Layoffs
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Re: Layoffs
I’ll bet April 8th.tsgas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 8:17 am"Good for the pilots" short term but if the company is destroyed in the process , than everyone loses. We are sailing in uncharted waters and more adjustments will be necessary to save the ship.Squid wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 6:55 am The big but here is the bottom in this economy and virus hasn’t come yet and the 6 mos MOA was drafted on old information. With new information and data changing by the day I think this is going to burn more cash and reserves from Ac weakening their position more for a potential easier recovery. Personally a 6 mos MOA was obviously good for the pilots but a poor decision by the company. The bottom in my opinion is still a month and a half away. I’ll bet we get back to the table sometime towards the end of April.
The company is in no way hamstrung here.
Don’t forget ACPA has nothing in writing that the ERIP will protect the junior 600 from lay-off. It’s just been assumed. There is nothing stopping the company from removing all those who took ERIP, plus the 600, plus the 900 vacant positions on the next bid.
Moreover there is nothing stopping the company from running an even larger surplus on the April 7th bid than that. The only thing they would have to do is delay layoffs of anything beyond 600 to after September.
I’m not suggesting any of this will happen by the way. The company will still want to be in a good restart position for whatever they think next summer will look like.
So don’t go down the rabbit hole.
But don’t think for a second they are hamstrung is any way.
Last edited by Fanblade on Fri Apr 03, 2020 9:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Layoffs
Normally yes. But with no revenue you hit your biggest costs first. If cash on hand drops below the number required to restart your done. This will be a massively expensive restart. No current forward bookings and everyone travelling later will do so on credit for future travel. That means a restart with little revenue initially. It’s that mountain that will finish airlines around the world without bailouts. Or they will have to restart at a fraction of their former size to remain liquid.
Cash will be King. Hold on to it.
Fuel just took care of itself by not flying and getting cheap. That leaves a bullseye on employees, contractors, suppliers and future capital expenditures.
Re: Layoffs
+1Fanblade wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 9:47 amNormally yes. But with no revenue you hit your biggest costs first. If cash on hand drops below the number required to restart your done. This will be a massively expensive restart. No current forward bookings and everyone travelling later will do so on credit for future travel. That means a restart with little revenue initially. It’s that mountain that will finish airlines around the world without bailouts. Or they will have to restart at a fraction of their former size to remain liquid.
Cash will be King. Hold on to it.
Fuel just took care of itself by not flying and getting cheap. That leaves a bullseye on employees, contractors, suppliers and future capital expenditures.
Re: Layoffs
In my world you don’t give up the largest layoff protection. In 6 months Jazz will be doing much more than 12% of their planned flying. The company would have just not run a 675 position downbid for this period of time.
You have stated you have 12 years at Jazz, so you are taking ZERO hardship while 675 junior members are on the street. Thats not how a union should work.... this should end Claude’s time because the junior members who will spend some time at Jazz now will come back swinging...
Re: Layoffs
Do not discount the FM/Act of God clauses that exist in the collective agreements being invoked.FL-280 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 9:59 amIn my world you don’t give up the largest layoff protection. In 6 months Jazz will be doing much more than 12% of their planned flying. The company would have just not run a 675 position downbid for this period of time.
You have stated you have 12 years at Jazz, so you are taking ZERO hardship while 675 junior members are on the street. Thats not how a union should work.... this should end Claude’s time because the junior members who will spend some time at Jazz now will come back swinging...
Yes, in order to have a change in base or equipment or seat it may only be determined and implemented via an equipment bid. However, change in status from active to lay-off (within seniority) can happen without. Best evidence? AC or Jazz could just suspend operations in their entirety and put 100% of the pilots on lay-off with minimal notice using FM/Act of God provisions of their respective agreements.
Both MEC’s have acted with this reality well in mind. And that reality has not gone away. There is likely more to come.
-
- Rank 4
- Posts: 288
- Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 12:55 pm
Re: Layoffs
Big mistake comparing Pilots to F/A's. F/A's are a dime a dozen and can be recalled and given a one (or maybe two) day ART class and they are back to work. Getting the next 400 or so Pilots out the door starts with an extremely expensive downbid. Common belief is you need to get a Pilot out the door for 24 months for any payback.RippleRock wrote: ↑Thu Apr 02, 2020 11:05 am What's stopping ACPA from agreeing to another LOU that deviates from the last one? It's only a few pen strokes away.
Only 600 layoffs in a worsening climate may not be sufficient. Things changed drastically in a two week period between Calin's "we are well prepared to weather the storm" to laying off half the FA's.
-
- Rank 7
- Posts: 634
- Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2020 12:15 pm
Re: Layoffs
My point was that things can change quickly. There was no "big mistake" as I'm not comparing FA's to pilots.
However, what if the new fleet plan parks a bunch of planes for the long term? The ramp up may be much slower than people predict today.
I don't think we can predict what will happen next week, let alone a month out.
I think people would be very naïve to think this will all just blow over in a few months. "Half-a$$ed social distancing" will drag this out for many, many months yet. We can only hope for a cure, as a vaccine is still a year off.
However, what if the new fleet plan parks a bunch of planes for the long term? The ramp up may be much slower than people predict today.
I don't think we can predict what will happen next week, let alone a month out.
I think people would be very naïve to think this will all just blow over in a few months. "Half-a$$ed social distancing" will drag this out for many, many months yet. We can only hope for a cure, as a vaccine is still a year off.
