Alaska Base pilot meetings?

[ClearRight]

The old contract defined a line of flying as 65 hours. I haven't been able to find that in the new contract as of yet. But, under the old rules, the Company COULD have built lines to 65 hours to preclude furloughs.

From what I've found so far, 75 hours is the line minimum. So, if they tried to stay as close to 75 as possible, at least some of the furloughees would be back on the property. Currently, the line AVERAGE is hovering around 83-84 hours. So, with 338 lines of flying time 9 hours, that gives you 3042 hours of flying. Divide that by 75 and you end up with 40 more lines of flying and that's just SEA.

Or, if you will 40 more pilots OFF the street. Additional lines require additional reserve coverage as well.

Instead, management would rather build higher lines and run lean reserves. We've run OUT of reserve F/Os two of the last three weekends I've flown. But, I guess the staffing gurus know what they're doing....

Not flaming or playing sides, just trying to figure this out. . . .

Those numbers reflect the summer schedule. What happens in the fall when the daily ANC-DEN, -SFO, -ORD, -DLG, -AKN go away and daily ANC-SEA drops from 20 flights to 16? From what I understand all the new flights (ATL, AUS, Hawaii) are just a redeployment from the weak Mexico market. Hopefully that will change when this swine flu scare goes away.

I think it's the low load factors scaring them into reduced utilization of the airplanes and cutting the schedule. Less airplanes flying means less pilots needed. We're just a fixed cost, not career professionals with families who depend on our income.

I do not think they have a clue what their staffing needs really are. Their plans have changed too many times over the past year.

As one in the furlough range, I am really hoping something changes and they figure out just what's needed and stop arbitrarily throwing numbers around so their butts are covered. "We may be overstaffed for the winter schedule. . . let's tell 'em we're gonna furlough 80 just to be safe. . ." Never mind the fact that the bottom 80 of us are now stress balls trying to figure out how to trim the budget, spouses looking for jobs, preparing the kids for school changes, and scrounging around for every penny. I wonder how much grocery money I could get for my kids' Wii??

 

[SRMairlines]

As one in the furlough range, I am really hoping something changes and they figure out just what's needed and stop arbitrarily throwing numbers around so their butts are covered. "We may be overstaffed for the winter schedule. . . let's tell 'em we're gonna furlough 80 just to be safe. . ." Never mind the fact that the bottom 80 of us are now stress balls trying to figure out how to trim the budget, spouses looking for jobs, preparing the kids for school changes, and scrounging around for every penny. I wonder how much grocery money I could get for my kids' Wii??

I think many of us are wondering the truth behind manditory line reduction. The 60 where left to dry since the previous language in the contract specifically talked about reducing the lines to "prevent" the furlough. While ALPA's had some good points in wanting our pilots financially prepared for a strike, they forgot that was their secondary duty after protecting the membership. Our MEC opposed line reduction and they settled a grievance filed by the 60 furloughs that perhaps had more benefit to the active pilots. I felt that the 60 furloughees should have been the ones voting since that directly affected them. Some of our pilots think they got a lot with the bonus and health care. I really think those guys can remove the stick up their rear and for once think that all those furloughees want is their jobs back. For me... I have worked for other carriers and been near the top of senority lists at times where we all chipped in to save jobs. These where all ALPA carriers... I was asked by a Captain why I expected ALPA to help me? I replied: "Because I pay the same dues as you, and I helped others before myself. It is time for a return favor. A cut in hours by 10% (short term 1-2 years) by everyone is much better than 10% taking a 100% cut in hours. "

"I ain't takin another stinkn paycut!" - Replied Alaska Airlines Captain

If you are working less for the same amount of money, it is a cut in hours worked. Your overall paycheck is less, but your unit pay remains the same. - More time off.

As for the 80 possible in the fall? The official request from mgt was 165 last fall. After changes to the schedule adding second ORD-ANC, BOS-SEA, PDX-LGB, and some other frequencies... by the time of the furlough the company needed to eliminate less than 150 positions. Early Outs & LOA's further reduced that number to less than 80. A screw up on the bid for summer schedules led to the final number being 60. What will 80 turn into? Probably much less... Before CC left this spring, she mentioned that the company would need to furlough 50 in the fall, but she thought at the most half that or none at all would be furloughed. This was before swine flu though.

In a few weeks all the voluntary programs will be closed. What will happy next? Will they assess their needs and offer another early out? - Maybe Will they come up with an agreement to reduce the lines to prevent the furlough? - That is up to the Union. The big question is... What about next summer? Seasonal FA style furlough?

 

[Going2Baja]

As one in the furlough range,....... Never mind the fact that the bottom 80 of us are now stress balls trying to figure out how to trim the budget, spouses looking for jobs, preparing the kids for school changes, and scrounging around for every penny. I wonder how much grocery money I could get for my kids' Wii??

Sounds like my house right now! No more newspaper, and the cable just got dropped....SUCKS living like this!!

Baja.

 

[igneousy2]

GB in his message today said that up to "70" would need to be furloughed.

