Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
FlyGuyNash
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:56 am

Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

Wed May 13, 2020 5:07 pm

United has the least amount of pilot retirements of the big 3 from now until 2022 and especially if no early retirement is offered they will have no choice but to furlough. American is making a good effort to get people out the door now with their early out program which should mitigate some furloughs. Delta is probably in the best shape to recover quicker and have to furlough less since they do way fewer international flying than AA/UA and domestic will recover a lot faster than international plus Delta should have a early out package here shortly.
 
catiii
Posts: 3519
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

Wed May 13, 2020 5:40 pm

ripcordd wrote:
United took government cheese and part of that was to keep employees on the clock and not violate their contract. United tried and now backed off in trying to make everyone PT it did take a lawsuit for them to stop but they tried. So while we all know their will be a layoff unless government cheese is given out again which in an election year is very possible the layoffs will start Oct 1st. All airlines will layoff all employees know this but only United has pissed off their employees more than the others for trying to be sneaky.


Other carriers have reduced hours too. It isn't unique to United. In my opinion UA is being smart about being so transparent about their plans come 10/1. It drives M&A and others internally to proactively take the voluntary options available to them, getting them off the books earlier.

If you think any of this is unique to UA though you're mistaken.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1706
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

Wed May 13, 2020 6:49 pm

DiamondFlyer wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:

You really don't understand this industry and labor in general do you? Any organized labor group is going to have protections that require furloughs from the bottom up.

Except that still doesn't make it right or logical; and would actually be the proof (if we ever needed more of them) that CBAs and unions are protecting (some, a lot of maybe?) lazy workers and not the work force in general.

Again, when you need to go through an RIF, you keep your best and brightest employees, not the most senior ones "just because of CBA".


So do tell, how do you figure out who is the "best and brightest" when it comes to a safety related position? What makes a pilot or FA more valuable to keep?

Well, just like pretty every company that doesn't have unions on-site does. This is nothing new, employees are rated in their jobs every single day.

What makes a pilot more valuable to keep than another one? I dunno, for example: the one that doesn't break airplanes left and right, the one who can land a plane properly without trashing tires every time, etc.
There are plenty of matrix available to rate an employee, irregardless whether that employee is in a safety-related position or not.

Just one question: it would appear, according to you, that pilots are never fired for safety-related issues. If true, that's scary.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1706
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

Wed May 13, 2020 6:56 pm

dm22 wrote:
Pi7472000 wrote:
Hopefully they're not only based on seniortiy. I have had many junior employees provide much better service than senior employees. hope they take into account the performence of the employee along with seniority.

I have had some really poor service from senior employees. Really odd how in the airlines junior employees are expected to sacrifice their jobs just because some may have been there a little longer. That would never be the sole reason to lay somone off in many other industries.


What a biased, ignorant statement to make. Had it not been for the work and sacrifices made by more senior people, the junior people wouldn't have a place to work. With seniority comes experience. I've been around enough junior people to see the good and the bad.

And with seniority also comes bad habits and tendencies to do things wrong "because that's how we've always done them".

No one is saying "fire the seniors first"; what we are saying is "fire the worst of your employees first and keep the best".

I've seen junior employees, as well as senior employees, do stupid things; on the other hand, I've seen senior employees, but also junior employees, do incredibly smart things to make the work safer and more efficient.
I don't care if you're 20 or 60, I don't care if you have 1 year or 40 years of experience: if you're stupid and dangerous, you shouldn't be working for me.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5075
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

Wed May 13, 2020 7:27 pm

AABusDrvr wrote:
I've got several friends who are very junior pilots at American. Of course furloughs are on everyones minds, but they seem pretty sure if they furlough, it wont be a huge number, or for that long. On the pilot side, AA was apparently very understaffed before this all started. They also have the highest mandatory retirement numbers of any legacy, approaching 1000 pilots per year starting in a few years, and lasting several years. AA also was pretty proactive with offering an attractive early out program, and short term leaves.

Over 700 of their pilots took the early retirement package, and close to half the remaining pilots took short term leaves, and the company continues to offer short term leaves every month.


This reads like lambs led to slaughter.
 
bigb
Posts: 1110
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

Wed May 13, 2020 7:27 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Except that still doesn't make it right or logical; and would actually be the proof (if we ever needed more of them) that CBAs and unions are protecting (some, a lot of maybe?) lazy workers and not the work force in general.

Again, when you need to go through an RIF, you keep your best and brightest employees, not the most senior ones "just because of CBA".


So do tell, how do you figure out who is the "best and brightest" when it comes to a safety related position? What makes a pilot or FA more valuable to keep?

Well, just like pretty every company that doesn't have unions on-site does. This is nothing new, employees are rated in their jobs every single day.

What makes a pilot more valuable to keep than another one? I dunno, for example: the one that doesn't break airplanes left and right, the one who can land a plane properly without trashing tires every time, etc.
There are plenty of matrix available to rate an employee, irregardless whether that employee is in a safety-related position or not.

Just one question: it would appear, according to you, that pilots are never fired for safety-related issues. If true, that's scary.


If you have a problem with seniority furloughs, then just say. Hey I am not a fan of have unions or a CBA on property. That’s what’s what airline management and the unions agreed to. That’s the system and how it works.

Just live with it.
 
COPolynesianPub
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:57 pm

Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

Wed May 13, 2020 7:55 pm

I worked for the CO and UA company for over 36 years in M&A. There were many layoffs due to Bankruptcy filings and 911 as well as the merger of CO and UA. I have experienced pretty much the same strategy in each event. They always seem to have a target percentage of employees to let go. The layoffs were based on number of employees within a specific job function. They were rarely based on seniority but on job performance.
With the combination of CO and UA employees we had a talent selection process where everyone reapplied for their jobs and interviews were conducted. Positions were filled based on the interview. If one department had 20 positions at each carrier and the merged department had 30 total positions, 10 employees would be furloughed. The big difference was that the department would be located in Chicago or Houston and not everyone wanted to move to the other city so you had natural attrition that way.
There have always been packages for employees who were displaced including salary and medical insurance continuation for a period of time based on years of service. and porition grade. The big incentive for people who voluntarily chose to leave and who were not at retirement age were pass privileges for a number of years as well. I know that if an employee was to be furloughed and a met set age and years of service requirement, the employee could elect to retire.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2776
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

Wed May 13, 2020 8:31 pm

FlyHossD wrote:
A couple of thoughts regarding UAL pilot staffing:

1. UAL has steadfastly maintained that they won't offer early out retirement packages to their pilots as it's too expensive. Yet AA has done exactly that. Further, Scott Kelly has maintained that short-term furloughs are expensive, yet they're preparing to do just that. In other words, the staffing is too great long term.

2. Under the guise of "Never let a crisis go to waste," I guarantee that concessions will be proposed by UAL to ALPA. These concessions will include scope, pay, benefits, vacation and scheduling. As a friend of mine often says, "Don't create a permanent solution to a temporary problem." Or from another perspective, it's interesting how a company can drag it's feet until it wants something, then suddenly daily - even round-the-clock - negotiations are possible. So now we'll see if UAL ALPA drags it's feet as we get closer to October 1.



How much money is American offering their pilots to retire early?

United has offered early out retirement packages to all employees including pilots the package does not include money but it does include up to 18 months of medical benefits which many employees who are near but haven't yet reach retirement age said was most important to them.

As far as never let a crisis got to waste the only major concession UA wanted before this crisis was on scope which understandably for the pilots was a nonstarter. ALPA learned their lesson during bankruptcy and won't make that mistake again because UA exploited it. As far as unions go ALPA is the the strongest union at UA and while everyone knows there will need to be some type of concessions I still believe there is a way for ALPA to word the contract that everyone gets something. No one side will get everything they want but I do believe ALPA is smart enough to negotiate a contract that will restore all concessions as UA financial position improves. I don't see ALPA allowing their membership to get locked into a long term COVID-19 contract like they were during and after the bankruptcy years.

