Phrogs4ever
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2001
- Posts
- 176
Or this...I wish I could remember the pilot that explained this, but these are not my words. Sounds to me like the most objective, level headed assessment of why the 737s went away from both sides, and why s-CAL had so many fewer furloughees. That roaring sound from the current system bid is the sound of new staffing requirements from the contract, new FT/DT requirements on the horizen, delivery of deferred airplanes, and age 65 retirements hitting at the same time.
"The UAL guys are clearly in the dark about what happened over here at CAL as well so perhaps we need to re-educate. We also took our hits and shrunk pretty significantly in 2008. Was that a "right-size" for the merger too? IF this guy were right (he's not, there is no evidence whatsoever that the "guppies" were parked for this merger), his argument would still hold zero leverage or influence of an ISL whatsoever because... while they parked 94 B737s, we parked 67 B737s. IOW, it's a wash. We parked just as many planes, on a per capita basis, during that exact same period. It had nothing to do with any phantom merger, it was simply a result of the dire economic situation at the time. Oil was $147 a barrel, the traveling public was cutting back due to economic uncertainty, Bush was on TV every night explaining why the government would have to produce a TARP package to save our economy from collapse (just prior to the election), and corporate travel departments were slashing budgets. THAT is why both of our airlines parked B737s, not because of a merger that was still almost 2 years away.
Our scenario at that time was wrought with challenges too. It wasn't all that dissimilar from UAL's situation (inefficient aircraft in the face of skyrocketing fuel) except that we had better contract language to force a different outcome, AND we had 111 aircraft on order at that time, AND we, as a union, got out ahead of the problem early to effectuate a lesser blow to our pilot group. Furthermore, our career expectations were better so the company didn't need to furlough as many because they could only defer so many aircraft delivers (most of those deferrals are finally resulting in deliveries today).
The difference between the plight of our pilots and their furloughees is that our management didn't have an option for replacing that lift like UAL did. As we all know, UAL was able to utilize 70 seaters and shift that lift to said aircraft almost immediately. Our management used a phased out option instead because the 50-seaters could only accomodate so much lift and we didn't want to pull out of too many markets (though we did abandon many, for example EWR-SJC). They phased out or sold our older -300s and most of our -500s over a longer period as new aircraft deliveries came on board. That allowed us to soften the blow of our furlough plans.
In June of 2008 I was asked to join the Furlough Assistance committee to help give my expertise on overseas contract flying and COLAs. I was pretty surprised to learn that CAL management had plans to furlough up to 700+ pilots. I was a pretty new Captain in EWR so I knew my days in that seat would be limited if a furlough was coming. Still, none of the line pilots believed we would furlough until we actually did. Some guys just didn't want to face the truth. I did, so I got involved and rolled up my sleeves by joining the committee that could help soften the blow. Everyone else thought the company was bluffing in order to get us to sign the JV LOA. Regardless of that, our committee had a mission: to minimize that 700+ number as low as we possibly could. We knew a furlough was coming by September, we just didn't know how much. Management told us they wanted 700+ fewer bodies, we had to find a way to mitigate that. Y'all may recall we devised a multi-pronged approach that included, 1) an Early-out package 2) COLAs (that's where we brought the contract companies in, to show pilots there are high-paying jobs if you take a COLA. I took one). 3) LPA reductions 4) VRF lines 5) We got the ability to drop trips enhanced (I think to as low as 40 hrs). We spent the summer working on that project, many of us tirelessly and we were able to get that number reduced to 147. I have to give JP credit in this as he helped negotiate these items and pulled out all stops to get it done. And, to be fair, Fred Abbott worked with us in a very positive manner as well.
The point is, we were much more progressive and proactive than any other union in the country at the time and our efforts resulted in a sizable reduction of furloughs (our company was much more proactive as well). UALALPA, by contrast, didn't take the same approach. I surmise that the 1437 furloughed UAL pilots could've been reduced by 70% if they didn't have the 70-seater provision in their contract, had new aircraft on order, initiated an aggressive furlough mitigation campaign like we did at CAL, and had more pilots willing to take an early-out option. So the blame for their plight, while easy to cite the merger as the culprit, has more to do with their own internal union politics coupled with the perfect storm of parabolic oil prices, age-65, and the worst economic crisis in over 70 years."
