Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
devron
Posts: 366
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:56 am

Re: Menzies axes 17,500 staff

Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:37 pm

Can't they make food for hospital?
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4297
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: Menzies axes 17,500 staff

Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:43 pm

eta unknown wrote:
These days how many airlines do their own handling outside their home country anyway? That entire function has sadly largely been outsourced.


United does at LHR. I think NRT also.
 
UA772IAD
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 7:43 am

Re: Menzies axes 17,500 staff

Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:45 pm

jetmatt777 wrote:
UA772IAD wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
That's a risk one takes when accepting a job with a vendor. The margins are thin and in a situation like these the mainline carrier will only be concerned about preserving its own existence. It certainly won't be funneling money to its vendors.


What nonsense. Do you honestly think the frontline staff are presented with a pie chart of the company's finances when presented with the offer letter for the job?


it's not nonsense. There's not going to be many companies, in any industry, propping up their employment vendors. In many cases, they will cease payments to vendors and go delinquent.


Considering how much work has been contracted out to vendors in the airline industry specifically here, if the work isn't performed by a vendor, it may not get done, or will get done in some other creative fashion.

Of course in these times as business contracts, vendor contracts are going to come under the financial microscope- and services may be reduced, held back or cancelled. That's not what I'm objecting to.

What I'm saying is nonsense, if I'm reading your comment correctly, is that "that's the risk one takes when accepting a job as a vendor." And again, how many of these people do you think are presented with the information, or the privilege to make a risk assessment when choosing a job that they may be taking out of necessity?
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 5957
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: Menzies axes 17,500 staff

Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:47 pm

Just the beginning

And yes vendors go first, then airline staff.

That’s because the actual airline doesn’t have to do the messy work with vendors… They just end the contract
 
CALMSP
Posts: 3226
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

Re: Menzies axes 17,500 staff

Fri Mar 27, 2020 5:55 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
Just the beginning

And yes vendors go first, then airline staff.

That’s because the actual airline doesn’t have to do the messy work with vendors… They just end the contract


are we sure about that? (example) Do we think UA in IAD will dump their UAX vendor and then move mainline employees to work UAX flights? I can't see that happening. Its going to cost United a lot less to pay their vendor to do it than their own employees.
 
UA772IAD
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 7:43 am

Re: Menzies axes 17,500 staff

Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:00 pm

CALMSP wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
Just the beginning

And yes vendors go first, then airline staff.

That’s because the actual airline doesn’t have to do the messy work with vendors… They just end the contract


are we sure about that? (example) Do we think UA in IAD will dump their UAX vendor and then move mainline employees to work UAX flights? I can't see that happening. Its going to cost United a lot less to pay their vendor to do it than their own employees.

Agreed. The vendor is going to require a lot less manpower to handle the new operation- but it is still deemed essential- for the time being...
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4297
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: Menzies axes 17,500 staff

Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:03 pm

CALMSP wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
Just the beginning

And yes vendors go first, then airline staff.

That’s because the actual airline doesn’t have to do the messy work with vendors… They just end the contract


are we sure about that? (example) Do we think UA in IAD will dump their UAX vendor and then move mainline employees to work UAX flights? I can't see that happening. Its going to cost United a lot less to pay their vendor to do it than their own employees.

Maybe. If the company takes the bailout and can't layoff workers, you can at least keep them busy by insourcing work.

This may actually play out in Denver, where UA mainline handles UAX aircraft on mainline gates. We have actually been chipping away at their (menzies) work for a few years now. With the flight schedule reduced so dramatically, the entire UAX operation could easily slide over to mainline gates using gate crews that are sitting around doing nothing right now.
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4297
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: Menzies axes 17,500 staff

Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:13 pm

UA772IAD wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
UA772IAD wrote:

What nonsense. Do you honestly think the frontline staff are presented with a pie chart of the company's finances when presented with the offer letter for the job?


it's not nonsense. There's not going to be many companies, in any industry, propping up their employment vendors. In many cases, they will cease payments to vendors and go delinquent.


Considering how much work has been contracted out to vendors in the airline industry specifically here, if the work isn't performed by a vendor, it may not get done, or will get done in some other creative fashion.

Of course in these times as business contracts, vendor contracts are going to come under the financial microscope- and services may be reduced, held back or cancelled. That's not what I'm objecting to.

What I'm saying is nonsense, if I'm reading your comment correctly, is that "that's the risk one takes when accepting a job as a vendor." And again, how many of these people do you think are presented with the information, or the privilege to make a risk assessment when choosing a job that they may be taking out of necessity?


I am not saying it doesn't suck. I am not saying they do not deserve sympathy. I am saying, the ground handling vendor business is notoriously unstable, and is often the first to get affected. They do not have union protection for workers, and the mainline carriers do not have any obligation to prop them up when they are taking extraordinary measures just to keep their own lights on. There's no other way to put it. It's a risk accepting a job with an outsourced vendor. It is risky enough working at an airline with union protection against layoffs, it is doubly risky working for a company that has little protections of their own, and no protections for their workers.
 
UA772IAD
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 7:43 am

Re: Menzies axes 17,500 staff

Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:38 pm

jetmatt777 wrote:
UA772IAD wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:

it's not nonsense. There's not going to be many companies, in any industry, propping up their employment vendors. In many cases, they will cease payments to vendors and go delinquent.


Considering how much work has been contracted out to vendors in the airline industry specifically here, if the work isn't performed by a vendor, it may not get done, or will get done in some other creative fashion.

Of course in these times as business contracts, vendor contracts are going to come under the financial microscope- and services may be reduced, held back or cancelled. That's not what I'm objecting to.

What I'm saying is nonsense, if I'm reading your comment correctly, is that "that's the risk one takes when accepting a job as a vendor." And again, how many of these people do you think are presented with the information, or the privilege to make a risk assessment when choosing a job that they may be taking out of necessity?


I am not saying it doesn't suck. I am not saying they do not deserve sympathy. I am saying, the ground handling vendor business is notoriously unstable, and is often the first to get affected. They do not have union protection for workers, and the mainline carriers do not have any obligation to prop them up when they are taking extraordinary measures just to keep their own lights on. There's no other way to put it. It's a risk accepting a job with an outsourced vendor. It is risky enough working at an airline with union protection against layoffs, it is doubly risky working for a company that has little protections of their own, and no protections for their workers.