Looking employee participation in voluntary programs and what impact it may have on layoffs/furloughs. From the latest numbers I've seen over half of UA's flight attendants (more than 12,000) have participated in the 3-6 month voluntary furlough with some even inquiring if they can extend it. Pilot participation has extremely high although not as high as the FA's group there are at least 3,000 pilots participating in voluntary furlough programs. Dispatchers are a mixed bag we've had participation in the voluntary program but we also have quite a few dispatchers retiring. Some were retiring later this year and moved up their retirement date others have the years and the age and have decided now is the time to retire. Management and Administrative we have already had our pay cut prior to CARES and the number of people putting in their retirement papers continues to grow daily. But as we all know UA was known for being management/administrative heavy (in fact before COVID-19 it was rumored Kirby intended to do major house cleaning and thin out the management/adminstrative ranks) so even with all the retirements I still think Kirby will cut 30% of management/administrative employees. Because UA has a lot of aircraft in short term storage we need a large number of mechanics looking after the fleet their participation rates in voluntary programs is lower but that is by design because a lot of work still has to be done to maintain readiness. This leaves IAM represented, this group has the lowest participation rate and that is completely understandable. While UA has temporarily relented in reducing IAM represented employees hours the public letter Greg Hart put out a few weeks ago made it clear UA would revisit the 30 hour/w schedule in 30 days. And if IAM participation in voluntary programs did not increase UA may be forced to implement the 30hour/w schedule. I put this up here to show people who believe UA is being unfair to IAM represented employees that all work groups are pitching in to help this company out and UA is not just singling out IAM represented employees.
 
bigb
Posts: 1110
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

Wed May 13, 2020 8:40 pm

jayunited wrote:
FlyHossD wrote:
A couple of thoughts regarding UAL pilot staffing:

1. UAL has steadfastly maintained that they won't offer early out retirement packages to their pilots as it's too expensive. Yet AA has done exactly that. Further, Scott Kelly has maintained that short-term furloughs are expensive, yet they're preparing to do just that. In other words, the staffing is too great long term.

2. Under the guise of "Never let a crisis go to waste," I guarantee that concessions will be proposed by UAL to ALPA. These concessions will include scope, pay, benefits, vacation and scheduling. As a friend of mine often says, "Don't create a permanent solution to a temporary problem." Or from another perspective, it's interesting how a company can drag it's feet until it wants something, then suddenly daily - even round-the-clock - negotiations are possible. So now we'll see if UAL ALPA drags it's feet as we get closer to October 1.



How much money is American offering their pilots to retire early?

United has offered early out retirement packages to all employees including pilots the package does not include money but it does include up to 18 months of medical benefits which many employees who are near but haven't yet reach retirement age said was most important to them.

As far as never let a crisis got to waste the only major concession UA wanted before this crisis was on scope which understandably for the pilots was a nonstarter. ALPA learned their lesson during bankruptcy and won't make that mistake again because UA exploited it. As far as unions go ALPA is the the strongest union at UA and while everyone knows there will need to be some type of concessions I still believe there is a way for ALPA to word the contract that everyone gets something. No one side will get everything they want but I do believe ALPA is smart enough to negotiate a contract that will restore all concessions as UA financial position improves. I don't see ALPA allowing their membership to get locked into a long term COVID-19 contract like they were during and after the bankruptcy years.

Looking employee participation in voluntary programs and what impact it may have on layoffs/furloughs. From the latest numbers I've seen over half of UA's flight attendants (more than 12,000) have participated in the 3-6 month voluntary furlough with some even inquiring if they can extend it. Pilot participation has extremely high although not as high as the FA's group there are at least 3,000 pilots participating in voluntary furlough programs. Dispatchers are a mixed bag we've had participation in the voluntary program but we also have quite a few dispatchers retiring. Some were retiring later this year and moved up their retirement date others have the years and the age and have decided now is the time to retire. Management and Administrative we have already had our pay cut prior to CARES and the number of people putting in their retirement papers continues to grow daily. But as we all know UA was known for being management/administrative heavy (in fact before COVID-19 it was rumored Kirby intended to do major house cleaning and thin out the management/adminstrative ranks) so even with all the retirements I still think Kirby will cut 30% of management/administrative employees. Because UA has a lot of aircraft in short term storage we need a large number of mechanics looking after the fleet their participation rates in voluntary programs is lower but that is by design because a lot of work still has to be done to maintain readiness. This leaves IAM represented, this group has the lowest participation rate and that is completely understandable. While UA has temporarily relented in reducing IAM represented employees hours the public letter Greg Hart put out a few weeks ago made it clear UA would revisit the 30 hour/w schedule in 30 days. And if IAM participation in voluntary programs did not increase UA may be forced to implement the 30hour/w schedule. I put this up here to show people who believe UA is being unfair to IAM represented employees that all work groups are pitching in to help this company out and UA is not just singling out IAM represented employees.


AA pilots were offered

1. Voluntary unpaid Leave of Absense, retain all benefits and accrue Length of Service, up to 12 months.

2. Voluntary Short-Term LoA, paid 55 credited hours, 1/3/6 months long, retain all benefits, 401k/profit sharing eligible, required to maintain currency but that’s it.

3. Voluntary Permanent LoA, age 62+ paid 50 hours until age 65, retain all benefits and 401k, etc as above, remaining sick deposited into HSA.

Something United nor Delta has been closed to match yet.
 
11C
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:25 pm

Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

Wed May 13, 2020 10:00 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Yet AA, DL and others are not taking the same action or don’t appear to be


You don't know what AA and DL are planning. You may have seen a few elements of what they've announced. Payroll Support Program monies will not support any carrier deep into the 4th Quarter. Look for layoffs by everybody - absolutely everybody.


I agree, more government money is unlikely. Furloughs will be the only option left, unless you one of those (delusional) thinking this will be short-lived.
 
727231
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:33 am

Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

Wed May 13, 2020 11:55 pm

It's going to be a blood bath this fall. UA is just up front prepping the workforce. AA will slice and dice after the voluntary employee separations are final. I suspect DL to do the same. Way too many employees for an industry that is forever changed (at least for the next few years) more than a Sep 11th ever did, and that is saying a lot.
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 454
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

Thu May 14, 2020 12:37 am

AABusDrvr wrote:
I've got several friends who are very junior pilots at American. Of course furloughs are on everyones minds, but they seem pretty sure if they furlough, it wont be a huge number, or for that long. On the pilot side, AA was apparently very understaffed before this all started. They also have the highest mandatory retirement numbers of any legacy, approaching 1000 pilots per year starting in a few years, and lasting several years. AA also was pretty proactive with offering an attractive early out program, and short term leaves.

Over 700 of their pilots took the early retirement package, and close to half the remaining pilots took short term leaves, and the company continues to offer short term leaves every month.


No doubt your friends are talented and respectable pilots. But American and other airlines will be furloughing large numbers of pilots for many years. Seen this before.
 
bigb
Posts: 1110
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

Thu May 14, 2020 12:42 am

LCDFlight wrote:
AABusDrvr wrote:
I've got several friends who are very junior pilots at American. Of course furloughs are on everyones minds, but they seem pretty sure if they furlough, it wont be a huge number, or for that long. On the pilot side, AA was apparently very understaffed before this all started. They also have the highest mandatory retirement numbers of any legacy, approaching 1000 pilots per year starting in a few years, and lasting several years. AA also was pretty proactive with offering an attractive early out program, and short term leaves.

Over 700 of their pilots took the early retirement package, and close to half the remaining pilots took short term leaves, and the company continues to offer short term leaves every month.


No doubt your friends are talented and respectable pilots. But American and other airlines will be furloughing large numbers of pilots for many years. Seen this before.


