History of the No Furlough Clause

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I keep hearing that every "no furlough clause" in the history of the airline business has been broken. Im looking for examples. Also, only ones that didnt involve a bankruptcy judge. Thanks!

Of course, the answer depends on individual contract language. Historically, no-furlough clauses have always been linked to "force majeure" language, which is how Delta and other legacy carriers furloughed pilots following 9/11 even though they weren't in bankruptcy yet. Force majeure is a legal concept that deals with providing an exception for major events outside of the control of the company. For example, a terrorist attack could cause the whole air travel system to be shut down for a week, causing the company to lose tremendous amounts of money. That would be out of the control of the company, and they could then use it as a reason to furlough, despite the no-furlough clause.

In the case of ASA, your current no-furlough language is pretty good. It contains specific examples of what constitutes "outside of the company's control," and what doesn't. Most notably, it specifically stipulates that the state of the economy is not an acceptable reason to furlough. I wouldn't expect them to try to get around it, because their chances of winning the arbitration would be remote.

good thing they gave up scope to get another one!

Not quite what happened.

 

[mxflyer]

Fact of the matter is if they need to cut cost and furlough they are going to. Period. Regardless of what the contract says.... And I have a feeling the senior union leadership (whom jobs would be safe), would much rather that then the company reducing their hours, money in their bank, etc.... Or at least thats the mind set I've been seeing lately. I've got mine so screw you mentality that MUST stop. But I hate to say it, but if ASA management determinds they need to furlough more, including those "protected", I see it happening. Perhaps not a furlough, but a FORCED leave of absense? Make a play on words.

I agree; I normally don't see eye to eye with you but I actually agree with this statement. This has already played out at ASA.

Fortunately there are also a lot of senoir pilots (whose jobs are safe) that would rather not see pilot reductions, so that mentality is not the norm among the entire pilot group.

I really hope that ASA is done with furloughs but this latest wave in not accounting for the 20 -200s that are parking next year. Hopefully they find a way to keep from letting more go. I think it's a good sign that they stopped at the no-furlough clause but I believe they'll find (or already have found) a way around it. Only time will tell

 

[mxflyer]

Getting worried are we?

Who's not

 

[derg]

I keep hearing that every "no furlough clause" in the history of the airline business has been broken. Im looking for examples. Also, only ones that didnt involve a bankruptcy judge. Thanks!

Delta.

A little thingy called "Force Majeure" in a lot of contracts that when things happen out of the companies control, they can pretty much do whatever.

 

[meyers9163]

Who's not

Like I told Marcus after being furloughed once.... The heck with it. Fly, do your job, enjoy it, and if it happens ADJUST. Somethings you do not have control over are just not worth losing any sleep over. Plan ahead as much as you can, but to stress something you lack control over in a sense is silly. I rather have my sleep and a good back up plan then worrying every night about the what if's. But that's me.

 

[Trip7]

Of course, the answer depends on individual contract language. Historically, no-furlough clauses have always been linked to "force majeure" language, which is how Delta and other legacy carriers furloughed pilots following 9/11 even though they weren't in bankruptcy yet. Force majeure is a legal concept that deals with providing an exception for major events outside of the control of the company. For example, a terrorist attack could cause the whole air travel system to be shut down for a week, causing the company to lose tremendous amounts of money. That would be out of the control of the company, and they could then use it as a reason to furlough, despite the no-furlough clause.

In the case of ASA, your current no-furlough language is pretty good. It contains specific examples of what constitutes "outside of the company's control," and what doesn't. Most notably, it specifically stipulates that the state of the economy is not an acceptable reason to furlough. I wouldn't expect them to try to get around it, because their chances of winning the arbitration would be remote.



Not quite what happened.

Ok that makes sense why they furloughed. "Force Majeure" you learn something new everyday. About the ASA clause, I was thinking along the same lines. Here's the clause word for word for you lawyers, wanna-be lawyers or practice for J-train:

J. No Furlough

For the duration of this Agreement, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 23 and the provisions of Section 1.E.4, the Company will not furlough any pilot whose name is on the Seniority List on the effective date of this Agreement except in circumstances over which the Company has no control. The term "circumstances over which the Company has no control" includes, but is not limited to, a natural disaster; grounding of a substantial number of the Company's aircraft by a government agency; reduction in flying operations because of a decrease in available fuel supply or other critical material due to either governmental action or commercial suppliers being unable to provide sufficient fuel or other critical materials for the Company's operations; revocation of the Company's operating certificate; war emergency; owner's delay in delivery of aircraft scheduled for delivery; or manufacturer's delay in delivery of new aircraft scheduled for delivery. The term 'circumstances over which the Company has no control' will not include the price of fuel or other supplies, the price of aircraft, the state of the economy, the financial state of the Company, or the relative profitability or unprofitability of the Company's then-current operations.