I do agree with you. When I worked for the airlines in OPS, I had the privilege of making the informed choice: work for the airline with the union and associated work rules, and benefits, and somewhat stability- (even though we were going into a recession and just emerged from BK) v. working for a vendor for well, minimum wage and the "benefit" of a SIDA badge and being around aircraft. But I don't think that a majority of the front line workers go into the GSE world (which I'm sure you know involves so much more than just catering or ramp) armed with that awareness. I don't think too many people aspire to be aircraft cleaners as the pinnacle of their working careers- but do so because its necessary to finance their lives (and is likely one of several survival jobs, based on how low the wages are).... Okay rant over!
 
UA772IAD
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 7:43 am

Re: Menzies axes 17,500 staff

Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:45 pm

jetmatt777 wrote:
CALMSP wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
Just the beginning

And yes vendors go first, then airline staff.

That’s because the actual airline doesn’t have to do the messy work with vendors… They just end the contract


are we sure about that? (example) Do we think UA in IAD will dump their UAX vendor and then move mainline employees to work UAX flights? I can't see that happening. Its going to cost United a lot less to pay their vendor to do it than their own employees.

Maybe. If the company takes the bailout and can't layoff workers, you can at least keep them busy by insourcing work.

This may actually play out in Denver, where UA mainline handles UAX aircraft on mainline gates. We have actually been chipping away at their (menzies) work for a few years now. With the flight schedule reduced so dramatically, the entire UAX operation could easily slide over to mainline gates using gate crews that are sitting around doing nothing right now.


I think the only other major consideration is equipment. Does UA own all the equipment necessary - or did they sell it off or dispose of it when the work went to contractors? Obviously some things are interchangeable or universal, like belt loaders and baggage carts/baggage tractors, but, If the answer is a broad "no" then its likely cheaper to keep a vendor service- keep the workforce numbers down, and not go out and purchase a bunch of equipment for a short term change.
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4297
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: Menzies axes 17,500 staff

Fri Mar 27, 2020 6:48 pm

UA772IAD wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
CALMSP wrote:

are we sure about that? (example) Do we think UA in IAD will dump their UAX vendor and then move mainline employees to work UAX flights? I can't see that happening. Its going to cost United a lot less to pay their vendor to do it than their own employees.

Maybe. If the company takes the bailout and can't layoff workers, you can at least keep them busy by insourcing work.

This may actually play out in Denver, where UA mainline handles UAX aircraft on mainline gates. We have actually been chipping away at their (menzies) work for a few years now. With the flight schedule reduced so dramatically, the entire UAX operation could easily slide over to mainline gates using gate crews that are sitting around doing nothing right now.


I think the only other major consideration is equipment. Does UA own all the equipment necessary - or did they sell it off or dispose of it when the work went to contractors? Obviously some things are interchangeable or universal, like belt loaders and baggage carts/baggage tractors, but, If the answer is a broad "no" then its likely cheaper to keep a vendor service- keep the workforce numbers down, and not go out and purchase a bunch of equipment for a short term change.


All of our mainline gates have a pushback, two beltloaders, and carts. And since we already work UAX when they assign a UAX plane to a mainline gate, we are already trained and current. We could takeover the UAX work tomorrow if the company so desired.
 
Boof02671
Posts: 2108
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: Menzies axes 17,500 staff

Fri Mar 27, 2020 7:14 pm

UA772IAD wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
UA772IAD wrote:

What nonsense. Do you honestly think the frontline staff are presented with a pie chart of the company's finances when presented with the offer letter for the job?


it's not nonsense. There's not going to be many companies, in any industry, propping up their employment vendors. In many cases, they will cease payments to vendors and go delinquent.


Considering how much work has been contracted out to vendors in the airline industry specifically here, if the work isn't performed by a vendor, it may not get done, or will get done in some other creative fashion.

Of course in these times as business contracts, vendor contracts are going to come under the financial microscope- and services may be reduced, held back or cancelled. That's not what I'm objecting to.

What I'm saying is nonsense, if I'm reading your comment correctly, is that "that's the risk one takes when accepting a job as a vendor." And again, how many of these people do you think are presented with the information, or the privilege to make a risk assessment when choosing a job that they may be taking out of necessity?

AA and the Association are holding talks about bringing outsourced ramp and cargo work ie cleaning, lavs, water, cargo, mail and other duties back in-house to keep everyone employed and get rid of the vendors.
 
CALMSP
Posts: 3226
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

Re: Menzies axes 17,500 staff

Fri Mar 27, 2020 7:19 pm

UA772IAD wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
CALMSP wrote:

are we sure about that? (example) Do we think UA in IAD will dump their UAX vendor and then move mainline employees to work UAX flights? I can't see that happening. Its going to cost United a lot less to pay their vendor to do it than their own employees.

Maybe. If the company takes the bailout and can't layoff workers, you can at least keep them busy by insourcing work.

This may actually play out in Denver, where UA mainline handles UAX aircraft on mainline gates. We have actually been chipping away at their (menzies) work for a few years now. With the flight schedule reduced so dramatically, the entire UAX operation could easily slide over to mainline gates using gate crews that are sitting around doing nothing right now.


I think the only other major consideration is equipment. Does UA own all the equipment necessary - or did they sell it off or dispose of it when the work went to contractors? Obviously some things are interchangeable or universal, like belt loaders and baggage carts/baggage tractors, but, If the answer is a broad "no" then its likely cheaper to keep a vendor service- keep the workforce numbers down, and not go out and purchase a bunch of equipment for a short term change.


I remember walking out on A in DEN and the equipment was Menzies.
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4297
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: Menzies axes 17,500 staff

Fri Mar 27, 2020 7:26 pm

CALMSP wrote:
UA772IAD wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
Maybe. If the company takes the bailout and can't layoff workers, you can at least keep them busy by insourcing work.

