Alaska management verbally announces furloughs for

[RedRum]

Maybe if you hear it one more time it will sink in.

There is nothing greedy or self-absorbed about wanting the EXACT SAME career advancement opportunities that you have enjoyed. Nothing more, nothing less. Just the same. Equality is the opposite of greed.
Greed and self absorption lie in taking the EXACT SAME opportunities you've enjoyed from your children for your own personal gain.

Defending your own self-absorption by throwing a guilt trip on the guy that's going to lose his house so you can buy more Viagra is what is indefensible here.

I do wish you the best of luck in your apparent dream of dying at work, though.

Hamburger,

I can sense your frustration. We have the same sort of issues at NWA right now. There has been a lot of class warfare. In my honest opinion, your anger is misdirected. There have been a couple of posts elluding to the fact that this is a management ploy to get the pilots to capitulate. I think they are right.

If the senior guys want to stick around, it is their right to do so. It is federal law and your contract allows it. I just try to look at it as if I was in the senior guys' shoes. I don't want to retire to save someone elses career. If a captain has a second house he is building that is great. He is trying to live out his dream. I don't think you would expect him/her to put all those dreams on hold so you can have your job. It's just the way it works.

I wish things were different in right now, but this industry is crazy. Personally I have felt that junior NWA pilots were sold down there river and a lot of guys had to pay for that with a five year furlough. I still hold on to the fact that a senior guys should not feel bad for not retiring if it is his/her right to do so. A lot of these senior folks have never had their job in jeopardy...that is not their fault.

Just my opinion.

 

[DawgPilot]

RedRum,
I respectfully disagree. The current >60's knew the rules when they signed up (retire @ 60), but when their time came, they convinced Prater to extend it to 65. I'm not saying that they 'owe me' a career, but they shouldn't hide behind the legislation. They wanted more and Prater/Congress capitulated.

My guess is a few Early Out's, quite a few LOA's (50) and 40 furloughs. I'm in the bottom 75. ANC here I come...

 

[igneousy2]

I was told by a certain very smart ANC pilot that Alaska's planned furloughs doesn't trigger a WARN letter because it's not more than X% of the workforce.

I looked at the act, and it doesn't seem to have that loophole, so I don't know what he's talking about.

Your Captain was right...

Here's the link...

http://www.doleta.gov/programs/factsht/warn.htm

And for those with ADHD...

Mass Layoff: A covered employer must give notice if there is to be a mass layoff ... or for 50-499 employees if they make up at least 33% of the employer's active workforce...

I was speaking to someone who heard GS in LA the other day and he was spouting off about furloughing 40 (or so) a month from November through February...so let's think this through since GS clearly didn't...Most of the bottom 40...they are in Anchorage...so you train their replacements...move them and their household effects from LA or SEA to ANC in NOV...and then you train their replacements...move them and their household effects in DEC and then furlough the previous 40...train the new replacements move them and their household effects...At least we'll keep the shipping companies busy.

Anyway...in a normal business there is no way this would be happening because the numbers aren't even close to making sense....not for the short period that they are talking about anyway...

on the other hand this is the airlines and the fact that this REALLY doesn't make sense on any level makes me think it will happen.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

I see it now. This is really a chance for the cargo division to make some big numbers! Think about it, 80 some pilots swapping in and out of ANC!

I'm buying more stock!

 

[tico]

One thing is for sure........Every efin one of us better at least apply for the early out and a 2 year leave.....That would tie them up a bit and the responses would be classic.............

 

[check6]

I say 0 furloughs.

After all, you guys are getting the new "Tom-tom system" for Boeing 737s. That's a $2 million dollar investment (or 65 1st year FOs).

Oh boy the times are tough!

I do realize $2 mil is a small drop in the billion dollar bucket.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008169749_bizbriefs10.html

 

[Fubijaakr]

...they are in Anchorage...so you train their replacements...move them and their household effects from LA or SEA to ANC in NOV...and then you train their replacements...move them and their household effects in DEC and then furlough the previous 40...train the new replacements move them and their household effects...At least we'll keep the shipping companies busy..

Historically, very VERY few pilots who are displaced OR bid ANC simply for the upgrade move there. They tend to commute...

Besides, you don't get Company paid moving expenses if you voluntarily bid the base OR are furloughed. You would only get expenses if there was a NEW base opened up or you were involuntarily displaced to ANC. The furlough would be accompanied by a reduction bid, so there would probably be plenty of SEA Capts looking at dropping back to reserve who would voluntarily bid ANC to remain a lineholder.

 

[Mamma]

It will be a free paid vacation...in the winter of course for me during my "move" up there before I go on mil leave.

 

[mach none]

The number is up to 200 with the bottom 35 to hit the streets in November, regardless.

 

[kingair1]

Where did you get 200 ? I thought it was 170.

 

[mach none]

An eskimo whispered it in my ear.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

The number is up to 200 with the bottom 35 to hit the streets in November, regardless.

What are the not regarding?

 

[Deadalus]

An eskimo whispered it in my ear.