I know AA will furlough, but I am thinking AAs numbers aren’t going to be as large due to their early outs, LOAs and high number retirements.
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

Thu May 14, 2020 1:16 am

"Voluntary Permanent LoA, age 62+ paid 50 hours until age 65, retain all benefits and 401k, etc as above, remaining sick deposited into HSA"

That is an amazingly generous offer. Assume 1000 pilots take it, you are looking at easily $100 million per year in expenses (and thats on the low side). I'm not sure how that's going to save them money over keeping them and laying off junior employees. Your still going to need and pay Captains regardless.
    300 319 320 321 707 717 720 727 72S 737 73S 734 735 73G 738 739 747 757 762 ARJ B11 C212 CRJ CR2 CR7 CR9 CV5 D8S DC9 D9S D94 D95 D10 DH8 DTO EMB EM2 E135 E145 E190 FH7 F28 F100 FTRIMTR HRN L10 L15 M80 M90 SF3 SWM YS11
     
    DiamondFlyer
    Posts: 3353
    Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

    Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

    Thu May 14, 2020 1:26 am

    MohawkWeekend wrote:
    "Voluntary Permanent LoA, age 62+ paid 50 hours until age 65, retain all benefits and 401k, etc as above, remaining sick deposited into HSA"

    That is an amazingly generous offer. Assume 1000 pilots take it, you are looking at easily $100 million per year in expenses (and thats on the low side). I'm not sure how that's going to save them money over keeping them and laying off junior employees. Your still going to need and pay Captains regardless.


    It's the training cost it saves. A single senior widebody captain being displaced could cause a cascade effect of as many as 10+ training events.
    From my cold, dead hands
     
    strfyr51
    Posts: 4905
    Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

    Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

    Thu May 14, 2020 1:29 am

    reltney wrote:
    Pi7472000 wrote:
    Hopefully they're not only based on seniortiy. I have had many junior employees provide much better service than senior employees. hope they take into account the performence of the employee along with seniority.

    I have had some really poor service from senior employees. Really odd how in the airlines junior employees are expected to sacrifice their jobs just because some may have been there a little longer. That would never be the sole reason to lay somone off in many other industries.



    You are very wrong. You have a good point but hear me out.

    What measurement would you judge the employee..... How can you guarantee you are not biased...... What assurances do you give you are fair. Who gets to judge you? What would you want in guarantees your supervisor isn’t biased...how could you be sure. How do you judge if a passenger complaint was valid. I have been a witness to a made up complaints. One was against my copilot and another a F/A. If it wasn’t for my testimony, they would have been fired. Best part was the copilot was able to sue and get compensated ...it took 3 years but worth it to screw the passenger on false allegations. So basically, who are you to judge others....who is your supervisor to judge you.....what if the bad employee was having a sexual affair to help keep her job but had 100s of complaints but you get let go for 2 complaints when times are thin.

    Seniority is unbiased and fair. Unless you have a better idea, it’s what we have.


    Cheers

    the really only fair way is top layoff BY seniority. Other than that? It's unfair and up to question. Especially? since the more senior employee's work loads Will be increased and possibly diversified. I saw layoffs while at United and they were mostly guys who had a pretty narrow view of their workload. I was in Management at the time and the guys who got laid off were the ones who claimed more what they couldn't do rather than what they would or could do. Senior management isn't always wrong but Seniority is the best way. Especially of you're going to avoid a lawsuit!
     
    joeblow10
    Posts: 386
    Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:58 pm

    Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

    Thu May 14, 2020 1:30 am

    MohawkWeekend wrote:
    "Voluntary Permanent LoA, age 62+ paid 50 hours until age 65, retain all benefits and 401k, etc as above, remaining sick deposited into HSA"

    That is an amazingly generous offer. Assume 1000 pilots take it, you are looking at easily $100 million per year in expenses (and thats on the low side). I'm not sure how that's going to save them money over keeping them and laying off junior employees. Your still going to need and pay Captains regardless.


    Fairly simple... now your most senior captains are lower on the payroll scale, and the same 2000 pilots (totally arbitrary number, no idea what it actually would be) you would furlough goes higher up the chain in terms of seniority and payroll. That assumes the company can model/predict how many would take the ERP, but I'm assuming they're more than capable

    Basically, ERPs actually help the company, assuming it has the cash, to get rid of the most senior staff at a cheaper price. 50 hours is still a 33% reduction in hours from normal. It's a win-win for both sides. Many of these captains would love to lock in what essentially amounts to a 1-3 year pension, while the company can slightly lower labor costs and furlough farther up the pay scale if necessary.
    Last edited by joeblow10 on Thu May 14, 2020 1:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
     
    bigb
    Posts: 1110
    Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

    Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

    Thu May 14, 2020 1:35 am

    MohawkWeekend wrote:
    "Voluntary Permanent LoA, age 62+ paid 50 hours until age 65, retain all benefits and 401k, etc as above, remaining sick deposited into HSA"

    That is an amazingly generous offer. Assume 1000 pilots take it, you are looking at easily $100 million per year in expenses (and thats on the low side). I'm not sure how that's going to save them money over keeping them and laying off junior employees. Your still going to need and pay Captains regardless.


    If you are trying to save money, these are the guys you want off the payroll they are most likely will be on widebody pay at the top of the pay scale. 600 plus took the early retirement, plus with the retirements around the corner plus being understaffed. AA last displacement bid results don’t show a big number of potential furloughs if and when it came to it unlike United who are looking at least 4000 pilots potentially on the street.

    Again, I don’t see a large under of furloughs happening at AA on the pilot side of things with the combo of early outs, LOAs, attrition off the top of the seniority list (retirements), understaffed and being behind the hiring curve.
     
    LNCS0930
    Posts: 105
    Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2020 9:17 pm

    Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

    Thu May 14, 2020 1:38 am

    Dalmd88 wrote:
    WayexTDI wrote:
    DiamondFlyer wrote:

    You really don't understand this industry and labor in general do you? Any organized labor group is going to have protections that require furloughs from the bottom up.

    Except that still doesn't make it right or logical; and would actually be the proof (if we ever needed more of them) that CBAs and unions are protecting (some, a lot of maybe?) lazy workers and not the work force in general.

    Again, when you need to go through an RIF, you keep your best and brightest employees, not the most senior ones "just because of CBA".


    As for the up coming October, I know at Delta we all know there will be a RIF. Management from the top keeps saying they don't want to , but we all know it is coming. There is a retirement package being worked on currently. A good package will save a lot of newer employees. TechOps has a lot of AMT's that are on the cusp of retirement. With a lot of retirements hopefully the RIF will be mostly just a musical chairs exercise to put all that are left in the open slots, with very few having to make an involuntary exit.


    If they get 10K retirement package takers there won’t be any permanent cuts come October. Delta probably needs to get to 60K. 10K retirements is 70K then 7K FAs and 3K pilots furloughed (the expected numbers from my understanding) gets them to 60. That said they won’t get 10K retirements so it’s likely a moot point
     
    strfyr51
    Posts: 4905
    Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

    Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

    Thu May 14, 2020 1:41 am

    NWAESC wrote:
    Pi7472000 wrote:
    Hopefully they're not only based on seniortiy. I have had many junior employees provide much better service than senior employees. hope they take into account the performence of the employee along with seniority.



    Again with this? C'mon.

    At any rate, any frontline layoffs (pilots, AMTS, ramp, gate) will be done in seniority order. As noted above, there isn't a more equitable-or efficient- way to do that.

    I'm not sure that AMT's at United will be laid off as long as they're outsourcing maintenance outside of United. Especially when they can bring all of that maintenance back in house first. Now? there may be tons of guys and gals working on stuff they haven't done since A&P school? But as long as United is outsourcing heavy maintenance to [places like XMN in China and to Hong Kong? I might think layoffs might not be going down in the USA. And that's even if they have to bring guys from other stations Back to SFO and IAH to do the work.
     