This may actually play out in Denver, where UA mainline handles UAX aircraft on mainline gates. We have actually been chipping away at their (menzies) work for a few years now. With the flight schedule reduced so dramatically, the entire UAX operation could easily slide over to mainline gates using gate crews that are sitting around doing nothing right now.


I think the only other major consideration is equipment. Does UA own all the equipment necessary - or did they sell it off or dispose of it when the work went to contractors? Obviously some things are interchangeable or universal, like belt loaders and baggage carts/baggage tractors, but, If the answer is a broad "no" then its likely cheaper to keep a vendor service- keep the workforce numbers down, and not go out and purchase a bunch of equipment for a short term change.


I remember walking out on A in DEN and the equipment was Menzies.


Menzies runs all of A East (uax) and B east from b50-b95 (except b52, 53, 55).

The current schedule could be operated solely on mainline gates if needed. There's not a lot going on.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2873
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: Menzies axes 17,500 staff

Fri Mar 27, 2020 8:27 pm

UA772IAD wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
CALMSP wrote:

are we sure about that? (example) Do we think UA in IAD will dump their UAX vendor and then move mainline employees to work UAX flights? I can't see that happening. Its going to cost United a lot less to pay their vendor to do it than their own employees.

Maybe. If the company takes the bailout and can't layoff workers, you can at least keep them busy by insourcing work.

This may actually play out in Denver, where UA mainline handles UAX aircraft on mainline gates. We have actually been chipping away at their (menzies) work for a few years now. With the flight schedule reduced so dramatically, the entire UAX operation could easily slide over to mainline gates using gate crews that are sitting around doing nothing right now.


I think the only other major consideration is equipment. Does UA own all the equipment necessary - or did they sell it off or dispose of it when the work went to contractors? Obviously some things are interchangeable or universal, like belt loaders and baggage carts/baggage tractors, but, If the answer is a broad "no" then its likely cheaper to keep a vendor service- keep the workforce numbers down, and not go out and purchase a bunch of equipment for a short term change.



UA already has a road map for this exact scenario. I was working the ramp at ORD when UA took over all UAX ground handling operations. Until we got the equipment we used mainline narrowbody and widebody belt loaders to load UAX aircraft and we used 737/A320/19 pushback tractors until UA source other equiptment. We didn't have to worry about tow bars because in our case at ORD at UAX most tow bars were owned by the UAX airline so the ground operator left them behind. Another interesting tidbit is at ORD the previous ground operator left a lot of ground equipment like tugs, baggage carts, ect behind.

Having said that the only way I can see UA take this extraordinary step is if there is a plan to permanently take over UAX operations with either mainline employees of United Ground Services. What we have been seeing at UA in many of the line stations is UGS takes over once the contract expires. If UA at IAD, DEN or any other station breaks the contract with Menzies or any other ground handler prematurely we do not get to walk away and keep the money. There are penalties UA or any other airline would have to pay as a result of a breach of contract.

Also once the pandemic is over if an airline is not going to permanently in-source the work currently being performed by vendors could canceling the contracts come back to haunt the airline?
 
UA772IAD
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 7:43 am

Re: Menzies axes 17,500 staff

Fri Mar 27, 2020 9:24 pm

jayunited wrote:
UA772IAD wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
Maybe. If the company takes the bailout and can't layoff workers, you can at least keep them busy by insourcing work.

This may actually play out in Denver, where UA mainline handles UAX aircraft on mainline gates. We have actually been chipping away at their (menzies) work for a few years now. With the flight schedule reduced so dramatically, the entire UAX operation could easily slide over to mainline gates using gate crews that are sitting around doing nothing right now.


I think the only other major consideration is equipment. Does UA own all the equipment necessary - or did they sell it off or dispose of it when the work went to contractors? Obviously some things are interchangeable or universal, like belt loaders and baggage carts/baggage tractors, but, If the answer is a broad "no" then its likely cheaper to keep a vendor service- keep the workforce numbers down, and not go out and purchase a bunch of equipment for a short term change.



UA already has a road map for this exact scenario. I was working the ramp at ORD when UA took over all UAX ground handling operations. Until we got the equipment we used mainline narrowbody and widebody belt loaders to load UAX aircraft and we used 737/A320/19 pushback tractors until UA source other equiptment. We didn't have to worry about tow bars because in our case at ORD at UAX most tow bars were owned by the UAX airline so the ground operator left them behind. Another interesting tidbit is at ORD the previous ground operator left a lot of ground equipment like tugs, baggage carts, ect behind.

Having said that the only way I can see UA take this extraordinary step is if there is a plan to permanently take over UAX operations with either mainline employees of United Ground Services. What we have been seeing at UA in many of the line stations is UGS takes over once the contract expires. If UA at IAD, DEN or any other station breaks the contract with Menzies or any other ground handler prematurely we do not get to walk away and keep the money. There are penalties UA or any other airline would have to pay as a result of a breach of contract.

Also once the pandemic is over if an airline is not going to permanently in-source the work currently being performed by vendors could canceling the contracts come back to haunt the airline?


The setup at SFO was similar when I worked ramp there. OO was handling their own ramp ops on our behalf with a mix of ours and their own equipment.

In response to what you and others have said upthread- I think it depends on how things shake out really. No one knows how things are going to look on the other side of all of this. I know we're getting deep in the weeds here since we all have ops experience (which is great!), but to pull it back to the broader discussion, GSEs provide so much more than just ramp functions- even at hub operations. Lavatory service, aircraft cleaners, catering, fueling, customer service in the terminal, etc. Do we really think the airlines are going to do this, when the whole purpose of farming out in house work is to keep costs down? It was mentioned that AA was toying with the idea to keep people at work (which is great if you're not going to be displaced by someone else)- but isn't that just circling the wagon here?
 
UA772IAD
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 7:43 am

Re: Menzies axes 17,500 staff

Fri Mar 27, 2020 9:27 pm

UA772IAD wrote:
jayunited wrote:
UA772IAD wrote:

I think the only other major consideration is equipment. Does UA own all the equipment necessary - or did they sell it off or dispose of it when the work went to contractors? Obviously some things are interchangeable or universal, like belt loaders and baggage carts/baggage tractors, but, If the answer is a broad "no" then its likely cheaper to keep a vendor service- keep the workforce numbers down, and not go out and purchase a bunch of equipment for a short term change.



