CommutAir Furlough (Edit: Mesa is now as well.)

tcco94

Professional GTA V Pilot
So from what is being relayed is the Mesa furloughs were only in training. Which if that is true, you need to include Skywest and Endeavor as they sent many home in training as well. Even though Skywest doesn't consider that to be a "furlough" since they aren't off IOE. :rolleyes:
 

Max Power

Well-Known Member
Commutair (C5), with the MEC's intervention, offered the these options to the group:

Normal 75 hour lines
Company offered leave of absence (COLA) in 30 day increments:
Super Long Call reserve: 72 hour callout and 40 hours pay. We don't use long call here, period, so that's a big deal.
Voluntary furlough.

The take rate on COLA and Long call determined the outcome of the 75 hour lines and reserve. We are still working with the company for Aprils bid to see what it will be. We are not a senior company, at least half the list is under 3 years. And since we don't pay all that well ( you did save some of that 300% pay right?) not as many can afford to take the COLA or Long Call as the union/company was hoping for. We still saved some bottom folks from being cut right away with the COLA and Long Call. It's probably only going to be temporary, but keeping folks flying and employed is the job of the union.

People will be furloughed of course. But the companies initial offer was everyone at 55 hours pay and the removal of certain benefits like commuter rooms and increasing insurance burden on the employee among other things. And then basically hacking the list in half. That would have put over 100 people on reserve before the cuts happened. I'm communications chairman for the MEC, I only know what those guys have told me and it hasn't been much.

Our survival is most assuredly in jeopardy, but hopefully people who took COLA (like me) or long call can help those facing job loss get to their 1,000th hour, get consolidated or make money for a few more months at least to help out.
 

Yakob

Grand Prognosticator Nominee
Yeah that is some BS.

Shame on ALPA for allowing this.
C5 ALPA? Do you think it would have been better to accept the 55 hour minimum guarantee? I know a lot of the people who ended up getting furloughed blamed the furloughs on ALPA rejecting the 55 hours across the board and reduced benefits deal. Whether that would have actually prevented the furloughs I'm not sure, but I'm skeptical that it would have. Unfortunately I don't think our union has much leverage right now, considering that we had a 60% cut in block hours for April and May and we're pretty much a rounding error in the whole United Express operation in the first place so United could easily "Comair" us. Not trying to be nasty, genuinely interested to hear what you think C5 ALPA should have done differently.
 

Seggy

Well-Known Member
C5 ALPA? Do you think it would have been better to accept the 55 hour minimum guarantee? I know a lot of the people who ended up getting furloughed blamed the furloughs on ALPA rejecting the 55 hours across the board and reduced benefits deal. Whether that would have actually prevented the furloughs I'm not sure, but I'm skeptical that it would have. Unfortunately I don't think our union has much leverage right now, considering that we had a 60% cut in block hours for April and May and we're pretty much a rounding error in the whole United Express operation in the first place so United could easily "Comair" us. Not trying to be nasty, genuinely interested to hear what you think C5 ALPA should have done differently.
Yes I blame C5 ALPA and ALPA National should have stepped in and said wait a minute.

You tell the company, we all want 55 hour lines, renewable every month with MEC's concurrence, until this passes. You DO NOT, under ANY circumstance, just allow furloughs without bringing EVERYONE down to a lower line credit. If they furlough after that, at least you tried to keep as many on property as possible. It is called a union, after all, you try to look out for everyone, not try to create winners and losers.
 

Maurus

The Great Gazoo
Yes I blame C5 ALPA and ALPA National should have stepped in and said wait a minute.

You tell the company, we all want 55 hour lines, renewable every month with MEC's concurrence, until this passes. You DO NOT, under ANY circumstance, just allow furloughs without bringing EVERYONE down to a lower line credit. If they furlough after that, at least you tried to keep as many on property as possible. It is called a union, after all, you try to look out for everyone, not try to create winners and losers.
Do we know they did not try to do this? It is entirely possible the company just did what they wanted (assuming it is within the bounds of their CBA).
 
Last edited:

Max Power

Well-Known Member
Yes I blame C5 ALPA and ALPA National should have stepped in and said wait a minute.

