FLOPS pilots doing overtime!

[Myster79]

Really? What exactly is wrong with that?
Plus, you called dispatch to check on someone else's OT? Mind your business, fella.

Your an idiot! Anyone that does OT when pilots are furloughed are scum! You are hurting every furloughed pilot and their families.

 

[skanza]

Your an idiot! (I think you mean *you're*) Anyone that does OT when pilots are furloughed are scum! You are hurting every furloughed pilot and their families.

No sorry, no scum here. Actually, the temporary OT done is to make up for a temporary shortness of crews due to a temporary increased demand. No one is trying to hurt any furloughed pilots. If they hired back people just to prevent paying OT to others - they'll eventually had to trim back to the level that the business demands. I think that would be worse ethically than just paying current crews OT. Plus, it's also cheaper to pay OT in the short term than to hire additional heads. This is a business after all - not a charity for employing people. Don't take any of this personally.

I know you'll hate my answer and accuse me of being a troll, mgmnt puppet, etc...(none of which is true), but I'm just trying to present it objectively. Try it sometime.

 

[dime line]

No sorry, no scum here. Actually, the temporary OT done is to make up for a temporary shortness of crews due to a temporary increased demand. No one is trying to hurt any furloughed pilots. If they hired back people just to prevent paying OT to others - they'll eventually had to trim back to the level that the business demands. I think that would be worse ethically than just paying current crews OT. Plus, it's also cheaper to pay OT in the short term than to hire additional heads. This is a business after all - not a charity for employing people. Don't take any of this personally.

I know you'll hate my answer and accuse me of being a troll, mgmnt puppet, etc...(none of which is true), but I'm just trying to present it objectively. Try it sometime.

No, actually I agree with your statement (although I still don't do OT), BUT, we have had an increase in demand since Aug last year. This from a PSM.

 

[William Holiday]

no, actually i agree with your statement (although i still don't do ot), but, we have had an increase in demand since aug last year. This from a psm.

you don't have to hire anyone, just call back a few.

 

[993_Pilot]

They use furloughed Flight Attendants on a contract basis, they could at least offer some of the furloughed pilots some contract work too. I suspect that the real reason they don't is that management is trying to divide and conquer. I think that they're also hoping that more furloughed pilots won't come back, so when they do have to hire it will be a "new hire" pay rate instead of recalling another pilot with 7 to 9 years of seniority.

 

[fracjack]

The fact they ask for overtime is more mis management of a sustainable business plan with proper planning and a right sized labor force. Throw in a labor dispute and you get resistance to change. No one has an excuse to do overtime at this point,NO ONE.

 

[William Holiday]

They use furloughed Flight Attendants on a contract basis, they could at least offer some of the furloughed pilots some contract work too. I suspect that the real reason they don't is that management is trying to divide and conquer. I think that they're also hoping that more furloughed pilots won't come back, so when they do have to hire it will be a "new hire" pay rate instead of recalling another pilot with 7 to 9 years of seniority.

Spot ON !

 

[ProFracPilot]

They use furloughed Flight Attendants on a contract basis, they could at least offer some of the furloughed pilots some contract work too.

The flight attendants were not furloughed. They were terminated and don't have recall rights. And while the company has been using these flight attendants as "cabin" attendants on an as-needed basis, they are also using other contract "cabin" attendants that have no prior connection to the company. When used, the "cabin" attendants have no safety responsibilities, are listed as passengers and are not crew.

 

[993_Pilot]

The flight attendants were not furloughed. They were terminated and don't have recall rights. And while the company has been using these flight attendants as "cabin" attendants on an as-needed basis, they are also using other contract "cabin" attendants that have no prior connection to the company. When used, the "cabin" attendants have no safety responsibilities, are listed as passengers and are not crew.

OK, I stand corrected, but the point was that they use Flight/Cabin Attendants (or whatever you call them) on a contract /day rate basis, and they should do the same with the pilots instead of asking for OT. They have made life difficult for all the pilots on furlough (and their families). The least they could do is throw them a bone when they need more manpower.

... but like I said before, I suspect that they have other motives.

 

[ProFracPilot]

OK, I stand corrected, but the point was that they use Flight/Cabin Attendants (or whatever you call them) on a contract /day rate basis, and they should do the same with the pilots instead of asking for OT. They have made life difficult for all the pilots on furlough (and their families). The least they could do is throw them a bone when they need more manpower.

... but like I said before, I suspect that they have other motives.

The company should staff to a realistic pilot/airplane ratio before doling out OT. On this we agree.

I don't think the analogy with FA's work and here's why. The company is unable to use furloughed pilots for the same reason they're unable to call the fired FA's crew: Training and currency. They're not spending the $$ to keep the FA's they fired current. But they can throw them in the back, without currency, call them Cabin Attendants and give the illusion to owners that they have a full crew. There's no way to do that with pilots.