    User avatar
    lightsaber
    Moderator
    Posts: 19751
    Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

    Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

    Thu May 14, 2020 1:42 am

    DiamondFlyer wrote:
    MohawkWeekend wrote:
    "Voluntary Permanent LoA, age 62+ paid 50 hours until age 65, retain all benefits and 401k, etc as above, remaining sick deposited into HSA"

    That is an amazingly generous offer. Assume 1000 pilots take it, you are looking at easily $100 million per year in expenses (and thats on the low side). I'm not sure how that's going to save them money over keeping them and laying off junior employees. Your still going to need and pay Captains regardless.


    It's the training cost it saves. A single senior widebody captain being displaced could cause a cascade effect of as many as 10+ training events.

    The displacement will happen. If some large number of Captains take the package, then the cascade effect will be highly mitigated.
    For 2 or so years of benefits, it would be odd for pilots not to accept.
    I too wonder the total benefits, but as far as a corporation doomed to face huge layoffs goes, that is more than fair.

    Based off mandatory retirements, it looks like about 2400 are eligible out of 15,176 at AA.
    https://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/air ... n_airlines

    (Scroll down to mandatory retirements, albeit a bit out of date data).

    Delta slightly less 2200 of 14,600
    United, only about 1200 of 13,300

    Considering they'll all shrink 30%, a great strategy for AA and about equally good for DL. For UA, it might not have enough impact to bother with the expense.

    Lightsaber
    IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
     
    cbphoto
    Posts: 1258
    Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 6:23 am

    Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

    Thu May 14, 2020 1:44 am

    tphuang wrote:
    Airlines are looking at a L shaped recovery (well maybe not AA). With that kind of recovery, it seems like layoff is foregone conclusion unless airlines can get massive amount of voluntary outs or retirements. The only other thing I can see preventing layoffs is if an airline takes CARE loans and there is stipulation in there for employment level. We will see.

    Another airline that has been really upfront about cutting people is G4 (seems like a terrible place to work at). And I guess WN has also been public about becoming smaller.


    G4 isn’t cutting anyone, so get your facts right. And what exactly do you know about working for G4, or any airline really?
    ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
     
    User avatar
    lightsaber
    Moderator
    Posts: 19751
    Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

    Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

    Thu May 14, 2020 2:11 am

    cbphoto wrote:
    tphuang wrote:
    Airlines are looking at a L shaped recovery (well maybe not AA). With that kind of recovery, it seems like layoff is foregone conclusion unless airlines can get massive amount of voluntary outs or retirements. The only other thing I can see preventing layoffs is if an airline takes CARE loans and there is stipulation in there for employment level. We will see.

    Another airline that has been really upfront about cutting people is G4 (seems like a terrible place to work at). And I guess WN has also been public about becoming smaller.


    G4 isn’t cutting anyone, so get your facts right. And what exactly do you know about working for G4, or any airline really?

    G4 hasn't yet announced any cuts. But if you listen to their latest quarterly report:
    http://ir.allegiantair.com/events-and-p ... ast-events
    1. Parking 25 aircraft, scrapping 10 to 15.
    2. Back to same number of aircraft about 2021

    G4 is cutting stations. While much is outsourced (contractors), so technically not fired, but cutting a contractor is still ending an income, in particular in this economy.

    I cannot cut paste written as this was done verbally in the conference call. Probably to minimize bad press.


    IMHO, G4 is in the best position to grow on the other side of this issue. In a low fuel cost environment, they have the right strategy. The issue is, with so much oil production being cut, on the other side there will be a horrid spike in oil prices. Of course, the question is what year (not 2020 due to the huge inventory of oil)?

    Lightsaber
    IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
     
    bigb
    Posts: 1110
    Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

    Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

    Thu May 14, 2020 2:18 am

    lightsaber wrote:
    DiamondFlyer wrote:
    MohawkWeekend wrote:
    "Voluntary Permanent LoA, age 62+ paid 50 hours until age 65, retain all benefits and 401k, etc as above, remaining sick deposited into HSA"

    That is an amazingly generous offer. Assume 1000 pilots take it, you are looking at easily $100 million per year in expenses (and thats on the low side). I'm not sure how that's going to save them money over keeping them and laying off junior employees. Your still going to need and pay Captains regardless.


    It's the training cost it saves. A single senior widebody captain being displaced could cause a cascade effect of as many as 10+ training events.

    The displacement will happen. If some large number of Captains take the package, then the cascade effect will be highly mitigated.
    For 2 or so years of benefits, it would be odd for pilots not to accept.
    I too wonder the total benefits, but as far as a corporation doomed to face huge layoffs goes, that is more than fair.

    Based off mandatory retirements, it looks like about 2400 are eligible out of 15,176 at AA.
    https://www.airlinepilotcentral.com/air ... n_airlines

    (Scroll down to mandatory retirements, albeit a bit out of date data).

    Delta slightly less 2200 of 14,600
    United, only about 1200 of 13,300

    Considering they'll all shrink 30%, a great strategy for AA and about equally good for DL. For UA, it might not have enough impact to bother with the expense.

    Lightsaber


    Which a lot of folks did plus the LOA. AA has free up training capacity for getting guys trained up in the 737/A320 and 787/777s
     
    MohawkWeekend
    Posts: 247
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

    Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

    Thu May 14, 2020 2:56 am

    Would it really cost $100 million dollars for training? Especially since you are only going to have 4 types of aircraft going forward. Aren't you going to have to train a bunch of new 777/787 drivers?

    I'm not that familiar with airline pay. In my last industry (ships), a Captain was paid the same whether he had made Captain a year after hire or a Captain who had been with us for 20 years. Seniority only counted when the fleet was contracted - the new Captain would go back to Third Mate.
      300 319 320 321 707 717 720 727 72S 737 73S 734 735 73G 738 739 747 757 762 ARJ B11 C212 CRJ CR2 CR7 CR9 CV5 D8S DC9 D9S D94 D95 D10 DH8 DTO EMB EM2 E135 E145 E190 FH7 F28 F100 FTRIMTR HRN L10 L15 M80 M90 SF3 SWM YS11
       
      alasizon
      Posts: 2581
      Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:57 pm

      Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

      Thu May 14, 2020 2:59 am

      MohawkWeekend wrote:
      Would it really cost $100 million dollars for training? Especially since you are only going to have 4 types of aircraft going forward. Aren't you going to have to train a bunch of new 777/787 drivers?

      I'm not that familiar with airline pay. In my last industry (ships), a Captain was paid the same whether he had made Captain a year after hire or a Captain who had been with us for 20 years. Seniority only counted when the fleet was contracted - the new Captain would go back to Third Mate.


      100 million for training, likely not. However, the combined savings of having a more junior workforce (reduced compensation rates) plus training could easily approach that number over the next three years.
      Airport (noun) - A construction site which airplanes tend to frequent
       
      cbphoto
      Posts: 1258
      Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 6:23 am

      Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

      Thu May 14, 2020 3:12 am

      lightsaber wrote:
      cbphoto wrote:
      tphuang wrote:
      Airlines are looking at a L shaped recovery (well maybe not AA). With that kind of recovery, it seems like layoff is foregone conclusion unless airlines can get massive amount of voluntary outs or retirements. The only other thing I can see preventing layoffs is if an airline takes CARE loans and there is stipulation in there for employment level. We will see.

      Another airline that has been really upfront about cutting people is G4 (seems like a terrible place to work at). And I guess WN has also been public about becoming smaller.


      G4 isn’t cutting anyone, so get your facts right. And what exactly do you know about working for G4, or any airline really?

      G4 hasn't yet announced any cuts. But if you listen to their latest quarterly report:
      http://ir.allegiantair.com/events-and-p ... ast-events
      1. Parking 25 aircraft, scrapping 10 to 15.
      2. Back to same number of aircraft about 2021

      G4 is cutting stations. While much is outsourced (contractors), so technically not fired, but cutting a contractor is still ending an income, in particular in this economy.

