Club Furlough

[Hecklers2002]

The grant conditions, which the government did grant certain exemptions for, are not very onerous. Indeed the fact they are all asking for more money proves that the money received is worth much more than any terms or conditions. It would be like your dad giving you two weeks allowance money if you did your homework for a week. Sure, I'll take the money for those easy to accomplish terms.

You are correct in saying that airlines need to manage better for the long term. When you are receiving handouts, it is easier and less risky to obtain those than it is to make difficult business decisions. The problem is that over time the handouts can become expected and it can interfere with developing a workable plan and strategy if for some reason those handouts dried up. Sometimes, it can surprise you what someone can come up with to survive and thrive once the gravy train comes to a halt.

As for the terms of the grants-I’ll be honest and say that’s a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking. I think most people thought those terms were fair when they came out because I don’t think anyone expected things would be the way they are now.

I’d argue that nothing is expected or become the norm. It takes both sides to make a deal and luckily for us one of those sides as subject to turn over at least every 2 years.

 

[Reek]

I don't know, a healthy aviation industry will help the economy when it does start to recover. I think there is a decent (although not 100%) chance there will be a vaccine produced within the next six months...possibly more than one. If that happens we may see airline demand start to increase significantly. Add this to the fact that winter is the slowest time, historically speaking, for airline travel, and I think that extending benefits for another six months might well get the industry over the worst of the downturn. It's a bit of a gamble but I think it's worth the risk. However it may be a moot point unless Congress and the White House can agree on something soon. Sharing a meme here that I created (with a meme generator)...I posted it in another forum here as well. It sums up how I feel when evidently, Congress and the White House are both amenable to a bailout but can't come to terms on a deal. I don't mean to be harder on Congress than the White House either, but they were the ones who left town so seemed more of an obvious punch line.

View attachment 55173

LOL. So you expect the government to keep bailing out the airlines while you sit pretty at 150k. Not willing to take any cut. You are the problem, not the government.

 

[manniax]

LOL. So you expect the government to keep bailing out the airlines while you sit pretty at 150k. Not willing to take any cut. You are the problem, not the government.

If you want to take a pay cut be sure and let your union representatives know! In the meantime - I doubt the government will bail anyone out before the election happens now, so it’s kind of a moot point.

 

[Reek]

If you want to take a pay cut be sure and let your union representatives know! In the meantime - I doubt the government will bail anyone out before the election happens now, so it’s kind of a moot point.

You're just as intelligent as i assumed you were. I did sign up for a paycut. Meanwhile only 30 of your buddies making 150k did. Youre a piece of trash like the rest of your greedy senior dispatchers.

 

[Reek]

You're just as intelligent as i assumed you were. I did sign up for a paycut. Meanwhile only 30 of your buddies making 150k did. Youre a piece of trash like the rest of your greedy senior dispatchers.

And for reference folks. 440 dispatchers. Less than 40 could agree to a voluntary cut at minimum of 20%. No change to contract. Just an hour reduction.

 

[Reek]

Manniax here can't live at 110k, he needs 150k. My gawd!!!

 

[MikeD]

Cool the jets here people. No need for the personal attacks.

 

[Flied Rice]

You're just as intelligent as i assumed you were. I did sign up for a paycut. Meanwhile only 30 of your buddies making 150k did. Youre a piece of trash like the rest of your greedy senior dispatchers.

If you disagree with Reek, he thinks you're a piece of trash. Wow. That tells you all you need to know about him.

 

[Luigi]

No chance in hell I'm taking a pay cut. Concessions are permanent solutions to temporary problems.

 

[who'swho]

No chance in hell I'm taking a pay cut. Concessions are permanent solutions to temporary problems.

Losing a job vs taking a cut in hours seems quite permanent to me. Taking a cut in hours via an LOA that has an end date is far from permanent.

 

[Eskhobbs]

Losing a job vs taking a cut in hours seems quite permanent to me. Taking a cut in hours via an LOA that has an end date is far from permanent.

80% of something is a whole lot better than 100% of nothing.

 

[Altimeter]

Joining the club.

 

[CF34-3B1]

If you do a side letter that has language for a “SnapBack” on the temporary pay cut it is not permanent. Agreeing to a whole new contract with pay cut in there like the airlines did last time is what makes it permanent.

 

[Flagship_dxer]

If you do a side letter that has language for a “SnapBack” on the temporary pay cut it is not permanent. Agreeing to a whole new contract with pay cut in there like the airlines did last time is what makes it permanent.

I used to agree that temporary pay cut with a "snapback" might be a workable solution to save jobs. But things have been happening that have caused me to change my thinking.

Unlike here, the bailouts and rescue packages that carriers got in other countries were not as generous and had in some cases harsher terms. Some countries like Canada did not offer an airline bailout so there were massive furloughs. In the case of France, the AF bailout came with environmental conditions that necessitate cutting some short haul routes with trains. Many more carriers especially the Gulf carriers but also BA have undergone staff pay and benefit cuts in addition to job cuts.