The number I originally heard was 200. Commercial aviation sucks.

 

[mach none]

the company figures they can put the bottom 35 on the street without a significant impact on the operation, training and furlough mitigation plans don't matter. Neither does LOA or EOP. They are putting them on the street.

That is what "regardless" means.

 

[dashtrash]

Less than 50...

I'll bet a $100 song at Placers in Cabo on it...

:beer:

Get ready to lose a Franklin.

 

[Old School 737]

I think we have 115 airplanes and about 1500 pilots. Some are on med leave, some are mgt. guys, and a lot are instructors. So how do they think we are that short to start cutting guys??? I don't see it happening. If it does 50 tops and that does not make sense if they get early/Loa guys.

 

[Mamma]

More from rumor-ville. We are going to park about 7-9 planes for a year. Trying to sell them would take some time and when they want to ramp up again it would take too long to get the planes back. I don't know why they can't wet lease them to anyone. The 11% reduction in capacity for 2009 is resulting in fewer flights thus fewer pilots are needed. Our management will reduce us to the max they can and then 5 more just to be safe. I think the 200 number is to whittle away the senior guys as much as possible. I'll bet few if any takers because they are not offering to reduce the early out penalty. Typical window dressing offer from management.

 

[Baze]

Parking airplanes is the only way to justify furloughs over here.

With that said, how much are they going to spend keeping 7 to 14 airplanes on the property and not flying them? Airplanes don't make money when they are not flying.

More from rumor-ville. We are going to park about 7-9 planes for a year. Trying to sell them would take some time and when they want to ramp up again it would take too long to get the planes back. I don't know why they can't wet lease them to anyone. The 11% reduction in capacity for 2009 is resulting in fewer flights thus fewer pilots are needed. Our management will reduce us to the max they can and then 5 more just to be safe. I think the 200 number is to whittle away the senior guys as much as possible. I'll bet few if any takers because they are not offering to reduce the early out penalty. Typical window dressing offer from management.

 

[Going2Baja]

The SEA Base mom is keeping an unofficial tally of those that put in for the early out. As of last night it was at 7. SEVEN....Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better,

 

[Old School 737]

Hear is the latest from the co.

Work force reductions

September 12, 2008

The effect of a smaller schedule on Alaska Airlines’ work force includes a management headcount reduction of 80 positions that was largely completed in August. Slightly more than half the reduction involved layoffs, while the remainder was achieved by eliminating open positions.

All told, Alaska is shrinking its work force 9 percent to 10 percent to about 9,000 people. The last company-wide layoffs and furloughs (other than normal seasonal reductions and voluntary departures) were in 1992 and ’93.

“We deeply regret having to take these steps and recognize the hardship on these employees and their families,” CEO Bill Ayer said. “This difficult action is particularly frustrating because we’ve done everything possible to avoid furloughs and our great people are the reason Alaska Airlines is renowned for our customer service.”

Ayer cited this year’s consistently high customer satisfaction marks over the busy summer months, when survey scores usually dip. He also noted numerous initiatives and a concerted effort by employees across the company that have “dramatically improved” Alaska’s on-time rate over previous years.

“I couldn’t be more proud of your work to fly our customers safely, reliably and with Alaska Spirit,” he told employees in a company-wide message. “Alaska’s industry-leading service has always been vital to our survival, and I wish it were enough as we grapple with the severe economic, cost and competitive challenges that are fundamentally changing our business.”

In response to the current environment, the company has undertaken a variety of measures to improve profitability and protect its cash balance. These include raising fares, increasing fees and instituting a charge for a second checked bag, taking steps to reduce fuel consumption, and deferring or eliminating numerous projects and capital spending.

“These steps, when combined with the recently completed transition to an all-Boeing 737 fleet, improve our viability, but are not enough to eliminate the need to reduce the number of our employees,” Ayer said.

Pilots, flight attendants, aircraft technicians, and reservations, customer service and ramp agents are being offered early-out packages or six-month to two-year leaves in lieu of furloughs. In addition, the company and the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) are discussing contract provisions covering reductions in bid block hours.

The process for early-outs, leaves and furloughs will be completed for most employees, except pilots, in early November. More information and request forms for the early-out and leave-in-lieu-of-furlough programs are available here.

Horizon has been reducing its work force, as well. The carrier expects to cut capacity 20 percent in the fourth quarter compared to a year ago, which would represent a 9 percent reduction for all of 2008. So far, the effect on Horizon’s work force includes:

• A reduction of 75 management positions, in large part through attrition and voluntary layoffs.
• A reduction of 94 pilot positions through attrition, early-out packages and leaves, and a furlough of about 40 pilots this November.

In other work groups, furloughs are being minimized through early-out programs, unpaid leaves and attrition.

“Right now, Air Group’s fuel cost is exceedingly high, making it very challenging to fly profitably,” said Andrew Harrison, Alaska Air Group’s managing director of planning. “When the economy turns around, though, we will judiciously replace some capacity in our schedule. This industry is cyclical — and over the long term we expect to continue growing at Alaska and Horizon.”