 

[H46Bubba]

Here's something that I didn't see in the wording of the contract. If Delta were to take back the aircraft that it posses the leases on, and either return them to the leassor or to another DCI carrier;would the "no furlough clause" cover the pilot group if that were to ever occur?

 

[Trip7]

Here's something that I didn't see in the wording of the contract. If Delta were to take back the aircraft that it posses the leases on, and either return them to the leassor or to another DCI carrier;would the "no furlough clause" cover the pilot group if that were to ever occur?

Delta can't do that since those aircraft are under contract.

 

[H46Bubba]

Delta can't do that since those aircraft are under contract.

Are the aircraft under contract or is it the percentage of flights?

 

[kellwolf]

Couple of things. The one that would concern me most: "includes, but is not limited to." If Delta were to cut flying or pull a Freedom and pay for the airframes but not supply the block hours to justify their use, that would be VERY similar to not having airframes b/c of a manufacturer delay. You don't have the airframes or the flying, so I could see them trying to weasel out that way. I know it says that profitability of the company isn't a reason to furlough, but if they need to, I see some looopholes in that clause that could be exploited.

Working for several years at a company that exploits every loophole they can find kinda gets you honed in on language. I can't wait to tear apart our new TA looking for loopholes.....

 

[derg]

Trust me, if the company wants to furlough, the company will furlough.

Period.

Especially when it comes to the 'brand', they'll pretty much do what they want and probably even give you a ride to court to argue it out.

I'm not trying to be negative, just that my pilot group went through "Force Majeure I" after 9/11 and then "Force Majeure II" during SARS, of all things.

 

[MDPilot]

Trust me, if the company wants to furlough, the company will furlough.

Period.

Especially when it comes to the 'brand', they'll pretty much do what they want and probably even give you a ride to court to argue it out.

I'm not trying to be negative, just that my pilot group went through "Force Majeure I" after 9/11 and then "Force Majeure II" during SARS, of all things.

Just a small correction, FMII was due to the beginning of the Iraq Invasion/War in Mar 2003, not SARS. Been there.

 

[derg]

I was sitting here debating what they used for FM2.

Oh yes! Now I remember the "You know when the first bomb is dropped, they're going to drop the ax" stuff from the DALPA forum.

Were you FM1 or FM2?

 

[MDPilot]

FMII. I was on vacation in a condo in FL watching the bombs drop. DAL had just stopped FMI furloughs, and I knew right then that they would be starting up again. My furlough date was May 03, fortunately recalled in Dec 03 ( but didn't go back to training until Sep 04)

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Companies are pretty good about getting around no-furlough clauses, but remember that you actually won an arbitration over FM1. Despite the many loop-holes, they aren't completely useless.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

Yup, Bankruptcy. Now enough said

Not quite.. bankruptcy wasn't declared until late 2004. Everyone had long been on the street. Though shalt bow to force majeure.

 

[H46Bubba]

Couple of things. The one that would concern me most: "includes, but is not limited to." If Delta were to cut flying or pull a Freedom and pay for the airframes but not supply the block hours to justify their use, that would be VERY similar to not having airframes b/c of a manufacturer delay. You don't have the airframes or the flying, so I could see them trying to weasel out that way. I know it says that profitability of the company isn't a reason to furlough, but if they need to, I see some looopholes in that clause that could be exploited.

Working for several years at a company that exploits every loophole they can find kinda gets you honed in on language. I can't wait to tear apart our new TA looking for loopholes.....

Delta pays the leases on: 10 CRJ-200, 9 CRJ-700, and all 10 CRJ-900 that ASA has in their fleet.

 

[surreal1221]

It's not comfortable being the plug huh?

 

[derg]

From what I've seen. A company is going to do whatever the company wants and will leave it to you to bash it out in the courts.

At least as far as I've seen. Kind of depressing at times.

 

[Trip7]

Delta pays the leases on: 10 CRJ-200, 9 CRJ-700, and all 10 CRJ-900 that ASA has in their fleet.

Leased? I thought Delta owns the planes.

From what I've seen. A company is going to do whatever the company wants and will leave it to you to bash it out in the courts.

At least as far as I've seen. Kind of depressing at times.

If the company really wanted to do what it wanted I'm sure they would have furloughed past 56. With the cuts they're making this fall sounds like we'll have lots of pilots on reserve with plenty of free time.

Now if we lose the 20 200s with no replacements then all the extra pilots will be at a ridiculous level. Will be interesting to see how that plays out.