UA already has a road map for this exact scenario. I was working the ramp at ORD when UA took over all UAX ground handling operations. Until we got the equipment we used mainline narrowbody and widebody belt loaders to load UAX aircraft and we used 737/A320/19 pushback tractors until UA source other equiptment. We didn't have to worry about tow bars because in our case at ORD at UAX most tow bars were owned by the UAX airline so the ground operator left them behind. Another interesting tidbit is at ORD the previous ground operator left a lot of ground equipment like tugs, baggage carts, ect behind.

Having said that the only way I can see UA take this extraordinary step is if there is a plan to permanently take over UAX operations with either mainline employees of United Ground Services. What we have been seeing at UA in many of the line stations is UGS takes over once the contract expires. If UA at IAD, DEN or any other station breaks the contract with Menzies or any other ground handler prematurely we do not get to walk away and keep the money. There are penalties UA or any other airline would have to pay as a result of a breach of contract.

Also once the pandemic is over if an airline is not going to permanently in-source the work currently being performed by vendors could canceling the contracts come back to haunt the airline?


The setup at SFO was similar when I worked ramp there. OO was handling their own ramp ops with a mix of ours (UAL mainline) and their own equipment.

In response to what you and others have said upthread- I think it depends on how things shake out really. No one knows how things are going to look on the other side of all of this. I know we're getting deep in the weeds here since we all have ops experience (which is great!), but to pull it back to the broader discussion, GSEs provide so much more than just ramp functions- even at hub operations. Lavatory service, aircraft cleaners, catering, fueling, customer service in the terminal, etc. Do we really think the airlines are going to do this, when the whole purpose of farming out in house work is to keep costs down? It was mentioned that AA was toying with the idea to keep people at work (which is great if you're not going to be displaced by someone else)- but isn't that just circling the wagon here?
 
N649DL
Posts: 975
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Airlines unpaid leaves and layoffs thread

Fri Mar 27, 2020 10:05 pm

KFTG wrote:
N649DL wrote:
I would also think for younger Pilots (and the fact that there was going to be a shortage before the virus) it could be a good time for some to hang at the training center in Denver to train on aircraft with more seniority.

That isn't how any of this works. At all.


Jesus Christ. Just trying to be a little optimistic brah.
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4969
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: Aviation sector unpaid leaves and layoffs thread

Sat Mar 28, 2020 12:58 am

I hear PenAir grounded all their Saab 2000s and laid everyone off. Ot sure if this is temporary or for good. RAVN is operating the entire mainline schedule on dash 8.
 
LUKAS10
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:54 pm

Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 11:41 am

Hi guys,

given the current situation in the aviation sector, many airlines will most likely cut many jobs.
I'm just wondering (and I apologies if my question sounds stupid) how airlines decide on whom to particularly dismiss.

Let's say the airline needs to dismiss 30 % of cabin crew staff. How do they decide who particularly will lose their job? Does the airline's decision depends on the seniority, over-all performance, type of contract...? Or do they simply choose a number of random employees. What simply leads to decision that Mark will lose his job but Jane still has it? (Mark and Jane are fictional characters).

Thank you for the answer.

I'm still a student so I have a very little insight into the world of large corporations.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4989
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 12:03 pm

LUKAS10 wrote:
Hi guys,

given the current situation in the aviation sector, many airlines will most likely cut many jobs.
I'm just wondering (and I apologies if my question sounds stupid) how airlines decide on whom to particularly dismiss.

Let's say the airline needs to dismiss 30 % of cabin crew staff. How do they decide who particularly will lose their job? Does the airline's decision depends on the seniority, over-all performance, type of contract...? Or do they simply choose a number of random employees. What simply leads to decision that Mark will lose his job but Jane still has it? (Mark and Jane are fictional characters).

Thank you for the answer.

I'm still a student so I have a very little insight into the world of large corporations.

to make sure it's fairly done? t will be more than likely be done by seniority.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8068
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 12:27 pm

U.S./Canadian carriers, Western European carriers, will do inverse seniority layoffs - the least senior get bumped first. This will be seniority within craft -- pilots, mechanics, FAs... for every craft that is unionized, or prospectively unionized (like Delta). It has nothing to do with fairness - it's specified by contract.

In the U.S., the management/professional/technical/admin staff are employed at-will by law in most states. A carrier can use whatever lawful filtering criteria it wants (so not age, gender, religion, marriage status or disability).
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 1012
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 12:29 pm

LUKAS10 wrote:
Hi guys,

given the current situation in the aviation sector, many airlines will most likely cut many jobs.
I'm just wondering (and I apologies if my question sounds stupid) how airlines decide on whom to particularly dismiss.

Let's say the airline needs to dismiss 30 % of cabin crew staff. How do they decide who particularly will lose their job? Does the airline's decision depends on the seniority, over-all performance, type of contract...? Or do they simply choose a number of random employees. What simply leads to decision that Mark will lose his job but Jane still has it? (Mark and Jane are fictional characters).

Thank you for the answer.

I'm still a student so I have a very little insight into the world of large corporations.


One thing for sure, airlines' labour situations are not really representative of how the rest of "the world of large corporations" works.
For one, airline labour is big on seniority. In unionized positions within airlines in countries like the USA, seniority is the only thing that matters. In case of layoffs, it's "last in -- first out". So "seniority number" and "seniority lists" are the deciding factors.

Now, the complication is, you could work for an airline group, but not necessarily mainline airline, but a "regional". Even though you work in the same group, you are working for a standalone company, and that has a separate seniority list. Sometimes, these have "flow-through" arrangements, sometimes (mostly) they don't. "Flow-through" could be unidirectional (up only) or work in both directions.
Again, a regional could be wholly-owned, or partly owned, or independent from the airline group.
Some possible situations of shrinking:
1) wholly-owned, no flow through -- loses some flying from mainline, furloughs junior employees
2) wholly-owned, flow both ways -- loses some flying; junior employees from mainline flow back, kick down (and out) some regional employees
3) independent -- loses some flying, furloughs junior employees
4) independent -- loses some flying through service cuts, loses some flying to wholly-owned regional (for a multitude of possible reasons), loses some flying because of ratio of "mainline to regional" in scope clauses needs rebalancing. Could survive but shrink, furloughs junior employees. Or could be kicked out to the curb, to slowly die, while trying to fend for themselves.