      I cannot cut paste written as this was done verbally in the conference call. Probably to minimize bad press.


      IMHO, G4 is in the best position to grow on the other side of this issue. In a low fuel cost environment, they have the right strategy. The issue is, with so much oil production being cut, on the other side there will be a horrid spike in oil prices. Of course, the question is what year (not 2020 due to the huge inventory of oil)?

      Lightsaber


      I’m not arguing that some stations personal might get cut, but they work for many different companies, so they are not being technically cut by Allegiant. So far Allegiant as an entity has not announced any lay offs, in any department. And just because allegiant is cutting some stations positions, doesn’t mean those individuals will not get other temporary jobs in their own company.
      ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
       
      reltney
      Posts: 615
      Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:34 am

      Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

      Thu May 14, 2020 12:05 pm

      WayexTDI wrote:
      DiamondFlyer wrote:
      WayexTDI wrote:
      Except that still doesn't make it right or logical; and would actually be the proof (if we ever needed more of them) that CBAs and unions are protecting (some, a lot of maybe?) lazy workers and not the work force in general.

      Again, when you need to go through an RIF, you keep your best and brightest employees, not the most senior ones "just because of CBA".


      So do tell, how do you figure out who is the "best and brightest" when it comes to a safety related position? What makes a pilot or FA more valuable to keep?

      Well, just like pretty every company that doesn't have unions on-site does. This is nothing new, employees are rated in their jobs every single day.

      What makes a pilot more valuable to keep than another one? I dunno, for example: the one that doesn't break airplanes left and right, the one who can land a plane properly without trashing tires every time, etc.
      There are plenty of matrix available to rate an employee, irregardless whether that employee is in a safety-related position or not.

      Just one question: it would appear, according to you, that pilots are never fired for safety-related issues. If true, that's scary.




      Now the conversation is getting silly...

      Planes break. Just because it breaks doesn’t mean it’s the pilots fault. Tires blow out...that doesn’t mean it’s the pilots fault. Manufacturing faults, maintenance errors, stuff on the runway, fatigue factors cause failure. SW had a 737 pilot hit the jetway 3 times before they fired him. If your at fault, the airline has a plan in place to correct poor performance but it’s rare when they have to use it. If you do something intentionally unsafe, you will get disciplined. If you do it again, you will be fired. If a pilot accidentally makes an error, retraining is WAY cheaper then firing and having to retrain another pilot.



      Take the Air France Concorde crash...lots of people to discipline ... the CALmechanic for poor maintenance on the DC-10 causing the part to fall off. The Air France mechanic for bad maintenance causing the severely misaligned left bogie causing a pull to the left. The Air France Capt for choosing a runway he was 6000lbs to heavy to take off with the tailwind. The capt also ran off the left edge of the runway before becoming airborne . The Air France flight engineer shut down a good running engine without being commanded to shut it down, at too low of an altitude. That left them with just 2 running engines. That killed them. We know the results.... how would you have “disciplined “ the employees? All of them caused the crash. Was any of it intensional? No... poor performance. No one had intent.... it’s a tough industry...
      Knives don't kill people. People with knives kill people.
      OUTLAW KNIVES.

      I am a pilot, therefore I envy no one...
       
      WorldFlier
      Posts: 374
      Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 2:10 pm

      Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

      Thu May 14, 2020 12:27 pm

      ripcordd wrote:
      United took government cheese and part of that was to keep employees on the clock and not violate their contract. United tried and now backed off in trying to make everyone PT it did take a lawsuit for them to stop but they tried. So while we all know their will be a layoff unless government cheese is given out again which in an election year is very possible the layoffs will start Oct 1st. All airlines will layoff all employees know this but only United has pissed off their employees more than the others for trying to be sneaky.


      "Sneaky" - Better to conserve some cash now so the pain is shared rather than bigger layoffs in October?

      Everyone takes an 8/40 pay reduction now instead of an 8 out of 40 (or more) people fired on October 1?

      Their (and many other company's) pissed off employees need to read the writing on the wall instead of throwing tantrums. Things are about to get *really* bad. 33 Million unemployed Americans on government life support. Buckle up because as soon as that support is over, prepare to see lots of bankruptcies (personal and corporate) - then say goodbye to "discretionary" spending like air travel for those XX million Americans for the foreseeable future.
       
      WayexTDI
      Posts: 1706
      Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

      Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

      Thu May 14, 2020 7:36 pm

      bigb wrote:
      WayexTDI wrote:
      DiamondFlyer wrote:

      So do tell, how do you figure out who is the "best and brightest" when it comes to a safety related position? What makes a pilot or FA more valuable to keep?

      Well, just like pretty every company that doesn't have unions on-site does. This is nothing new, employees are rated in their jobs every single day.

      What makes a pilot more valuable to keep than another one? I dunno, for example: the one that doesn't break airplanes left and right, the one who can land a plane properly without trashing tires every time, etc.
      There are plenty of matrix available to rate an employee, irregardless whether that employee is in a safety-related position or not.

      Just one question: it would appear, according to you, that pilots are never fired for safety-related issues. If true, that's scary.


      If you have a problem with seniority furloughs, then just say. Hey I am not a fan of have unions or a CBA on property. That’s what’s what airline management and the unions agreed to. That’s the system and how it works.

      Just live with it.

      Yes, absolutely, I do have a problem with seniority furlough; you lay off/furlough employees who are at the bottom of the rating scale, not those at the bottom of the seniority ladder.

      I had to do a lay off once, part of an RIF; the person "selected" was based on performance and product line he was supporting, not on seniority or cost.
       
      WayexTDI
      Posts: 1706
      Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

      Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

      Thu May 14, 2020 7:43 pm

      reltney wrote:
      WayexTDI wrote:
      DiamondFlyer wrote:

      So do tell, how do you figure out who is the "best and brightest" when it comes to a safety related position? What makes a pilot or FA more valuable to keep?

      Well, just like pretty every company that doesn't have unions on-site does. This is nothing new, employees are rated in their jobs every single day.

      What makes a pilot more valuable to keep than another one? I dunno, for example: the one that doesn't break airplanes left and right, the one who can land a plane properly without trashing tires every time, etc.
      There are plenty of matrix available to rate an employee, irregardless whether that employee is in a safety-related position or not.

      Just one question: it would appear, according to you, that pilots are never fired for safety-related issues. If true, that's scary.




      Now the conversation is getting silly...

      Planes break. Just because it breaks doesn’t mean it’s the pilots fault. Tires blow out...that doesn’t mean it’s the pilots fault. Manufacturing faults, maintenance errors, stuff on the runway, fatigue factors cause failure. SW had a 737 pilot hit the jetway 3 times before they fired him. If your at fault, the airline has a plan in place to correct poor performance but it’s rare when they have to use it. If you do something intentionally unsafe, you will get disciplined. If you do it again, you will be fired. If a pilot accidentally makes an error, retraining is WAY cheaper then firing and having to retrain another pilot.



      Take the Air France Concorde crash...lots of people to discipline ... the CALmechanic for poor maintenance on the DC-10 causing the part to fall off. The Air France mechanic for bad maintenance causing the severely misaligned left bogie causing a pull to the left. The Air France Capt for choosing a runway he was 6000lbs to heavy to take off with the tailwind. The capt also ran off the left edge of the runway before becoming airborne . The Air France flight engineer shut down a good running engine without being commanded to shut it down, at too low of an altitude. That left them with just 2 running engines. That killed them. We know the results.... how would you have “disciplined “ the employees? All of them caused the crash. Was any of it intensional? No... poor performance. No one had intent.... it’s a tough industry...

      Did you even read what I wrote?

      Regarding the tire failures, I said "he one who can land a plane properly without trashing tires every time".
      EVERY TIME... Some pilot do that (granted, and thankfully, not many); most pilots are able to safely land a plane without damage. Those pilots need to be retained, the ones who keep damaging equipment just by sheer disdain for others property should get the boot.

