AA Cancels Pilot Furlough

[eolesen]

I know it's a slow news day, but you'd think this would have been mentioned by now...

We have carefully considered our pilot staffing needs through the summer of 2009. With all factors considered, and assuming they stay relatively constant, we do not plan on furloughing as previously announced.

Even though we are in the process of a capacity reduction, remember that our original plan for 2008 called for recalls throughout the year. In a preemptive move, we cancelled recall classes starting in June.

This move, combined with the spike in market-driven early retirements, the number of military and personal leave authorizations, and a solidifying of our training requirements driven by the announced retirements of the S80s and A300s, has left us very close to the pilot staffing needed to fly our projected 2009 summer schedule.

To absorb short-term overages between now and next year, we have granted some well-defined short-term leaves.

Furloughs have always been a painful, yet necessary, way of doing business in this industry. I am personally and professionally delighted to share this news with you.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...h.6bb00384.html

 

[Winglet]

AA management has know this all along. The furlough threat was just trying to get the APA to give-away scope on 70 seat narrow bodies and force pilots to fly many more hours per month, both of which would have caused more furloughs in themselves since there was no guarantee that there would be no future furloughs. The proposal was laughable, empty, and nothing but a stunt. Now they come out and "cancel" the threat of furloughs and try and make themselves look good . . . and it would appear as such to those incapable of critical thinking.

 

[Skymess]

AA management has know this all along. The furlough threat was just trying to get the APA to give-away scope on 70 seat narrow bodies and force pilots to fly many more hours per month, both of which would have caused more furloughs in themselves since there was no guarantee that there would be no future furloughs. The proposal was laughable, empty, and nothing but a stunt. Now they come out and "cancel" the threat of furloughs and try and make themselves look good . . . and it would appear as such to those incapable of critical thinking.

Yes, I'm sure it had NOTHING to do with the APA's threat to shut Eagle down...........

 

[AirLUVer]

Just like it had NOTHING to do with the fact that almost 150 pilots have retired since the furlough announcement was made???

 

[Winglet]

Yes, I'm sure it had NOTHING to do with the APA's threat to shut Eagle down...........

The scope violation by AA concerning AE is a contractural issue. AA is already below the threshold limit regardless of any future furloughs. Since the furloughs were not scheduled in the first place, they're not really canceled, just that AA's threat was not carried through.

Regardless, the legal action as a result of the scope violation continues. AA says there is no scope violation in the first place, and that furloughed pilots count towards the 7300 floor of "employed" pilots. It's the first time I've heard of people layed-off and not being paid being labled as "employed." But then again, nothing is too bizarre and ridiculous for an AA lawyer to say with a straight face.

 

[upsilon]

It's the first time I've heard of people layed-off and not being paid being labled as "employed." But then again, nothing is too bizarre .....

"Bizarre" on not, didn't something similar occur during a past APFA vote/election?

 

[jimntx]

No. With the APFA election, the issue was whether or not furloughed f/as could vote--which our Constitution clearly allows. AFAIK, there was never any attempt to count furloughees as "current employees."

On the thread topic, I agree with Winglet. I think the company was using the threat of furloughs as a bargaining tool. However, considering the number of pilots that have retired just since the first of this year, I can't believe they would think it would work even for a little while. From what I understand the "normal" attrition for pilots is something like 30-40/month. We had over 300 retire in just the first three months of this year.

Whether the retirement age is 60 or 65, there is in fact a mandatory retirement age for pilots. Unless the company wants to ground even more a/c, at some point the company either has to recall furloughees, if none of those hire new pilots, or get current pilots to fly more hours.

Call me crazy, but I don't think that last option is going to fly with the current pilots (no pun intended).

 

[tfc767]

DUHHHHH management... amazing clairvoyance!

 

[Winglet]

. . . . From what I understand the "normal" attrition for pilots is something like 30-40/month. We had over 300 retire in just the first three months of this year.

Whether the retirement age is 60 or 65, there is in fact a mandatory retirement age for pilots. Unless the company wants to ground even more a/c, at some point the company either has to recall furloughees, if none of those hire new pilots, or get current pilots to fly more hours.