Even within mainline carriers, things are not necessarily clear-cut, as same job could be done by people on different seniority lists. British Airways has multiple cabin crew lists, through Eurofleet, Mixed Fleet and Worldwide Fleet. New Zealand Airways has a special situation in their long-haul cabin crew staffing (somebody more knowledgeable should chime in here).
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
TUGMASTER
Posts: 1207
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 8:56 pm

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 12:39 pm

LUKAS10 wrote:
Hi guys,

What simply leads to decision that Mark will lose his job but Jane still has it? (Mark and Jane are fictional characters).


Phew...... that was close.
Thought you knew something I didn’t.

Lots of love Mark & Jane.

( real people , not fictional)
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 881
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 5:11 pm

FA cuts are always brutal.
FA’s in the US generally fall into three categories. Youngsters in their first-ish jobs enjoying the glamour of it all, single mothers trying to get by on FA pay, and older FA’s that left to raise a family then came back.To most of them it is a Hobby job.

The first group is going to get screwed, hard, by the coming layoffs. The Senior hobby job FA’s like to be able to trip trade and pick days off. They aren’t going to cover sick calls or open time, and they damn sure are not going to sit any reserve other than In base hots.

That leaves the ones in the middle to take the heat, the late calls, run the crappy routes, broken up trips, Out of base reserve, and lousy overnights. As time passes, they get grumpier and grumpier, that shows up in the customer surveys. Not the first time it has ever happened.
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 881
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 5:20 pm

Phosphorus wrote:
LUKAS10 wrote:
Hi guys,

given the current situation in the aviation sector, many airlines will most likely cut many jobs.
I'm just wondering (and I apologies if my question sounds stupid) how airlines decide on whom to particularly dismiss.

Let's say the airline needs to dismiss 30 % of cabin crew staff. How do they decide who particularly will lose their job? Does the airline's decision depends on the seniority, over-all performance, type of contract...? Or do they simply choose a number of random employees. What simply leads to decision that Mark will lose his job but Jane still has it? (Mark and Jane are fictional characters).

Thank you for the answer.

I'm still a student so I have a very little insight into the world of large corporations.


One thing for sure, airlines' labour situations are not really representative of how the rest of "the world of large corporations" works.
For one, airline labour is big on seniority. In unionized positions within airlines in countries like the USA, seniority is the only thing that matters. In case of layoffs, it's "last in -- first out". So "seniority number" and "seniority lists" are the deciding factors.

Now, the complication is, you could work for an airline group, but not necessarily mainline airline, but a "regional". Even though you work in the same group, you are working for a standalone company, and that has a separate seniority list. Sometimes, these have "flow-through" arrangements, sometimes (mostly) they don't. "Flow-through" could be unidirectional (up only) or work in both directions.
Again, a regional could be wholly-owned, or partly owned, or independent from the airline group.
Some possible situations of shrinking:
1) wholly-owned, no flow through -- loses some flying from mainline, furloughs junior employees
2) wholly-owned, flow both ways -- loses some flying; junior employees from mainline flow back, kick down (and out) some regional employees
3) independent -- loses some flying, furloughs junior employees
4) independent -- loses some flying through service cuts, loses some flying to wholly-owned regional (for a multitude of possible reasons), loses some flying because of ratio of "mainline to regional" in scope clauses needs rebalancing. Could survive but shrink, furloughs junior employees. Or could be kicked out to the curb, to slowly die, while trying to fend for themselves.

Even within mainline carriers, things are not necessarily clear-cut, as same job could be done by people on different seniority lists. British Airways has multiple cabin crew lists, through Eurofleet, Mixed Fleet and Worldwide Fleet. New Zealand Airways has a special situation in their long-haul cabin crew staffing (somebody more knowledgeable should chime in here).


I can’t remember the details, but didn’t one of the pilot groups have flow down included in their contract? (United???)
Namely, that if the mother company lays off pilots, they can flow down into parent-owned aircraft at the regionals??

Or was that an FA group?
Last edited by FlyingElvii on Sat May 16, 2020 5:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Tristar787
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 11:08 am

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 5:21 pm

I know that some foreign carriers will not be using seniority as the primary criteria to do f/a layoffs. Some of the US carriers have furlough clauses already in place for some of the unionized work groups and as others have said, they often use inverse seniority. I believe the terms can be negotiated into the contracts when they are up for amendment.
 
lhrnue
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 6:00 pm

Don't think there is a general answer to this. Labour laws are too different around the world.
 
mattyfitzg
Posts: 263
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 4:50 pm

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 6:52 pm

For an airline like United is it not made more difficult, since they have overseas bases (LHR FRA etc), what happens to them? Do they have an individual seniority list, or do they merge into the bigger picture?
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 881
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 6:59 pm

mattyfitzg wrote:
For an airline like United is it not made more difficult, since they have overseas bases (LHR FRA etc), what happens to them? Do they have an individual seniority list, or do they merge into the bigger picture?

Only US Citizens or Green Card holders are allowed to operate as crew on US Aircraft, making them subject to US labor laws, wherever they may be based.
The Place of Employment is “ Headquarters, USA”
 
RetiredWeasel
Posts: 805
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 8:16 pm

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 7:03 pm

FlyingElvii wrote:
mattyfitzg wrote:
For an airline like United is it not made more difficult, since they have overseas bases (LHR FRA etc), what happens to them? Do they have an individual seniority list, or do they merge into the bigger picture?

