airtran furloughs

[Ty Webb]

I don't think this to be the case. Furloughing is a function of time. For example if you need 10 pilots less than you actually do, then you must ask yourself how long do you think that you will not need them, if the answer to that question is over a year then do the math - if the training cost associated are less than the salaries then it make sense to kick people to the curb.......

That's an oversimplification of the issue. First off, you're replacing $40./hr pilots with $72./hr pilots in the right seat, so the savings you're realizing are offset to that degree, plus there are bidding/training issues other than just returning guys to the line later. What about displacement bids? Some pilots may choose to switch airplanes if they are going back to the right seat. Others may take the opportunity to get a 737 type. You also have to figure that many of the dsiplaced FO's would not come back, meaning their traning costs would have to be converted to newhire training costs . . . which would pretty much decimiate any short-term savings.

There is an equation there that would include the number of positions reduced, offset by the increased hourly costs of having senior guys flying as FO's, and associated training costs.

Anyone have a formula to determine savings gained from furlough

 

[27 driver]

As of right now furloughs are only a rumor. Lets hope they are not necessary. Being one of the guys on the chopping block I am hoping for the best. Until the official word comes out it is just rumor.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

That's an oversimplification of the issue. First off, you're replacing $40./hr pilots with $72./hr pilots in the right seat, so the savings you're realizing are offset to that degree, plus there are bidding/training issues other than just returning guys to the line later. What about displacement bids? Some pilots may choose to switch airplanes if they are going back to the right seat. Others may take the opportunity to get a 737 type. You also have to figure that many of the dsiplaced FO's would not come back, meaning their traning costs would have to be converted to newhire training costs . . . which would pretty much decimiate any short-term savings.

There is an equation there that would include the number of positions reduced, offset by the increased hourly costs of having senior guys flying as FO's, and associated training costs.

Anyone have a formula to determine savings gained from furlough

Don't forget goodwill. The threat of furloughs might actually get some people to think about concessions during negotiations. Actual furloughs piss off a lot of people.

 

[Ty Webb]

Don't forget goodwill. The threat of furloughs might actually get some people to think about concessions during negotiations. Actual furloughs piss off a lot of people.

Bingo!

Historically, though, this company has not realized the value of that goodwill. Can't see it on the Balance Sheet, or on the Income Statement, then it doesn't exist.

Funny example of this phenomenon was when we got ACARS activated. The Company was surprised to find that their on-time performance went down with the automatic reporting. They were shocked to find that when the pilots called the times in themselves, they were giving up a few bucks in favor of "on-time".

A whole 'nother great topic would be the "Law of Unintended Consequences", but that would be thread drift, 'fo sho'.

 

[Max Powers]

That's an oversimplification of the issue. First off, you're replacing $40./hr pilots with $72./hr pilots in the right seat, so the savings you're realizing are offset to that degree, plus there are bidding/training issues other than just returning guys to the line later. What about displacement bids? Some pilots may choose to switch airplanes if they are going back to the right seat. Others may take the opportunity to get a 737 type. You also have to figure that many of the dsiplaced FO's would not come back, meaning their traning costs would have to be converted to newhire training costs . . . which would pretty much decimiate any short-term savings.

There is an equation there that would include the number of positions reduced, offset by the increased hourly costs of having senior guys flying as FO's, and associated training costs.

Anyone have a formula to determine savings gained from furlough

Yes, there are a myriad issues but when it comes to straight up cost savings and not caring about individual pilots - that cost number can easily be determined. And it hasn't nothing to do with how many pilots. So my point is the chance of furlough is not weighed on the need to furlough more than X amount of pilots.

 

[Max Powers]

Bingo!

Historically, though, this company has not realized the value of that goodwill. Can't see it on the Balance Sheet, or on the Income Statement, then it doesn't exist.

Funny example of this phenomenon was when we got ACARS activated. The Company was surprised to find that their on-time performance went down with the automatic reporting. They were shocked to find that when the pilots called the times in themselves, they were giving up a few bucks in favor of "on-time".

A whole 'nother great topic would be the "Law of Unintended Consequences", but that would be thread drift, 'fo sho'.

I know of no pilots who would give up a few bucks to give the airline a better on-time ranking. I do know if they stole a few minutes off the OUT time they might turn around and give a portion of that time to the IN time - Which is DOT reportable.

 

[jester757]

Furloughs...they suck. Having been there for a year and half I feel for anyone who is faced with it.

Costs/savings...they are there. Why else do it? I am sure there are hidden costs with each of us. Geez - UAL just thew out the first pitch with 1450 total furoughs today...only can guess what the next carrier will do. Seems like each group of clueless managment teams does what the other one does.

My guess they will use the threat to leverage concesions from you all and get them. Once they have them they will furlough anyhow. Managment is ruthless in these times. Again, having been down this road - hang on.

 

[carl p]

I would rather take a furlough and sit home, then gut the contract and spend years getting back what's lost. We haven't been able to get a good contract for the last few years and times were great.

 

[27 driver]

I would rather take a furlough and sit home, then gut the contract and spend years getting back what's lost. We haven't been able to get a good contract for the last few years and times were great.

Lets just hope that we don't get furloughed and slapped with concessions my friend.

 

[flying zephyr]

Unfortunately, whoever talked about hidden costs of employees is right. Taxes, insurance, retirement, jepps, etc, these are all "extra employee costs" One of my employers used to put our "hidden paycheck" their words, not mine on our pay stubs as if that made us feel better that we brought home so little money. Hope for the best, but plan for the worst. Cash, cash, cash that's the name of the game right now. God's speed, good luck