"The UAL guys are clearly in the dark about what happened over here at CAL as well so perhaps we need to re-educate. We also took our hits and shrunk pretty significantly in 2008. Was that a "right-size" for the merger too? IF this guy were right (he's not, there is no evidence whatsoever that the "guppies" were parked for this merger), his argument would still hold zero leverage or influence of an ISL whatsoever because... while they parked 94 B737s, we parked 67 B737s. IOW, it's a wash. We parked just as many planes, on a per capita basis, during that exact same period. It had nothing to do with any phantom merger, it was simply a result of the dire economic situation at the time. Oil was $147 a barrel, the traveling public was cutting back due to economic uncertainty, Bush was on TV every night explaining why the government would have to produce a TARP package to save our economy from collapse (just prior to the election), and corporate travel departments were slashing budgets. THAT is why both of our airlines parked B737s, not because of a merger that was still almost 2 years away.
Our scenario at that time was wrought with challenges too. It wasn't all that dissimilar from UAL's situation (inefficient aircraft in the face of skyrocketing fuel) except that we had better contract language to force a different outcome, AND we had 111 aircraft on order at that time, AND we, as a union, got out ahead of the problem early to effectuate a lesser blow to our pilot group. Furthermore, our career expectations were better so the company didn't need to furlough as many because they could only defer so many aircraft delivers (most of those deferrals are finally resulting in deliveries today).
The difference between the plight of our pilots and their furloughees is that our management didn't have an option for replacing that lift like UAL did. As we all know, UAL was able to utilize 70 seaters and shift that lift to said aircraft almost immediately. Our management used a phased out option instead because the 50-seaters could only accomodate so much lift and we didn't want to pull out of too many markets (though we did abandon many, for example EWR-SJC). They phased out or sold our older -300s and most of our -500s over a longer period as new aircraft deliveries came on board. That allowed us to soften the blow of our furlough plans.
In June of 2008 I was asked to join the Furlough Assistance committee to help give my expertise on overseas contract flying and COLAs. I was pretty surprised to learn that CAL management had plans to furlough up to 700+ pilots. I was a pretty new Captain in EWR so I knew my days in that seat would be limited if a furlough was coming. Still, none of the line pilots believed we would furlough until we actually did. Some guys just didn't want to face the truth. I did, so I got involved and rolled up my sleeves by joining the committee that could help soften the blow. Everyone else thought the company was bluffing in order to get us to sign the JV LOA. Regardless of that, our committee had a mission: to minimize that 700+ number as low as we possibly could. We knew a furlough was coming by September, we just didn't know how much. Management told us they wanted 700+ fewer bodies, we had to find a way to mitigate that. Y'all may recall we devised a multi-pronged approach that included, 1) an Early-out package 2) COLAs (that's where we brought the contract companies in, to show pilots there are high-paying jobs if you take a COLA. I took one). 3) LPA reductions 4) VRF lines 5) We got the ability to drop trips enhanced (I think to as low as 40 hrs). We spent the summer working on that project, many of us tirelessly and we were able to get that number reduced to 147. I have to give JP credit in this as he helped negotiate these items and pulled out all stops to get it done. And, to be fair, Fred Abbott worked with us in a very positive manner as well.
The point is, we were much more progressive and proactive than any other union in the country at the time and our efforts resulted in a sizable reduction of furloughs (our company was much more proactive as well). UALALPA, by contrast, didn't take the same approach. I surmise that the 1437 furloughed UAL pilots could've been reduced by 70% if they didn't have the 70-seater provision in their contract, had new aircraft on order, initiated an aggressive furlough mitigation campaign like we did at CAL, and had more pilots willing to take an early-out option. So the blame for their plight, while easy to cite the merger as the culprit, has more to do with their own internal union politics coupled with the perfect storm of parabolic oil prices, age-65, and the worst economic crisis in over 70 years."