Only US Citizens or Green Card holders are allowed to operate as crew on US Aircraft, making them subject to US labor laws, wherever they may be based.
The Place of Employment is “ Headquarters, USA”


Can't speak for the present, but both United and Northwest had foreign flight attendants and interpreters that were based in their home countries. They had separate seniority lists. Pilots were all US citizens or green card.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 7:05 pm

Really hard will it be if bases get closed and you might be senior enough to not lose your job but your job is now in ORD instead of DEN (just as an example).
Now what do you do?
 
mattyfitzg
Posts: 263
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 4:50 pm

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 7:09 pm

FlyingElvii wrote:
mattyfitzg wrote:
For an airline like United is it not made more difficult, since they have overseas bases (LHR FRA etc), what happens to them? Do they have an individual seniority list, or do they merge into the bigger picture?

Only US Citizens or Green Card holders are allowed to operate as crew on US Aircraft, making them subject to US labor laws, wherever they may be based.
The Place of Employment is “ Headquarters, USA”


United has a crew base in London which has British citizens operating out of it, in fact the majority of the London base are European nationals, likewise with FRA and formerly CDG
 
Turnhouse1
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 7:21 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
U.S./Canadian carriers, Western European carriers, will do inverse seniority layoffs - the least senior get bumped first. This will be seniority within craft -- pilots, mechanics, FAs... for every craft that is unionized, or prospectively unionized (like Delta). It has nothing to do with fairness - it's specified by contract.

In the U.S., the management/professional/technical/admin staff are employed at-will by law in most states. A carrier can use whatever lawful filtering criteria it wants (so not age, gender, religion, marriage status or disability).


In the UK, seniority or Last In First Out is generally illegal as it is indirect age discrimination, i.e inevitably age and length of service correlate. There will be more nuanced criteria such as performance reviews and attendance records used. I don't know, but suspect many EU countries have similar discrimination rules, they will prohibit discrimination on Sex, Ethnicity etc, again newer staff are potentially more Female, non-white etc so LIFO is on dodgy ground.
 
User avatar
DalDC9Bos
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 4:54 am

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 7:46 pm

RetiredWeasel wrote:
FlyingElvii wrote:
mattyfitzg wrote:
For an airline like United is it not made more difficult, since they have overseas bases (LHR FRA etc), what happens to them? Do they have an individual seniority list, or do they merge into the bigger picture?

Only US Citizens or Green Card holders are allowed to operate as crew on US Aircraft, making them subject to US labor laws, wherever they may be based.
The Place of Employment is “ Headquarters, USA”


Can't speak for the present, but both United and Northwest had foreign flight attendants and interpreters that were based in their home countries. They had separate seniority lists. Pilots were all US citizens or green card.


Ya, United closed its FA bases where they had hired foreigners during the 2008 Great Recession. I believe it was a Bangkok, Manila, and Tokyo bases. They attended the same training at the UA then Tilton Hilton HQ in Chicago/Elk Grove. They did have a different uniform.
 
User avatar
DalDC9Bos
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 4:54 am

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 7:55 pm

mattyfitzg wrote:
FlyingElvii wrote:
mattyfitzg wrote:
For an airline like United is it not made more difficult, since they have overseas bases (LHR FRA etc), what happens to them? Do they have an individual seniority list, or do they merge into the bigger picture?

Only US Citizens or Green Card holders are allowed to operate as crew on US Aircraft, making them subject to US labor laws, wherever they may be based.
The Place of Employment is “ Headquarters, USA”


United has a crew base in London which has British citizens operating out of it, in fact the majority of the London base are European nationals, likewise with FRA and formerly CDG


Ya, I don’t believe this is correct. I don’t know what UA is doing since the merger, but before that London was a regular United base staffed with US citizens. I met the LHR FA base supervisor in Chicago and she described that she transferred from the IAD base and that transfers are always shocked by the cost of living. It was not very senior at the time to transfer to and any crew could put in a bid for it. I don’t know about the past FRA or CDG bases.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6080
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 7:55 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
Really hard will it be if bases get closed and you might be senior enough to not lose your job but your job is now in ORD instead of DEN (just as an example).
Now what do you do?


Commute, rent a crash pad in the new base. Commuting, meaning flying into your base, covers about 60% of US pilots, as a guess.
 
twicearound
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:56 pm

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 8:14 pm

In the US it's in seniority order from the bottom up, and Pilots and FA's don't get "laid off" we are furloughed, there is a difference.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7283
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 8:18 pm

For management and admin employees such as myself it will be based on performance and merit. This translates to if your boss likes you or not.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
OB1504
Posts: 3962
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 5:10 am

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 8:25 pm

Turnhouse1 wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
U.S./Canadian carriers, Western European carriers, will do inverse seniority layoffs - the least senior get bumped first. This will be seniority within craft -- pilots, mechanics, FAs... for every craft that is unionized, or prospectively unionized (like Delta). It has nothing to do with fairness - it's specified by contract.

In the U.S., the management/professional/technical/admin staff are employed at-will by law in most states. A carrier can use whatever lawful filtering criteria it wants (so not age, gender, religion, marriage status or disability).


In the UK, seniority or Last In First Out is generally illegal as it is indirect age discrimination, i.e inevitably age and length of service correlate. There will be more nuanced criteria such as performance reviews and attendance records used. I don't know, but suspect many EU countries have similar discrimination rules, they will prohibit discrimination on Sex, Ethnicity etc, again newer staff are potentially more Female, non-white etc so LIFO is on dodgy ground.


Is it still considered age discrimination if it favors older employees? The US also has age discrimination laws but they only apply to people over 40.
 
OB1504
Posts: 3962
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 5:10 am

Re: Menzies axes 17,500 staff

Sat May 16, 2020 8:50 pm

jetmatt777 wrote:
UA772IAD wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:

it's not nonsense. There's not going to be many companies, in any industry, propping up their employment vendors. In many cases, they will cease payments to vendors and go delinquent.


Considering how much work has been contracted out to vendors in the airline industry specifically here, if the work isn't performed by a vendor, it may not get done, or will get done in some other creative fashion.

Of course in these times as business contracts, vendor contracts are going to come under the financial microscope- and services may be reduced, held back or cancelled. That's not what I'm objecting to.