What this likely means for us is that as soon as the political pendulum swings to the left, you will likely see regulations put in place here that restrict short haul flying where there is rail competition. If rail expands like many on the left spectrum want, I think over time there will be even more areas where short haul flying is banned.

I would not at all be surprised to see environmental rules put into place that limit how long a plane can be sitting on a taxiway burning fuel.

I think with foreign carriers going through their right sizing and cost cutting, we might eventually see carriers like AA, UA, DL try to bring themselves more in line with their foreign partners and competitors. This will be especially possible if business travel sees a permanent reduction of some kind due to zoom and work at home schemes. It will mean airlines will be needing to chase more of the cost sensitive crowd than the high yield business.

Snapback provisions worked well when everyone thought this would be more like a snowstorm where everything quickly gets back to normal after the storm ends. Now, I think this will be a long term problem. Snapback provisions might just set the stage for permanent or worse cuts down the line.

 

[MT]

I find your idea that trains will replace flying in the US improbable and I’m a huge train buff.
The reality is that we have far greater distances in the US than they have in Europe between major city pairs, and our rail infrastructure simply cannot support high speed rail currently. Heck, you can beat a train in your car between most city pairs.

A true high speed rail solution for the US is easily 30 years down the road, and that’s if they start today. Flying still dominates the US travel market, and will so for the foreseeable future.

Yes I and the rest of the junior dispatchers get to make the ultimate sacrifice, again for many of us, but if the senior people are not going to make a sacrifice to save our jobs, then I guess we will still have our contracts to come back to provided our brothers and sisters hold strong when the negotiation table opens again.

 

[Flagship_dxer]

I find your idea that trains will replace flying in the US improbable and I’m a huge train buff.

It wouldn't take the whole country to reduce airline traffic volume. DC-NYC-BOS corridor would be the most likely then possibly MIA-MCO, LA-SFO, PDX-SEA. I can see a green new deal oriented Congress and White House passing restrictions on flying in those areas and gradually doing so in other areas if they are able to fund rail projects. France is doing it now so it is something that is being tried elsewhere and could be replicated here on some level especially if certain politicians gain enough power.

 

[MT]

It wouldn't take the whole country to reduce airline traffic volume. DC-NYC-BOS corridor would be the most likely then possibly MIA-MCO, LA-SFO, PDX-SEA. I can see a green new deal oriented Congress and White House passing restrictions on flying in those areas and gradually doing so in other areas if they are able to fund rail projects. France is doing it now so it is something that is being tried elsewhere and could be replicated here on some level especially if certain politicians gain enough power.

We already have Acela service on the Northeast Corridor which hasn’t taken too big of a bite out of air travel demand there which is odd as the airfares are about the same as Acela tickets and the convenience factor of just hopping on a train at Penn Station to get Downtown DC without having to deal with the airports and ground transportation is a huge plus. The other city pairs you mention have been talking about high speed solutions for years and they never can get funding for them. The current Virgin Trains US running from MIA - PBI with planned extension to MCO is going to take around 3 hours one way. That’s still about drive time.

Provided we survive this covid nonsense, I think most of the junior guys here have their careers before we have to worry about high speed rail becoming a true threat.

 

[Nyama]

It wouldn't take the whole country to reduce airline traffic volume. DC-NYC-BOS corridor would be the most likely then possibly MIA-MCO, LA-SFO, PDX-SEA. I can see a green new deal oriented Congress and White House passing restrictions on flying in those areas and gradually doing so in other areas if they are able to fund rail projects. France is doing it now so it is something that is being tried elsewhere and could be replicated here on some level especially if certain politicians gain enough power.

This 100% needs to happen.

 

[GateChange]

It wouldn't take the whole country to reduce airline traffic volume. DC-NYC-BOS corridor would be the most likely then possibly MIA-MCO, LA-SFO, PDX-SEA. I can see a green new deal oriented Congress and White House passing restrictions on flying in those areas and gradually doing so in other areas if they are able to fund rail projects. France is doing it now so it is something that is being tried elsewhere and could be replicated here on some level especially if certain politicians gain enough power.

Good luck getting that past all the NIMBY folks. Not saying it's a bad idea, but just being realistic.

 

[Flagship_dxer]

Good luck getting that past all the NIMBY folks. Not saying it's a bad idea, but just being realistic.

I do not want this to happen. But the green lobby is growing fast and will want something in return for their investment once they have the power. I don't think they will get the more restrictive things they want but they will get smaller things. I think the most likely scenario in the short term would be restrictions on taxi times at airports to reduce emissions as well as things like needing a clearance on an open route before pushing from the gate and starting engines as well as not pushing from the gate during groundstops. Reducing the long taxis would come with strong support from the public and likely get bi-partisan support.