You tell the company, we all want 55 hour lines, renewable every month with MEC's concurrence, until this passes. You DO NOT, under ANY circumstance, just allow furloughs without bringing EVERYONE down to a lower line credit. If they furlough after that, at least you tried to keep as many on property as possible. It is called a union, after all, you try to look out for everyone, not try to create winners and losers.
I'm fairly certain that ALL of us would be out of jobs if that was the tactic. People taking COLA, leaves and 40 hour reserve saved more jobs than everyone on 55 hours would have at least now. UA came to C5 and said "If you don't get us some workable plan in short order, you're all done." At least that's what someone said who was in the room. I'm fairly certain C5 doesn't have to pockets to do that or they would, this is actually a decent place with some shotty problems before all this happened.

And this is only for April. May will be decided in a few weeks. It could get worse and I believe it will. These agreements only staunch the bloodletting for now.
 

Yakob

Grand Prognosticator Nominee
Yes I blame C5 ALPA and ALPA National should have stepped in and said wait a minute.

You tell the company, we all want 55 hour lines, renewable every month with MEC's concurrence, until this passes. You DO NOT, under ANY circumstance, just allow furloughs without bringing EVERYONE down to a lower line credit. If they furlough after that, at least you tried to keep as many on property as possible. It is called a union, after all, you try to look out for everyone, not try to create winners and losers.
Thanks for your response. Yes I have to admit it seems like it would be better to bring everyone to 55 hours, if that would indeed have resulted in fewer furloughs. I gather that reducing everyone's minimum credit is the standard way to handle potential furloughs? This is the first time I've been at a company that has furloughed.

Do we know they did not try to do this? It is entirely possible the company just did what they wanted (assuming it is without the bounds of their CBA).
This was a Memorandum of Understanding that the company and the union agreed on, after the company's inital proposal of 55 hour mimimum guarantee across the board and reduced benefits was rejected. I don't know whether or not it is true that the company's proposal would have led to fewer furloughs.
 

dbrault17

Well-Known Member
If the stimulus bill passes with all the money they are throwing at workers, you'd be better off being unemployed at least for the summer.
 

Seggy

Well-Known Member
I'm fairly certain that ALL of us would be out of jobs if that was the tactic.
I don't think that would be the case. They didn't reduce all of your flying...yet. Plus it then puts the onus on the company to do something to save the jobs, not for the union to decide.

It also buys time while the bailout is figured.

Once again, from what I am seeing, horrific actions by the C5 MEC and ALPA National.
 

Seggy

Well-Known Member
Thanks for your response. Yes I have to admit it seems like it would be better to bring everyone to 55 hours, if that would indeed have resulted in fewer furloughs. I gather that reducing everyone's minimum credit is the standard way to handle potential furloughs? This is the first time I've been at a company that has furloughed.
There really is no standard way, but some places have contractual provisions that look for ideas like this, temporarily, while trying to keep folks on property and preventing a pay rate cut.
 

Max Power

Well-Known Member
There really is no standard way, but some places have contractual provisions that look for ideas like this, temporarily, while trying to keep folks on property and preventing a pay rate cut.
So they should have seen if the company was bluffing? From what I gather, the company actually showed the union it’s books. Again, I wasn’t there, I have to go with what I was told.

I‘d have to look, but I’m fairly certain furlough isn’t covered that well in our contract(among other things). Because the company has only furloughed once in its existence.
 

dbrault17

Well-Known Member
I still say furlough at this moment for lower paid positions is a better option than trying to save jobs with concessions. It's not right if you ask me but thats the card that is being dealt.
 

SlumTodd_Millionaire

Evil Landlord Capitalist
There really is no standard way, but some places have contractual provisions that look for ideas like this, temporarily, while trying to keep folks on property and preventing a pay rate cut.
Come on, you know how this works. The only thing National can do to stop local actions is for Joe to refuse to sign a CBA/LOA. If the LOA was rejected at the MEC level, there’s nothing to be not signed, so nothing National can do. This is the problem with the autonomous MEC system, but control freak pilots will never allow National to have more power.

That said, I take no position on the proposal. Don’t have the facts that the MEC did to make their decision.
 
Top