bid open flying as long as anyone was on furlough. I would be happy to support any initiative to reduce open flying and preserve jobs, though I think it would only save jobs in the short term. Only growth will preserve jobs long term.

I see a lot of unity on the line and a lot of concern for the the impact on junior (less than 10 years!) crewmembers. I think the open flying system we've inherited promotes a basic lack of unity, but the system is pretty deeply rooted. I don't know if it's realistic to expect to overhaul it on short notice. If ABX can survive I hope we can address it. In the meantime, I've seen a lot of our group willing to sacrifice and I appreciate that.

 

[HeavyjetDC8]

The OPF system which allows those very few at the top to nearly double their pay hasn't been in the best interests of the majority - instead of real pay raises we're given the opportunity for additional work. The justification for this during the last civil war within the union (which the good guys lost to the detriment of the majority but advantage to the few) was along the lines of "one day you'll be senior so go along with it".

Many went with it, many are still being carried along by it, and many will no longer ever be senior. "One day it will be your turn" is a premise relying upon continued growth, a growth which unfortunately ran out of steam about a decade ago. Age 65 is also really going to hurt - but not everyone.

 

[abxaviator]

At CAL, we had a higher quarantee (80 hours), but Reserve lines had just 10 days off. As imperfect as it is, our OPF system does allow one the CHOICE (respective of seniority) to have more days off or to add to one's income. I personally would not support an increase in hours with a mandatory increase in work days. Perhaps the answer lies within a limit to the number of days of OPF one may bid.

Having said that, as others have posted, that would be only a short term (1-2 year) fix. Once staffing adjusted to a new system, if there were then continued reductions in flying, the junior would again be at risk. This is and will always be true. Even with an elimination of OPF, while it would initially require the furloughess to be brought back and likely many new hires, again with redeuctions in flying those at the junior end would still be in jeopardy; but then it would be somebody else junior, so that's okay, I guess. Only growth can protect jobs, but, then, when we were growing OPF was not an issue.

This is the system we were hired into (at least those of us at the junior end) and in essence, what is being asked, is that everyone's potential income be cut between 0-50% to temporarily fix staffing. Perhaps that is prudent, perhaps foolish, my crystal ball isn't helping with this. There is no such thing as the perfect system which will please everyone.

 

[FreightBumper]

COF bidding

This is a little off the subject, but Mark Detroit put out to schedulers that we had agreed to a contract and would be bidding cof by this weekend. I checked the hot lines and this is NOT true. This is disinformation (read lie) and is designed to fracture the group even more. I told one of the schedulers this and s o now they know the rest of the story. Pass the word.

 

[Bitter]

in essence, what is being asked, is that everyone's potential income be cut between 0-50% to temporarily fix staffing. Perhaps that is prudent, perhaps foolish, my crystal ball isn't helping with this. There is no such thing as the perfect system which will please everyone.

I am sure you did not forget that our furloughed brethren took a 100% hit.

I agree with the rest of your post, no amount of changes can save job losses at an airline in its death dive.......Are we that airline? Is our present brain trust in the flight dept. capable of leading us to growth? (I realise they inherited GonnawayDonnaways mess) None the less, the present Bob le is not his creation......

I think it is time to spring clean the way things are done! It is very negative.

On the OPF front, we should in my opinion, reduce it by the small % necessary to preserve jobs, with snap backs to the 13% level for the company if we grow. This helps us now and rewards them latter if they get the act in order. At least this is some what win, win. For them, for Junior and Senior alike....! Not perfect I know.

We should negotiate contractually, the minute the first guys walks, the OPF should reduce. This is an insentive for the company to exhaust all reasonable avenues prior to furlough. Not to use furlough as a hammer with which to negotiate with. It should be a last ditch effort to protect the company from fiscal harm. Is a Chapter 11 in the works.....Or are we making money.

It also shows that they care about the people that make the airline work!

Why furloughing is bad for business..........It is a very short term thing to do. If your focus is on the long term, the well being of your business and its people, you don't do it.

Does this proves that Abx is not focusing on the long term? Is it a short sighted entity that does not care?

If you treat your people poorly your business and your customers business suffers.

May be the furlough is managements way of saying......Hey stock holders, DHL, ANA and employees of Abx, we are not in this for the long haul. We don't see a future beyond tomorrow. So we are gonna furlough!

Pretty frightening if you look at it with this respect.

As a united group we need to stop thinking of what is good for me now and think about what will postition us all, to still be high wage earners 5,10,15 years from now.

Food for thought.......OUT!