What I'm saying is nonsense, if I'm reading your comment correctly, is that "that's the risk one takes when accepting a job as a vendor." And again, how many of these people do you think are presented with the information, or the privilege to make a risk assessment when choosing a job that they may be taking out of necessity?


I am not saying it doesn't suck. I am not saying they do not deserve sympathy. I am saying, the ground handling vendor business is notoriously unstable, and is often the first to get affected. They do not have union protection for workers, and the mainline carriers do not have any obligation to prop them up when they are taking extraordinary measures just to keep their own lights on. There's no other way to put it. It's a risk accepting a job with an outsourced vendor. It is risky enough working at an airline with union protection against layoffs, it is doubly risky working for a company that has little protections of their own, and no protections for their workers.


Some vendors are unionized, though the unions are nowhere near as strong as those in the airlines.

UA772IAD wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
CALMSP wrote:

are we sure about that? (example) Do we think UA in IAD will dump their UAX vendor and then move mainline employees to work UAX flights? I can't see that happening. Its going to cost United a lot less to pay their vendor to do it than their own employees.

Maybe. If the company takes the bailout and can't layoff workers, you can at least keep them busy by insourcing work.

This may actually play out in Denver, where UA mainline handles UAX aircraft on mainline gates. We have actually been chipping away at their (menzies) work for a few years now. With the flight schedule reduced so dramatically, the entire UAX operation could easily slide over to mainline gates using gate crews that are sitting around doing nothing right now.


I think the only other major consideration is equipment. Does UA own all the equipment necessary - or did they sell it off or dispose of it when the work went to contractors? Obviously some things are interchangeable or universal, like belt loaders and baggage carts/baggage tractors, but, If the answer is a broad "no" then its likely cheaper to keep a vendor service- keep the workforce numbers down, and not go out and purchase a bunch of equipment for a short term change.


Some simpler work might go back in house but I don’t see more complicated tasks like fueling going back just yet.
 
MSJYOP28Apilot
Posts: 445
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 2:09 am

Re: Aviation sector unpaid leaves and layoffs thread

Sat May 16, 2020 9:08 pm

Seniority based furloughs are easier and better for management. They can more easily extract concessions out of a larger union work group to reduce or prevent furloughs. Every worker knows where they are on the furlough pecking order and will vote with that in mind. With some other metric, there will be more workers willing to take their chances.

Seniority based furloughs essentially make most airline employees married to that airline. Schedule, pay and man other things are determined by seniority. If an employee leaves, they will need to start all over again at the bottom of another airline. While this does protect some less productive and bad eggs, it also keeps the more productive and good eggs with the airline long term.

Seniority based furloughs let employees on furlough know they will eventually have a job with that company if it stays in business. It encourages those employees to return when re-called. It is much easier and cheaper for an airline to give some form of training to a re-called furloughed employee than it is to train a new employee from the street.

Seniority based furloughs protect airlines from employment lawsuits. Instead of facing numerous lawsuits from FAs, pilots and mechanics for employment discrimination and improper termination, airlines can fall back on union contracts and law that protects union contracts.

Seniority makes employees feel that the system overall is fair. Determining which fleet displaced pilots would go to would become political and take even more time to figure out. A seniority system is clear and straightforward. It allows management to more easily plan and analyze the costs of doing certain reductions.

While there are mostly younger employees that are junior, there are those career changers and late starters who are junior as well. Thus it could be than an employees in their 50s gets furloughed and one in their 20s keeps their job. Thats why I would disagree with anyone or any government who called it age discrimination.
 
myki
Posts: 213
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:43 am

Re: Aviation sector unpaid leaves and layoffs thread

Sat May 16, 2020 9:25 pm

Seniority can also be the worst way to do it, depending on the end goal. Do you want to cut numbers of staff, or do you want to save the most money?

A 20-year employee in a role will cost more than a 1-year employee in a role purely due to pay rises over time. You would lose the experience, but experience doesn't pay the bills. Cash does. So if you can pay someone with less experience less cash, then you would get rid of the newbies.

I believe QR did a mix of both when it was cabin crew specific (apologies if incorrect) - newbies (due to lack of experience), oldies (due to cost), leaving the middle-ground. How they have tackled other roles, not sure.
 
mattyfitzg
Posts: 263
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 4:50 pm

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 9:35 pm

DalDC9Bos wrote:
mattyfitzg wrote:
FlyingElvii wrote:
Only US Citizens or Green Card holders are allowed to operate as crew on US Aircraft, making them subject to US labor laws, wherever they may be based.
The Place of Employment is “ Headquarters, USA”


United has a crew base in London which has British citizens operating out of it, in fact the majority of the London base are European nationals, likewise with FRA and formerly CDG


Ya, I don’t believe this is correct. I don’t know what UA is doing since the merger, but before that London was a regular United base staffed with US citizens. I met the LHR FA base supervisor in Chicago and she described that she transferred from the IAD base and that transfers are always shocked by the cost of living. It was not very senior at the time to transfer to and any crew could put in a bid for it. I don’t know about the past FRA or CDG bases.



Having flown United a mere few weeks ago, I can guarantee that the LHR crew base is still staffed with British crews.
 
Turnhouse1
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 9:59 pm

OB1504 wrote:
Turnhouse1 wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
U.S./Canadian carriers, Western European carriers, will do inverse seniority layoffs - the least senior get bumped first. This will be seniority within craft -- pilots, mechanics, FAs... for every craft that is unionized, or prospectively unionized (like Delta). It has nothing to do with fairness - it's specified by contract.

In the U.S., the management/professional/technical/admin staff are employed at-will by law in most states. A carrier can use whatever lawful filtering criteria it wants (so not age, gender, religion, marriage status or disability).


In the UK, seniority or Last In First Out is generally illegal as it is indirect age discrimination, i.e inevitably age and length of service correlate. There will be more nuanced criteria such as performance reviews and attendance records used. I don't know, but suspect many EU countries have similar discrimination rules, they will prohibit discrimination on Sex, Ethnicity etc, again newer staff are potentially more Female, non-white etc so LIFO is on dodgy ground.