      Most accidents and aircraft damages are just fluke in the overall airline operation; but you still have that handful of pilots who keep making mistakes over and over again (when their colleagues don't) and those need to be let go, even if they have 20-30 years of seniority.
       
      bigb
      Posts: 1110
      Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

      Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

      Thu May 14, 2020 7:56 pm

      WayexTDI wrote:
      reltney wrote:
      WayexTDI wrote:
      Well, just like pretty every company that doesn't have unions on-site does. This is nothing new, employees are rated in their jobs every single day.

      What makes a pilot more valuable to keep than another one? I dunno, for example: the one that doesn't break airplanes left and right, the one who can land a plane properly without trashing tires every time, etc.
      There are plenty of matrix available to rate an employee, irregardless whether that employee is in a safety-related position or not.

      Just one question: it would appear, according to you, that pilots are never fired for safety-related issues. If true, that's scary.




      Now the conversation is getting silly...

      Planes break. Just because it breaks doesn’t mean it’s the pilots fault. Tires blow out...that doesn’t mean it’s the pilots fault. Manufacturing faults, maintenance errors, stuff on the runway, fatigue factors cause failure. SW had a 737 pilot hit the jetway 3 times before they fired him. If your at fault, the airline has a plan in place to correct poor performance but it’s rare when they have to use it. If you do something intentionally unsafe, you will get disciplined. If you do it again, you will be fired. If a pilot accidentally makes an error, retraining is WAY cheaper then firing and having to retrain another pilot.



      Take the Air France Concorde crash...lots of people to discipline ... the CALmechanic for poor maintenance on the DC-10 causing the part to fall off. The Air France mechanic for bad maintenance causing the severely misaligned left bogie causing a pull to the left. The Air France Capt for choosing a runway he was 6000lbs to heavy to take off with the tailwind. The capt also ran off the left edge of the runway before becoming airborne . The Air France flight engineer shut down a good running engine without being commanded to shut it down, at too low of an altitude. That left them with just 2 running engines. That killed them. We know the results.... how would you have “disciplined “ the employees? All of them caused the crash. Was any of it intensional? No... poor performance. No one had intent.... it’s a tough industry...

      Did you even read what I wrote?

      Regarding the tire failures, I said "he one who can land a plane properly without trashing tires every time".
      EVERY TIME... Some pilot do that (granted, and thankfully, not many); most pilots are able to safely land a plane without damage. Those pilots need to be retained, the ones who keep damaging equipment just by sheer disdain for others property should get the boot.

      Most accidents and aircraft damages are just fluke in the overall airline operation; but you still have that handful of pilots who keep making mistakes over and over again (when their colleagues don't) and those need to be let go, even if they have 20-30 years of seniority.


      Again, you missed his point, pilots who bend metal or damage airplanes already do not last long with their carriers.
       
      Trk1
      Posts: 134
      Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2017 5:37 pm

      Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

      Thu May 14, 2020 8:04 pm

      Delta just announced they will have 7000 too many Pilots--not just UA as this thread is about
       
      WayexTDI
      Posts: 1706
      Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

      Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

      Fri May 15, 2020 1:14 am

      bigb wrote:
      WayexTDI wrote:
      reltney wrote:



      Now the conversation is getting silly...

      Planes break. Just because it breaks doesn’t mean it’s the pilots fault. Tires blow out...that doesn’t mean it’s the pilots fault. Manufacturing faults, maintenance errors, stuff on the runway, fatigue factors cause failure. SW had a 737 pilot hit the jetway 3 times before they fired him. If your at fault, the airline has a plan in place to correct poor performance but it’s rare when they have to use it. If you do something intentionally unsafe, you will get disciplined. If you do it again, you will be fired. If a pilot accidentally makes an error, retraining is WAY cheaper then firing and having to retrain another pilot.



      Take the Air France Concorde crash...lots of people to discipline ... the CALmechanic for poor maintenance on the DC-10 causing the part to fall off. The Air France mechanic for bad maintenance causing the severely misaligned left bogie causing a pull to the left. The Air France Capt for choosing a runway he was 6000lbs to heavy to take off with the tailwind. The capt also ran off the left edge of the runway before becoming airborne . The Air France flight engineer shut down a good running engine without being commanded to shut it down, at too low of an altitude. That left them with just 2 running engines. That killed them. We know the results.... how would you have “disciplined “ the employees? All of them caused the crash. Was any of it intensional? No... poor performance. No one had intent.... it’s a tough industry...

      Did you even read what I wrote?

      Regarding the tire failures, I said "he one who can land a plane properly without trashing tires every time".
      EVERY TIME... Some pilot do that (granted, and thankfully, not many); most pilots are able to safely land a plane without damage. Those pilots need to be retained, the ones who keep damaging equipment just by sheer disdain for others property should get the boot.

      Most accidents and aircraft damages are just fluke in the overall airline operation; but you still have that handful of pilots who keep making mistakes over and over again (when their colleagues don't) and those need to be let go, even if they have 20-30 years of seniority.


      Again, you missed his point, pilots who bend metal or damage airplanes already do not last long with their carriers.

      Then a "performance" rating already exist to weed out the bad performers; and that should be enforced first during lay-off. If all who stay after that have the same performance rating, then go with seniority; but that should be the last thing to consider, not the first.
       
      bigb
      Posts: 1110
      Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

      Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

      Fri May 15, 2020 1:15 am

      WayexTDI wrote:
      bigb wrote:
      WayexTDI wrote:
      Did you even read what I wrote?

      Regarding the tire failures, I said "he one who can land a plane properly without trashing tires every time".
      EVERY TIME... Some pilot do that (granted, and thankfully, not many); most pilots are able to safely land a plane without damage. Those pilots need to be retained, the ones who keep damaging equipment just by sheer disdain for others property should get the boot.

      Most accidents and aircraft damages are just fluke in the overall airline operation; but you still have that handful of pilots who keep making mistakes over and over again (when their colleagues don't) and those need to be let go, even if they have 20-30 years of seniority.


      Again, you missed his point, pilots who bend metal or damage airplanes already do not last long with their carriers.

      Then a "performance" rating already exist to weed out the bad performers; and that should be enforced first during lay-off. If all who stay after that have the same performance rating, then go with seniority; but that should be the last thing to consider, not the first.


      That again would be against the collective bargaining agreement in its entirety. Furloughing in Seniority order is the fairest system that is in place. Pilots who enter into the industry understand that the system is in place and have accepted it. You toss that Seniority out for furloughs, you have to toss seniority out for everything else in its place.
      Last edited by bigb on Fri May 15, 2020 1:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
       
      WayexTDI
      Posts: 1706
      Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

      Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

      Fri May 15, 2020 1:17 am

      bigb wrote:
      WayexTDI wrote:
      bigb wrote:

      Again, you missed his point, pilots who bend metal or damage airplanes already do not last long with their carriers.

      Then a "performance" rating already exist to weed out the bad performers; and that should be enforced first during lay-off. If all who stay after that have the same performance rating, then go with seniority; but that should be the last thing to consider, not the first.


      That again would be against the collective bargaining agreement in its entirety.

      Which again is a further proof that unions protect the bad employees, to the detriment of the good ones.
      Thank you, you just proved my point.
       
      Exyxy
      Posts: 13
      Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2018 11:44 pm

      Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

      Fri May 15, 2020 4:40 am

      Don’t forget those senior pilots at AA that took early out. The a/c they flew are now gone or parked for a year or more. No training to replace them, or train them to switch a/c ,pay them 2/3 instead of full hours to sit. My guess still furloughs 4th quarter. But less and importantly less training.
       
      jetmatt777
      Posts: 4254
      Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

      Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

      Fri May 15, 2020 4:54 am

      WayexTDI wrote:
      bigb wrote:
      WayexTDI wrote:
      Then a "performance" rating already exist to weed out the bad performers; and that should be enforced first during lay-off. If all who stay after that have the same performance rating, then go with seniority; but that should be the last thing to consider, not the first.


      That again would be against the collective bargaining agreement in its entirety.

      Which again is a further proof that unions protect the bad employees, to the detriment of the good ones.
      Thank you, you just proved my point.


      That's an incredibly narrow point of view. How about I flip it and say unions protect good employees from bad management? Is it possible that there are bad eggs in management as well as rank and file workers? Yes. But to throw this view out that unions are bad doesn't factor in what led to them - underhanded dealing, theft, and gross negligence by many members of management - across all airlines and even industries.
       
      AABusDrvr
      Posts: 147
      Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 6:48 am

      Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

      Fri May 15, 2020 10:13 am

      WayexTDI wrote:
      reltney wrote:
      WayexTDI wrote:
      Well, just like pretty every company that doesn't have unions on-site does. This is nothing new, employees are rated in their jobs every single day.

      What makes a pilot more valuable to keep than another one? I dunno, for example: the one that doesn't break airplanes left and right, the one who can land a plane properly without trashing tires every time, etc.
      There are plenty of matrix available to rate an employee, irregardless whether that employee is in a safety-related position or not.

      Just one question: it would appear, according to you, that pilots are never fired for safety-related issues. If true, that's scary.




      Now the conversation is getting silly...

      Planes break. Just because it breaks doesn’t mean it’s the pilots fault. Tires blow out...that doesn’t mean it’s the pilots fault. Manufacturing faults, maintenance errors, stuff on the runway, fatigue factors cause failure. SW had a 737 pilot hit the jetway 3 times before they fired him. If your at fault, the airline has a plan in place to correct poor performance but it’s rare when they have to use it. If you do something intentionally unsafe, you will get disciplined. If you do it again, you will be fired. If a pilot accidentally makes an error, retraining is WAY cheaper then firing and having to retrain another pilot.



      Take the Air France Concorde crash...lots of people to discipline ... the CALmechanic for poor maintenance on the DC-10 causing the part to fall off. The Air France mechanic for bad maintenance causing the severely misaligned left bogie causing a pull to the left. The Air France Capt for choosing a runway he was 6000lbs to heavy to take off with the tailwind. The capt also ran off the left edge of the runway before becoming airborne . The Air France flight engineer shut down a good running engine without being commanded to shut it down, at too low of an altitude. That left them with just 2 running engines. That killed them. We know the results.... how would you have “disciplined “ the employees? All of them caused the crash. Was any of it intensional? No... poor performance. No one had intent.... it’s a tough industry...

      Did you even read what I wrote?

      Regarding the tire failures, I said "he one who can land a plane properly without trashing tires every time".
      EVERY TIME... Some pilot do that (granted, and thankfully, not many); most pilots are able to safely land a plane without damage. Those pilots need to be retained, the ones who keep damaging equipment just by sheer disdain for others property should get the boot.

      Most accidents and aircraft damages are just fluke in the overall airline operation; but you still have that handful of pilots who keep making mistakes over and over again (when their colleagues don't) and those need to be let go, even if they have 20-30 years of seniority.



      Any pilot who couldn't "safely land a plane without damage" wouldn't be flying professionally in the first place. No one is out there trashing tires "every time". There isn't some special landing technique to prevent tire damage. And you do understand that tires are a consumable, with a limited life, right?

      A pilot who keeps making mistakes "over and over again". will never make it to 20-30 years seniority, because they would have been gone a long time ago.
       
      COSPN
      Posts: 1804
      Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 6:33 am

      Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

      Fri May 15, 2020 2:56 pm

      Those who complain about seniority don’t have any....

      The 3 most important things in the airline business ; seniority, seniority, seniority

      If someone can make it 30 years without getting fired he or she can’t be destroying too much of company property.
       
      User avatar
      DL747400
      Posts: 939
      Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:04 pm

      Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

      Fri May 15, 2020 3:17 pm

      There were furloughs at DL following 9/11. All but the most oblivious members of the population know that the current crisis is many times worse than 9/11 ever was. You can bet there will be significant furloughs at DL later this year and into 2021, just as there will be at most carriers. Anyone who believes otherwise is naive and ill-informed.
      From First to Worst: The history of Airliners.net.

      All posts reflect my opinions, not those of my employer or any other company.
       
      CriticalPoint
      Posts: 1039
      Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

      Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

      Fri May 15, 2020 4:06 pm

      WayexTDI wrote:
      bigb wrote:
      WayexTDI wrote:
      Did you even read what I wrote?

      Regarding the tire failures, I said "he one who can land a plane properly without trashing tires every time".
      EVERY TIME... Some pilot do that (granted, and thankfully, not many); most pilots are able to safely land a plane without damage. Those pilots need to be retained, the ones who keep damaging equipment just by sheer disdain for others property should get the boot.

      Most accidents and aircraft damages are just fluke in the overall airline operation; but you still have that handful of pilots who keep making mistakes over and over again (when their colleagues don't) and those need to be let go, even if they have 20-30 years of seniority.


      Again, you missed his point, pilots who bend metal or damage airplanes already do not last long with their carriers.

      Then a "performance" rating already exist to weed out the bad performers; and that should be enforced first during lay-off. If all who stay after that have the same performance rating, then go with seniority; but that should be the last thing to consider, not the first.


      Pilots go two training every 9 months......if you suck then you do t pass. We don’t just train a pilot once and say good luck until retirement.
       
      User avatar
      Rookie87
      Posts: 280
      Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 9:33 pm

      Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

      Fri May 15, 2020 5:23 pm

      DL747400 wrote:
      There were furloughs at DL following 9/11. All but the most oblivious members of the population know that the current crisis is many times worse than 9/11 ever was. You can bet there will be significant furloughs at DL later this year and into 2021, just as there will be at most carriers. Anyone who believes otherwise is naive and ill-informed.


      You're comparing a terrorist attack which caused fear around the world in regards to getting on a plane vs a global pandemic where people are stuck at home itching to get out and continue living. Just because you're comfy on your couch doesn't mean everyone is. A cut down yes, comparable to 9/11? highly doubt it. No one will be scared to get on a plane because it could potentially be flown into a building.
       
      32andBelow
      Posts: 4813
      Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

      Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

      Fri May 15, 2020 5:48 pm

      It was really hard to get enough pilots right before this. I think some major airlines are going to be very cautious releasing pilots until they absolutely have to.

      The cargo guys are gonna snap a lot of these guys up and it could be hard to get them back.
       
      User avatar
      jetblastdubai
      Posts: 1949
      Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

      Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

      Fri May 15, 2020 7:48 pm

      jetmatt777 wrote:
      That's an incredibly narrow point of view. How about I flip it and say unions protect good employees from bad management? Is it possible that there are bad eggs in management as well as rank and file workers? Yes. But to throw this view out that unions are bad doesn't factor in what led to them - underhanded dealing, theft, and gross negligence by many members of management - across all airlines and even industries.


      I was a union member for years so I can speak from experience.

      For all the protections and added benefits unions provide for members, their public image gets trashed every time any union pulls under-handed crap that is designed to financially hurt their employers and shareholders when it's time to negotiate a new contract. In many cases, it is also designed to tarnish public trust in the company which will hurt the bottom line and shareholders in the long term as well.

      Recall the summer of 2000 and the actions by SOME United pilots that took the "hints" from the MEC to sabotage the airline's on-time performance by intentionally trying to make flights 16 minutes late. Slow taxi speeds caused flights to miss ATC slot times, made passenger connections impossible resulting in extra workload for CSRs and generally pissed off everyone that had to work around the selfish actions of a few employees that were not going to be happy until they "choked the golden goose". (google Capt.Rick Dubinsky) http://www.airlineforums.com/threads/so ... ance.2342/

      In addition to the illegal work slowdown (good faith bargaining) SOME pilots displayed buttons that said "Sweet 16" or "W.O.E. in public in front of passengers and other workers. Sweet 16 was the phrase used to make every flight exactly 16 minutes late so the late flight would be reflect in the DOT on-time data base. Exactly 16 minutes late was a goal to show that the delay was deliberate and not just randomly 16 or 28 minutes late etc. "W.O.E." was short for " withdrawal of enthusiasm. You can read into that what you want but it sure didn't reflect a positive work ethic.

      More recently, there were AFA members that walked off the 744 from SFO to HKG when someone had written "bye bye" in the soot on the APU cowling. Even after every other department at UA certified that the plane was safe and airworthy (including pilots, mechanics and security) the AFA members refused to work the trip and eventually the flight canceled causing substantial disruptions for passengers, loads of additional work for the ground personnel as well and cost the company a lot of $ and bad press. AFA was in negotiations at the time...coincidence???

      In the late 80s or early 90s, some C90 NATCA members did a work slowdown for a while and gave the excuse of "bad tailwinds" for the excessive spacing on final. I was there at the time and can't even recall what the issue was. We were a Federal union and pay isn't even negotiable. Pure power play to get something without any risk of disciplinary action.

      There are good employees and there are bad employees in every line of work. There are also good employees that consciously choose to perform poorly, with few consequences, because of union protection.
       
      jetmatt777
      Posts: 4254
      Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

      Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

      Fri May 15, 2020 8:23 pm

      jetblastdubai wrote:
      jetmatt777 wrote:
      That's an incredibly narrow point of view. How about I flip it and say unions protect good employees from bad management? Is it possible that there are bad eggs in management as well as rank and file workers? Yes. But to throw this view out that unions are bad doesn't factor in what led to them - underhanded dealing, theft, and gross negligence by many members of management - across all airlines and even industries.


      I was a union member for years so I can speak from experience.

      For all the protections and added benefits unions provide for members, their public image gets trashed every time any union pulls under-handed crap that is designed to financially hurt their employers and shareholders when it's time to negotiate a new contract. In many cases, it is also designed to tarnish public trust in the company which will hurt the bottom line and shareholders in the long term as well.

      Recall the summer of 2000 and the actions by SOME United pilots that took the "hints" from the MEC to sabotage the airline's on-time performance by intentionally trying to make flights 16 minutes late. Slow taxi speeds caused flights to miss ATC slot times, made passenger connections impossible resulting in extra workload for CSRs and generally pissed off everyone that had to work around the selfish actions of a few employees that were not going to be happy until they "choked the golden goose". (google Capt.Rick Dubinsky) http://www.airlineforums.com/threads/so ... ance.2342/

      In addition to the illegal work slowdown (good faith bargaining) SOME pilots displayed buttons that said "Sweet 16" or "W.O.E. in public in front of passengers and other workers. Sweet 16 was the phrase used to make every flight exactly 16 minutes late so the late flight would be reflect in the DOT on-time data base. Exactly 16 minutes late was a goal to show that the delay was deliberate and not just randomly 16 or 28 minutes late etc. "W.O.E." was short for " withdrawal of enthusiasm. You can read into that what you want but it sure didn't reflect a positive work ethic.

      More recently, there were AFA members that walked off the 744 from SFO to HKG when someone had written "bye bye" in the soot on the APU cowling. Even after every other department at UA certified that the plane was safe and airworthy (including pilots, mechanics and security) the AFA members refused to work the trip and eventually the flight canceled causing substantial disruptions for passengers, loads of additional work for the ground personnel as well and cost the company a lot of $ and bad press. AFA was in negotiations at the time...coincidence???

      In the late 80s or early 90s, some C90 NATCA members did a work slowdown for a while and gave the excuse of "bad tailwinds" for the excessive spacing on final. I was there at the time and can't even recall what the issue was. We were a Federal union and pay isn't even negotiable. Pure power play to get something without any risk of disciplinary action.

      There are good employees and there are bad employees in every line of work. There are also good employees that consciously choose to perform poorly, with few consequences, because of union protection.


      I never said a union is always honest - but it seems companies can do no wrong, yet unions can do no right? Is it underhanded dealing for United to beg on its hands and knees to the American taxpayer for $5 billion in free money, promising taxpayers and employees that this will protect its workers until October 1, and as soon as the money is in the bank they threaten to cut all employees earnings by 25-50%? People are ignoring the fact that the company just lied to the face of every American taxpayer to get billions of dollars. That is shady dealing and completely within expectations for corporate America in general. That is why we have a union. If that were the other way around, United would have walked every union member off of its property. It's okay for the company to bend the rules (and in this case the law) for their favor, but anytime it is the other way around people bark at the unions.
       
      User avatar
      NWAROOSTER
      Posts: 1329
      Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:29 pm

      Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

      Fri May 15, 2020 8:35 pm

      jetmatt777 wrote:
      WayexTDI wrote:
      bigb wrote:

      That again would be against the collective bargaining agreement in its entirety.

      Which again is a further proof that unions protect the bad employees, to the detriment of the good ones.
      Thank you, you just proved my point.


      That's an incredibly narrow point of view. How about I flip it and say unions protect good employees from bad management? Is it possible that there are bad eggs in management as well as rank and file workers? Yes. But to throw this view out that unions are bad doesn't factor in what led to them - underhanded dealing, theft, and gross negligence by many members of management - across all airlines and even industries.


      There was a saying at Northwest, he was made a management employee because as a mechanic he could not fix a damn thing." I had to clean up the language some. Also don't forget some of these dawgs were always buttering up to management and that helped them get a management position. Some who were so inept eventually where told to turn in their badge, clean out their desk and walked off the property. It was called "promoted out the door." :old:
      Procrastination Is The Theft Of Time.......
       
      CRJ5000
      Posts: 136
      Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2019 3:06 pm

      Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

      Fri May 15, 2020 9:18 pm

      32andBelow wrote:
      It was really hard to get enough pilots right before this. I think some major airlines are going to be very cautious releasing pilots until they absolutely have to.

      The cargo guys are gonna snap a lot of these guys up and it could be hard to get them back.


      I know the "pilot shortage" was a hot topic before this, but I can attest that absolutely positively no major airline had a shortage of good candidates at any time before this, and certainly won't in the immediate future afterwards. Quite the opposite, actually. The topic has come up constantly on most regional jumpseats I've been on in the past few years... How many applications the pilots have in and where, how many times they've tried to get into DL/UA/AA/WN and even B6/AS/NK/F9/G4 whom are all still competitive and lucrative. Some of these guys are over 5000 hours, multiple ratings, tons of PIC time, and are great pilots. They've been waiting years for the call. If there was any shortage currently whatsoever, they would have been scooped up long ago. Is the pilot shortage a real thing in the future - yeah, quite possibly. Could airlines find qualified pilots prior to Covid? Absolutely. Will they be able to find them after Covid? Yes, even more so than before.
      No major airline is afraid of not being able to find pilots after this.
       
      winginit
      Posts: 2849
      Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:23 pm

      Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

      Fri May 15, 2020 9:24 pm

      cbphoto wrote:
      I’m not arguing that some stations personal might get cut, but they work for many different companies, so they are not being technically cut by Allegiant. So far Allegiant as an entity has not announced any lay offs, in any department. And just because allegiant is cutting some stations positions, doesn’t mean those individuals will not get other temporary jobs in their own company.


      I'm sorry, but it's short sighted to make the blanket claim that G4 isn't going to make any cuts. They've just posted their first quarterly loss, they're burning through $2M every day, and their stock has cratered just like all other airlines. Yes, they obviously operate a different business model than the majors that allows for more schedule flexibility, and yes, they run a conservative balance sheet, but I will be genuinely shocked if come 2021 they haven't laid anyone off.
       
      User avatar
      SLCUT2777
      Posts: 3476
      Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:17 am

      Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

      Fri May 15, 2020 11:34 pm

      I think this is more than likely UA management digging at AFA Union Chief Sara Nelson.
      DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!

      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