Re: Layoffs
Heard from an MLO that only 70 of the old boys took the early retirement package.....thanks boys
Likely wont be much training resulting from the bid in April. If more layoffs happened Oct 1, the training cost would likely be quite large and would have to be taken into account much more than right now. Chopping the bottom of the RP list, bottom of the 320 and reducing the EMJ entirely are all things that will can be done with minimal training. EMJ reduction training spots will occur regardless.
Sounds like we can fully expect the 600 to be laid off.
Likely wont be much training resulting from the bid in April. If more layoffs happened Oct 1, the training cost would likely be quite large and would have to be taken into account much more than right now. Chopping the bottom of the RP list, bottom of the 320 and reducing the EMJ entirely are all things that will can be done with minimal training. EMJ reduction training spots will occur regardless.
Sounds like we can fully expect the 600 to be laid off.
Re: Layoffs
That's not correct. Check the latest MEC update WRT the first grouping of ERIP eligible pilots. Just under 60 opted in out of just over 70 in that group, the rest have until next Tuesday to make their decision. The airline negotiated to layoff up to 600 pilots, and even with 500 pilots taking early retirement, we're almost certainly going to see 600 layoffs.
Re: Layoffs
“Heard from an MLO that only 70 of the old boys took the early retirement package.....thanks boys”
That’s rich.
And yeah 600 are going. The question should be is when are they gonna come back and ask for more. This is still a very deteriorating situation with this pandemic lasting much longer than the summer.
That’s rich.
And yeah 600 are going. The question should be is when are they gonna come back and ask for more. This is still a very deteriorating situation with this pandemic lasting much longer than the summer.
-
- Rank 1
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 11:34 pm
Re: Layoffs
How many of those 600 haven’t finished their annual line check post ppc and could be let go all together if deemed a surplus without any reason? They fall under probation rules after all.
Re: Layoffs
This was the first group, who had already submitted notice for retirement. It was 58 out of the 73 eligible.Squid wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 8:38 pm “Heard from an MLO that only 70 of the old boys took the early retirement package.....thanks boys”
That’s rich.
And yeah 600 are going. The question should be is when are they gonna come back and ask for more. This is still a very deteriorating situation with this pandemic lasting much longer than the summer.
The next groups deadline to submit is the 7th I believe
Re: Layoffs
160tonoaha wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 5:08 am How many of those 600 haven’t finished their annual line check post ppc and could be let go all together if deemed a surplus without any reason? They fall under probation rules after all.
Not really how probation works lol
Re: Layoffs
We have CBA rules for probation that build upon what labor laws do not afford. It’s actually why probation is so long. AC was of the opinion that if ACPA wanted to constrain AC’s ability to basically fire without cause during probation, then AC wanted more time to look at new hires. It’s a trade off.FL-280 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 7:17 am160tonoaha wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 5:08 am How many of those 600 haven’t finished their annual line check post ppc and could be let go all together if deemed a surplus without any reason? They fall under probation rules after all.
Not really how probation works lol
They are still on our seniority list. Every single one. They will be recalled in order of seniority and then resume probation.
Let talk like that go straight to the trash bin.
Re: Layoffs
Correct. The company already had a timeline on the first group as they had all given their years notice. None of these individuals were going to save jobs at the bottom. It just helps the company reduce payroll a little quicker. It’s the remaining groups that could mitigate layoffs.speedah wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 6:10 amThis was the first group, who had already submitted notice for retirement. It was 58 out of the 73 eligible.Squid wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 8:38 pm “Heard from an MLO that only 70 of the old boys took the early retirement package.....thanks boys”
That’s rich.
And yeah 600 are going. The question should be is when are they gonna come back and ask for more. This is still a very deteriorating situation with this pandemic lasting much longer than the summer.
The next groups deadline to submit is the 7th I believe
But that is not a given. ACPA has nothing in writing to guarantee that one will mitigate the other. It’s simply a hope. Even though good old ACPA didn’t spell it out that way. AC could still choose to lay-off 600 if all those eligible for ERIP took it.
The spitefulness developing toward our more senior pilots is a bit concerning.
-
- Rank 1
- Posts: 49
- Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 11:34 pm
Re: Layoffs
Good, would be a terrible spot to be caught in otherwise.Fanblade wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 7:39 amWe have CBA rules for probation that build upon what labor laws do not afford. It’s actually why probation is so long. AC was of the opinion that if ACPA wanted to constrain AC’s ability to basically fire without cause during probation, then AC wanted more time to look at new hires. It’s a trade off.FL-280 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 7:17 am160tonoaha wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 5:08 am How many of those 600 haven’t finished their annual line check post ppc and could be let go all together if deemed a surplus without any reason? They fall under probation rules after all.
Not really how probation works lol
They are still on our seniority list. Every single one. They will be recalled in order of seniority and then resume probation.
Let talk like that go straight to the trash bin.
So which part of the acpa clause protects someone under probation right now to not just be let go cause they’re on probation?
For example, how many max guys are still on probation almost 2 years in?
I really hope I’m wrong. Maybe you can point me to a clause that proves I am.
Thanks fanblade
Re: Layoffs
Article 9
First three sentences.
If your intent is to stir the pot I won’t be bitting.
First three sentences.
If your intent is to stir the pot I won’t be bitting.