Call me crazy, but I don't think that last option is going to fly with the current pilots (no pun intended).

30-40 a month is a bit too high. I think the normal retirements under the old 60 y.o. rule was going to be something like a little over 200 total for the year. The reason the retirements are so high now is due to a combination of just being fed-up with the way AA management treats its pilots and the fact that the stock market declined significantly. The pilots' B-Fund is stock market based. Pilots can lock-in the rate 3 months prior to the date they retire, hence the large number of retirements in Jan/Feb and July/August.

As far as flying more hours, AA is so inefficient at scheduling that more hours would mean many more work-days with more of those very nice multi-hour sits between flights ("productivity breaks" as they are known among the crews) in the middle of already long duty days.

 

[frontline]

Pilots got lucky. The spoiled brats refused to work with the company to work out a VBR, and they still escaped the hatchet. Lucky. Next time, who knows... but if I were the APA I would not risk my members interests on luck alone!

 

[Mach85ER]

Pilots got lucky. The spoiled brats refused to work with the company to work out a VBR, and they still escaped the hatchet. Lucky. Next time, who knows... but if I were the APA I would not risk my members interests on luck alone!

A review of the facts might help your total ignorance and misunderstanding of the facts of the issue. From day one of the company announcement, the pilots knew the facts didn't match up. The company knew there were a substantial amount of retirement lock-ins, most of which didn't matter what the market did since one componet is "best income in the past 5 years" which was 5 years ago. The A300 retirement and 737 deliveries planned were going to require extra pilot staffing for the training required. Age 65 is a wild card since most guys probably aren't going to go that far and may bail at any minute, requiring extra staffing. Most guys are flying many more hours in the past due to over MAX and vacation sell back. Even though the "furloughs" were threatened, no WARN letters were sent. They also said it would amount to 200 pilots, which is hilarious given the unknown variables associated with 9000 pilots (they aren't that good at planning). Finally, the company "offered" 9000 pilots to fly 20% more to save 200 pilot jobs. Well, okay. This logic might work for those who haven't even started using crayons yet, but I never heard one pilot even hint that there was a deal there.

Glad your here to input what appears to be valuable knowledge on the pilots as well as a colorful description. I look forward to your future intelligent posts on the subject.

Signed

A "spoiled brat" B)

 

[tfc767]

[quote name='Mach85ER' post='640482' date='Sep 16 2008,
Edited by Moderator: Please do not quote entire posts when replying directly below. Please use the Add Reply Button at the bottom of the page instead of the Reply button at the bottom of the post. Thank you.[/quote]

Seconded by another "spoiled brat!" Learn your facts, frontline! Either that or you delight in supporting this management's brilliant decisions. Sheez...

 

[frontline]

The fact remains that the pilots were the only group not work with the company on a point of self-interest: voluntary early retirements. Like I said, you got lucky. Next time, after the WARN letters come out, I hope for your sake that APA drops its pig-headed stance and works for YOUR interests, not its own agenda of finger-pointing.

 

[Mach85ER]

The fact remains that the pilots were the only group not work with the company on a point of self-interest: voluntary early retirements. Like I said, you got lucky. Next time, after the WARN letters come out, I hope for your sake that APA drops its pig-headed stance and works for YOUR interests, not its own agenda of finger-pointing.

Great reply to the facts
I think APA's work on this issue was correct, given the facts of course.
Somehow you don't see it that way. Thanks for the input. I enjoy reading other opinions, evn if there isn't a shred of logic backing them up.

On a related note, our dog walks out the door and just barks sometimes for no reason too. She just likes to hear herself I think :blink:


Signed,

A "pig-headed, spoiled brat"

 

[Bob Owens]

Pilots got lucky. The spoiled brats refused to work with the company to work out a VBR, and they still escaped the hatchet. Lucky. Next time, who knows... but if I were the APA I would not risk my members interests on luck alone!

You have members? You sound very pro-company to me. Is that you Jim(Little)?