Is it still considered age discrimination if it favors older employees? The US also has age discrimination laws but they only apply to people over 40.


In general all UK discrimination rules work both ways, the idea is equality. With age there is often as much discrimination against the young as the old anyway. It does almost certainly also prohibit firing everyone at the top of the payscale as they are likely to be older, so again indirect age discrimination.

The only places I've seen deviation from that is where it's allowed to run a scheme to encourage and support members of an underrepresented group to apply for a job or university place, but once the application is in, the selection criteria should be equal for all.
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 881
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 11:42 pm

DalDC9Bos wrote:
mattyfitzg wrote:
FlyingElvii wrote:
Only US Citizens or Green Card holders are allowed to operate as crew on US Aircraft, making them subject to US labor laws, wherever they may be based.
The Place of Employment is “ Headquarters, USA”


United has a crew base in London which has British citizens operating out of it, in fact the majority of the London base are European nationals, likewise with FRA and formerly CDG


Ya, I don’t believe this is correct. I don’t know what UA is doing since the merger, but before that London was a regular United base staffed with US citizens. I met the LHR FA base supervisor in Chicago and she described that she transferred from the IAD base and that transfers are always shocked by the cost of living. It was not very senior at the time to transfer to and any crew could put in a bid for it. I don’t know about the past FRA or CDG bases.


It has been a while, but I seem to Remember that for pilots, the citizenship/ green card authorization is under Part 61????
 
sierrakilo44
Posts: 404
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:38 am

Re: Aviation sector unpaid leaves and layoffs thread

Sun May 17, 2020 12:23 am

MSJYOP28Apilot wrote:
Seniority based furloughs are easier and better for management.


There’s one way in which they definitely aren’t. If you are management of a big airline with many aircraft types, ranging from large widebodies to narrow bodies and maybe even a few RJs it is much cheaper to ignore seniority and furlough based on fleet requirements. In most airlines around the world, where there is a mixed fleet, the more senior pilots will gravitate to the larger widebody types. But with the current market long haul travel is the most effected and will take the longest to return back to normality, and the passenger loads for the next few years will probably necessitate only smaller aircraft.

So if seniority is strictly followed the pilots of the smaller aircraft would be furloughed and pilots of the larger aircraft would have to be all retrained to the smaller aircraft which is a huge expense and one most airlines in this time of huge losses can hardly afford. And then in a couple of years when demand returns and those larger aircraft are needed again they will be crewed again on seniority, which means all the senior pilots would request to return to their original roles and then you get to go through the process of retraining all of them back again an enormous cost.

Far far easier and cheaper to furlough those pilots who aren’t needed at the moment and bring them back when required, regardless of seniority.

Seniority makes employees feel that the system overall is fair. Determining which fleet displaced pilots would go to would become political and take even more time to figure out. A seniority system is clear and straightforward. It allows management to more easily plan and analyze the costs of doing certain reductions.


Outside of airline pilot flying seniority is barely used in any employment system. You basically get made surplus solely dependent on whether for not your particular role is needed at the time.

Furloughing and job losses outside of overall time in the company never seems to be a major issue in any other industry. And to be frank in a lot of places outside of the US airline industry it’s not really an issue either.

If you have the seniority and choose to go fly a larger widebody aircraft, have more time off and make more money that is your choice and good for you, but you are taking a risk. Don’t cry poor and demand to return to smaller more cost efficient aircraft that have a higher chance of remaining operational in an economic downturn.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13160
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Aviation sector unpaid leaves and layoffs thread

Sun May 17, 2020 2:38 am

In normal times training a pilot means removing him/her from the roster so there is a cost there, but since we're talking about people mostly sitting on their asses right now, what is the cost exactly ? Especially for airlines owning simulators, training material etc. ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
flyiguy
Posts: 998
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:21 pm

UA will give 1K status and 250,000 miles to employees who quit!

Sun May 17, 2020 3:06 am

Take an early out at the end of June, get 1/3 pay until November 30

Continue to receive health care through November 30

Receive Mileage Plus 1K status and 250,000 miles

Plus 5 years of active employee travel benefits, and then retiree travel benefits

Plus ‘priority access’ to future job openings

https://viewfromthewing.com/united-will ... OFu3fCUHKI

FLY
The opinions I post are of mine and mine alone, not of the airline I work for.
 
sierrakilo44
Posts: 404
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:38 am

Re: Aviation sector unpaid leaves and layoffs thread

Sun May 17, 2020 3:51 am

Aesma wrote:
In normal times training a pilot means removing him/her from the roster so there is a cost there, but since we're talking about people mostly sitting on their asses right now, what is the cost exactly ? Especially for airlines owning simulators, training material etc. ?


Quite a few costs.

One, if you are going to retrain a substantial number of pilots all at once you need an substantial number of extra instructors and training staff. It takes months to qualify extra instructors and they are usually paid additional wages for the instructor qualifications.

Two, airlines only have a limited number of simulators and aren't really prepared for mass retraining so they may have to hire out simulators from third party providers at a premium.

Three, not just simulator training is conducted but also training in the actual aircraft in flight (line training). You can do this via base training (with no revenue passengers onboard) which is an additional cost.

Four, it's almost impossible to do line training at the moment because barely any flights are running.

Five, instead of being furloughed you'll have to keep all these additional pilots and instructors on a salary for months (probably years) whilst they are being trained,

Six, it's not just from one fleet to another. So for example you have an airline with 777, 787, 767 and 320 and you were just getting rid of the 777,if the contract allows for it those moves may be made downwards from the 777 to the 787, then the excess 787 pilots to 767, then excess 767 pilots to 320 etc, which will just cascade the effect down and blow out the cost exponentially.

Six, when the passenger loads pick up in a few years time you get to go through the entire process again in reverse.

Trust me, additional pilot training is a huge cost to airlines and they do their upmost to prevent it from happening. Airlines usually "freeze" their pilots to one type for several years to prevent to much retraining, but if the market picks up quicker then those training freezes will have to be ignored.

There's other negatives to a retraining process like this in terms of operational experience, knowledge, team togetherness, morale, etc but cost is the main detracting point for airlines.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos