savyinvestor
Senior
- Jan 15, 2003
- 494
- 0
Out of seniority furloughs? The pilots should bring this place to a screaching hault if they try that! Savy :down:
Company Provides Alpa With New Proposal
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
GadgetFreak
Advanced
savyinvestor said:
I have to acknowledge that I am a complete outsider in this but the thought of doing things by seniority is completely incomprehensible to me. Nothing in what I do is seniority based. Everyone is evaluated on performance. When we had budget issues and I had to cut back a few people it was strictly performance based. Do they contribute as much or have as much potential as the next person. This is obviously harder to do than seniority, and even harder to do correctly. However, I dont see how a seniority based model can ultimately survive in the real world. Times have changed. Eventually the concept of being completely seniority based will go away.
av8orwife
Member
a reply to gaget freak:
I understand your comments about a seniority based system.
However, how do you determine who is the best pilot??? All pilots have to pass the same exams and meet the same standards. All have over 18 years experience. How do you determine who is better, who is more efficient and more productive??? That is one of the reasons the current system is based on seniority.
And is it fair to a pilot who bid the 737 or 757 or 767 is to lose their job because they did not bid to fly the 320/319 in advance of the new contract proposal???
Once more, the seniority based system is here because of these reasons.
I know that it is also not always the fairest, as perhaps a pilot with about 18 years experience could perhaps be a better pilot than one with about 22 years, but again, who makes those decisions?
So if they lay people off based on aircraft type rather than date of hire, I think the whole airline will implode. Boom. Welcome to Chapter 7...
-av8orwife
I understand your comments about a seniority based system.
However, how do you determine who is the best pilot??? All pilots have to pass the same exams and meet the same standards. All have over 18 years experience. How do you determine who is better, who is more efficient and more productive??? That is one of the reasons the current system is based on seniority.
And is it fair to a pilot who bid the 737 or 757 or 767 is to lose their job because they did not bid to fly the 320/319 in advance of the new contract proposal???
Once more, the seniority based system is here because of these reasons.
I know that it is also not always the fairest, as perhaps a pilot with about 18 years experience could perhaps be a better pilot than one with about 22 years, but again, who makes those decisions?
So if they lay people off based on aircraft type rather than date of hire, I think the whole airline will implode. Boom. Welcome to Chapter 7...
-av8orwife
This is not good news at all...Aol Money Today
colorado_cowboy
Advanced
- Dec 20, 2003
- 151
- 0
Gadget here's a hypothetical situation, if you'd like you can reply if not so be it.GadgetFreak said:
You have two employees, well call them employee A and employee B. They both do the same job with the same level of competency. Neither employee has abused to the attendance policy and both for the most part works just as hard as the other. Basically both contribute as much or have as much potential as the other.
The only difference between the two is employee A brings your coffee to you every morning and makes sure you have your morning paper before you start your day.... in short employee A is a brown noser and will do anything you ask him/her to do regardless if its getting your morning coffee or running out at lunch to get you something to eat.
One day you’re forced to reduce your staff and you have to lay off one of the two employees. Is it going to be employee A or employee B?
Would it be fair to employee B to lay him/her off only because the dont bend over backwords to please you?
IMO when it comes to furlough's seniorty is a must. US Air will lay off the most senior of employees to cut cost even if it means keeping someone who is less qualified or has less to contribute and most of all makes less money.
like i would pass this up ......
of course the judge might just say nope you do not need this to continue operating. furloughing out of seniority (or if you will by fleet / equipment type) has never been done, nor has 0 severance pay. never. and that includes ENRON, and MCI.
of course the judge could hear the arguements about if pilots do not get severance packages then any severance package paid within the last 24 months must also be taken back. yada yada.
remember the Q and A s with LAKEFIELD his SOLE PURPOSE for becoming CEO at the REQUEST of RSA was to obtain labor contracts as spoken by himself.
16% pay cuts is less than 30% offered during the "pre" bk negoiations. of course if its stretched out over a longer period the total package would be more I would sign that in a min. sure i will pay you 5 years from now with 16% of my pay (5 years from now) thats the employee equivlant of the company "issuing stock options in return for the immediate concessions. and of course they reniged on their obligation to make good since the stock is for the 2nd time (remember we got options from the first round back in 96 too) is essentially worthless.
you want me to give back future money sure you bet. you want to furlough out of seniority not in a milllion years. not ever sorry that is the only thing left at usairways is one's seniority ones 30 years of service. do the words wrongful termination mean anything? as said before just gotta win in court. and guess who has Deep pockets. RSA yep. the Chairman can be legally liable for not fullfilling fudciary responsiblities and as SHAREHOLDERS you can attack that way.
calm down and think it through. just as "mgmt" seems to be trying to abbrogate whats left of labor contracts. think outside the box. like above. RSA has BILLIONS and i can see at least one avenue to pursue it.
sorry to all the hardworkers out there, for those who have read all my posts in which i attempt to maintain the sunny side or positive outlook or find the good in most things. it might be time to offer thoughts down different avenues. I will always have the highest respect for the employees, as well as the COMPANY (entity) but the managment teams of the past 15 years are the ONLY ones that are responsible for the current situtaion. period. sorry convince me otherwise with facts. and i will put up a retraction but not until then.
of course the judge might just say nope you do not need this to continue operating. furloughing out of seniority (or if you will by fleet / equipment type) has never been done, nor has 0 severance pay. never. and that includes ENRON, and MCI.
of course the judge could hear the arguements about if pilots do not get severance packages then any severance package paid within the last 24 months must also be taken back. yada yada.
remember the Q and A s with LAKEFIELD his SOLE PURPOSE for becoming CEO at the REQUEST of RSA was to obtain labor contracts as spoken by himself.
16% pay cuts is less than 30% offered during the "pre" bk negoiations. of course if its stretched out over a longer period the total package would be more I would sign that in a min. sure i will pay you 5 years from now with 16% of my pay (5 years from now) thats the employee equivlant of the company "issuing stock options in return for the immediate concessions. and of course they reniged on their obligation to make good since the stock is for the 2nd time (remember we got options from the first round back in 96 too) is essentially worthless.
you want me to give back future money sure you bet. you want to furlough out of seniority not in a milllion years. not ever sorry that is the only thing left at usairways is one's seniority ones 30 years of service. do the words wrongful termination mean anything? as said before just gotta win in court. and guess who has Deep pockets. RSA yep. the Chairman can be legally liable for not fullfilling fudciary responsiblities and as SHAREHOLDERS you can attack that way.
calm down and think it through. just as "mgmt" seems to be trying to abbrogate whats left of labor contracts. think outside the box. like above. RSA has BILLIONS and i can see at least one avenue to pursue it.
sorry to all the hardworkers out there, for those who have read all my posts in which i attempt to maintain the sunny side or positive outlook or find the good in most things. it might be time to offer thoughts down different avenues. I will always have the highest respect for the employees, as well as the COMPANY (entity) but the managment teams of the past 15 years are the ONLY ones that are responsible for the current situtaion. period. sorry convince me otherwise with facts. and i will put up a retraction but not until then.
Besides, if ALPA allows senior pilots to be thrown under the bus, how can they keep control by always throwing the junior pilots under the bus, knowing that the senior pilots will support it? ;-)
Seriously, if this is allowed, I expect that ALPA members will begin to mobilize.
Seriously, if this is allowed, I expect that ALPA members will begin to mobilize.
savyinvestor
Senior
- Jan 15, 2003
- 494
- 0
What about the pilots who just switched from 737's to A320's. They get to stay and the others are furloughed? shut the place down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Savy
the furlough out of seniority would undoubtedly be by fleet type.
ah but how?
which ones owe the most on the leases?
which ones are "paid for"
which ones are Not promised as collateral?
what if only one party calls the loans due (ie they want their planes back)
which is the smallest fleet
which ones fit into the next phase of the plan?
ah but how?
which ones owe the most on the leases?
which ones are "paid for"
which ones are Not promised as collateral?
what if only one party calls the loans due (ie they want their planes back)
which is the smallest fleet
which ones fit into the next phase of the plan?
One more note, our resident prognosticator is an Airbus pilot, and he has continuously recommended for other furloughs so long as his job is protected. According to other posters, his job might have been endangered in the next round of seniority-based furloughs, so I am not surprised to see that he is not opposed to management's proposal. (USA320Pilot's posts have been "see-i-told-you-so" not "this is unacceptable")
Spin Spin Spin
Spin Spin Spin
Never? Really?javaboy said:
I think that you need to think before you type. Furloughing out of seniority is the most common way of handling a RIF. I know people at MCI and Enron who were furloughed and seniority never came into the decision. This is the norm at most non-union or non-blue collar situations.
As for US, I doubt they would do it. Even they are smart enough to know it would mean the end of the airline.
Pacemaker
Senior
- Sep 3, 2002
- 475
- 0
Furloughing in this manner sounds good (to the company) but involves a host of potentially fatal pitfalls.
If the company were to decide to park anything more than a few planes, there would be two options - stealth, or gradual.
Stealth would be used as an effort to forestall any employee reaction, but how easy would it be to hide preparations and planning for an event of this magnitude? Then there is the customer service and image problem. You wake up one morning and presto!, no more 737's? How are they going to accomodate the thousands of inconvieninced pax? How is it going to play out in the media - They're shutting down! - and how to counter the likely mad rush for the exits by the customers we have left. This "TPA Hangar" option is highly unlikely, imo.
If a gradual retirement of a fleet were announced, say, some weeks in advance, there is the problem of employee backlash. Remember it's a lot more than just pilots involved. You tell someone you're going to throw them out on the street in x number of days with no compensation - why show up? Who would show up? How would the company prevent complete anarchy from ensuing?
Even this managment team would, imo, be unlikely to attempt one of these scenarios.
If the company were to decide to park anything more than a few planes, there would be two options - stealth, or gradual.
Stealth would be used as an effort to forestall any employee reaction, but how easy would it be to hide preparations and planning for an event of this magnitude? Then there is the customer service and image problem. You wake up one morning and presto!, no more 737's? How are they going to accomodate the thousands of inconvieninced pax? How is it going to play out in the media - They're shutting down! - and how to counter the likely mad rush for the exits by the customers we have left. This "TPA Hangar" option is highly unlikely, imo.
If a gradual retirement of a fleet were announced, say, some weeks in advance, there is the problem of employee backlash. Remember it's a lot more than just pilots involved. You tell someone you're going to throw them out on the street in x number of days with no compensation - why show up? Who would show up? How would the company prevent complete anarchy from ensuing?
Even this managment team would, imo, be unlikely to attempt one of these scenarios.