 

[PCL_128]

Drop the lines down to 65 hrs... that is what the Union is supposed to do. If they don't attempt it, they are in violation of the laws they are bound to by fair and equal representation.

No they aren't. I don't necessarily disagree with you that that's what they should try, but the duty of fair representation under the law has a standard of "wide range of reasonableness." The union is able to determine whether it is more fair to the membership to reduce line values to protect the few or whether it is more fair to the membership to hold on to line values and a small number get furloughed. It's the same reason that a union is allowed to refuse to file a grievance for a pilot if the union believes that the grievance could harm other pilots in the union. Unions have a lot of discretion in determining what actions to take, and breach of DFR is difficult to prove. Only extreme situations like USAPA's screwing of the West pilots meet the DFR threshold.

 

[mach none]

No they aren't. I don't necessarily disagree with you that that's what they should try, but the duty of fair representation under the law has a standard of "wide range of reasonableness." The union is able to determine whether it is more fair to the membership to reduce line values to protect the few or whether it is more fair to the membership to hold on to line values and a small number get furloughed. It's the same reason that a union is allowed to refuse to file a grievance for a pilot if the union believes that the grievance could harm other pilots in the union. Unions have a lot of discretion in determining what actions to take, and breach of DFR is difficult to prove. Only extreme situations like USAPA's screwing of the West pilots meet the DFR threshold.

Finally, someone who understands contract law and unions.

 

[Fubijaakr]

The big question is... What about next summer? Seasonal FA style furlough?

Actually, back in the "olden" days they used to do the very thing. Hire in the summer, furlough in the winter. That's why the Senior Qual position was created.

An interesting point was raised last night by my F/O. His take is that furloughs were inevitable given the demise of the MD-80 fleet. Interesting idea, especially when coupled with the downturn in demand for air travel.

Finally, someone who understands contract law and unions.

See what a little volunteering for ALPA will produce?

 

[mach none]

The greatest impact on staffing occurred with the passage of 65. Couple that with the changes to vacation/training pay, the MD80 retirement and the reduction of block hours flown by the company because of the recession...furlough.

 

[SRMairlines]

Since our new contract has specific language that addresses dropping lines down to 65 it should be at least attempted. ALPA has the ability to decline it, but this provision is subject to memrat anyways. My opinion is to let the membership decide... that is the fair option and the best to protect the Union itself.

PCL_128 I know the labor laws very well (Law Background - not a lawyer though) and the #1 duty of a Union is to protect the membership (This is what all those by-laws arrive at and is very broad at best. That is why so many lawsuits exist today). I also have over 10 years of ALPA membership and have volunteered in numerous positions during that time.

There is a wide range of discretion Unions do have and my last few posts were poorly written to express my points (may have drank too much as well - gotta love the beer in the PNW). Addressing every member of the senority list can be done in different ways and if we don't drop the lines to 65hrs that is not a clear indication that the jr. guys are being treated unfairly. However the events that are piling up against the Jr guys are leading some to believe that they are being misrepresented. (The best way to handle this situation is thru elections not a lawsuit) To understand the feelings behind what is exactly happening at Alaska you probably need to take a look at our last contract in regards to furlough and see where we are now. Some guys feel that we sacrificed pilots jobs (dues paying members) to achieve a raise to the majority. Obviously a 10% cut, single fleet type, and a crappy economy did the damage.


Currently ALPA has misrepresentation lawsuits filed by pilots at America West (USPAPA deal), Northwest Airlines (Pension distribution), Atlas (Polar deal), Piedmont/Allegheny (PFR "J for J"), and I am probably missing several. Most Unions have more lawsuits with-in thier membership than the companies they work under have.

We all have to ask ourselves why labor laws exist?

They all lead one way = To protect the jobs.

Are we doing that?

Time will tell. Many events over the next few months will happen that will change our views.

It is a very difficult thing to have all parties happy with any conclusion or judgement, but unfortunately if the Union is not interested in protecting jobs, they are in compliance with all the laws. Obviously our MEC is still in the preliminary steps of furlough mitigation. Lowering to 65 hrs is the last step and we aren't there yet. If we have the chance I feel we should present it for membership ratification. Let the membership decide to protect the integrity of our MEC. It is in the contract and since it was recently ratified by 84%, it should be considered.

I view this site as a way to express feelings... mainly frustrations. My previous posts were frustrations over the process and my wording may have be taken as frustrations with our MEC. Not my intention. They are in a difficult situation and somebody will come out unhappy.

PCL_128 : 9E still needs you. Going on year 5. I miss Lear_70 and his teachings.

 

[PCL_128]

PCL_128 : 9E still needs you. Going on year 5.

I hear things are going well with their contract negotiations. Almost there from what I've been told by the attorneys. Just one outstanding item. I expect either a contract or a release within the next couple of months.

I miss Lear_70 and his teachings.

The rumor is that he'll be running for interim FO rep here at AirTran next Tuesday. Should be an interesting meeting.