Two things spring into my head reading this.
(1) That voluntary furlough language seems pretty clear, and an almost certain loss for the company when it comes to greivance. With people taking VF that are more senior, it saves by having the senior ones go first financially (at least one would believe so), eliminates a lot of bumping nonsense, and saves the company the money of having to fight a greivance no matter who wins it. What are they really trying to do not offering it? Makes no sense to me.
(2) I think with the new reserve system, and reserves sitting around not making guarantee, everyone expected a furlough. It seems to me that 364 or so that are already on VF see their status change, so there is no net loss or gain there. The 200 getting involuntary furloughed now would be the new loss. Did 300 F/As come back in December? If so, it would seem to be a net gain of 100 since November. PitBull, would you care to help me out with actual numbers here? What bases are being hit?