Why so few redundancies?

[AOGspanner]

Most pilots are still not working or very little and yet very few layoffs. They are not required and in other industries would be laid off. Most are still employed on furlough and it appears to be indefinite. The majority of actual layoffs were either recent cadets or early retirements.
Is it because governments are taking the cost of furlough? or is it that the airlines are afraid they will be short of crews and unable to recruit when we come out of crisis. Are airlines being over optimistic? Or are they all making poor decisions to keep employees if they are not going to be needed?

[Landflap]

"Very few lay-offs" ? just take a breeze round other forums like "Middle East", "Rumours & News" , this one too regarding Brunei and for stalwarts with a sense of humour, "Jetblast". You might start to get the picture.

[AOGspanner]

But those are very different markets. Everyone who goes to work there goes with the understanding it is temporary work, and you can stay as long as there is work. The salaries they pay and packages mean they have no problem enticing people. The question was more for the western markets. In Europe the number of flights is low for the foreseeable future yet most pilots in Europe are furloughed indefinitely or flying once a month to keep current and not laid off. Why would they do that?

[VariablePitchP]

That’s literally the point of furlough. Less work now so they get less pay then when it goes back to normal the pay likely goes back to normal.

[Hot 'n' High]

AOGs, I believe that the "furlough scheme" (or, in the UK, the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) to give it its official title) is designed to do what it says on the tin. Thus, it requires the person to be employed for them to be given "furlough" and that the Govt intent of "furlough" (UK certainly) is that it means people will be kept in the post for when the recovery starts rather than being laid off and re-hired. "Furlough" is not indefinite; it's until the respective Govts close the scheme. In the UK that's now, as of 31 Oct, been extended again to December. It may extend again - or it may not.....

Of course, whether the recovery leads to a requirement to have everyone back to work when "furlough" ends is a HUGE question. Once "furlough" is ended, I suspect those who can be tasked (ie there is work for them to do) will start working again but, sadly, where there is contraction in the Industry, a number will come off "furlough" and be made redundant. This works across every Industry - aviation is no different. Shops, pubs, engineering companies, hairdressers .... it's the same across the board. Companies can "buy time" for now before a final market evaluation when "furlough" finally ends and any downsizing takes place to meet the new market levels.

Of course, many 1,000s have already been laid off in various Industries in countries where "furlough" does not exist or Companies have decided not to avail themselves of the Scheme. However, I fear, there will be a further wave of redundancies to follow when "furlough" ends. Not wishing to be pessimistic, just realistic, the reverberations of this Pandemic will rumble on for years!

[bafanguy]

AOG,

I suspect most of the scenarios you mention are in play one place or another.

There is a school of thought saying that
airlines might hang on to pilots to keep them available as needed when a turnaround begins. Time will prove or dispel that line of reasoning.

For example, Delta is in the process of implementing a plan to keep on the payroll ~1,900+ pilots who'd otherwise be laid off Dec. 1st and pay them 30 hrs/mo until Jan. 1st, 2022. They can seek other employment but must return when called.

Laying them off in official furlough would give them contractual rights to bypass recall for up to 10 years which many might do, if otherwise employed, to let the dust settle and see what's happening before jumping into what might be another pit of quicksand.

Is this a good policy ? I have no idea...and neither does anyone else at this point.

[PilotLZ]

Do bear in mind that furloughs more often than not aren't short-term. All it means is that you'll be called back with priority over an external candidate if and when more pilots are required. So, while one might have not been made redundant, this still doesn't mean that they're not out of flying for a couple of years. In past crises, clearing a furlough list in entirety has often taken up to 5 years. Recalls of pilots who were furloughed in 2008-2009 only finished in 2013 or thereabout. So, the fact that the current reductions in staffing weren't called redundancies is of little comfort to many, at least short-term.

[bafanguy]

Originally Posted by PilotLZ

In past crises, clearing a furlough list in entirety has often taken up to 5 years. Recalls of pilots who were furloughed in 2008-2009 only finished in 2013 or thereabout.

Not sure how works in other countries but in the US, some furloughees have voluntarily bypassed recall to the contractual limits (well beyond 5 years), ultimately having to return or be removed from the seniority list. The most recent case was UAL pre-covid, iirc. A personal friend bypassed recall many years ago to stay in an expat job that was more fun. He had a Flying Tigers/FedEx slot in his back pocket and retired as a widebody captain after a very successful career.

Lots of variations on a theme here. But the controlling factor these days is that no one has the foggiest notion of what comes next or when. Really tough times...

[Denti]

Well, in europe there are state funded furlough or short working schemes in every country, the EU supports those with a few hundred billion of Euros additionally to the hundreds of billions the countries put up themselves. Those are not specific for aviation but available for the whole economy. Which explains the fairly low rise in unemployment. On the other hand, a furlough program like US airlines do regularly is not the norm.

In my base we are in the process of firing quite a few crews (both cabin and flight deck), those fired have the right to return if there are openings within the company, slightly but not completely preferential to outsiders and that is limited to 36 months, there is no right to return by law at all, and of course, they will do get a new starting date, eliminating all prior time in the company. However, due to local working law, and remember, working law is not unified in the EU, length of service (or seniority) is just one of 5 elements that have to be taken into account when deciding who to fire, and is the second lowest score on the list.

[PilotLZ]

Employment law in many countries outside the highly developed Western and Northern European legislations is very crude, pretty much giving the management a free hand in firing whoever is least amicable to them. Imagine when the sole criteria for selecting people for redundancy that are written up in the Labour code are "qualification of the employee" and "quality of performing the assigned duties". This gives lots of wiggle room to whoever is picking up the unlucky ones.

[nickler]

UN Recruits 40 Airlines to Deliver Vaccine to Poorest States

Good news or it's not going to change much the scenario for unemployed pilots ?

[PilotLZ]

It might help the survival of some ACMI carriers. Many of those already have a track record of transporting PPE from China in temporarily converted passenger aircraft. The question is, how is that vaccine going to be packed to keep the ultra low storage temperature?

[Porto Pete]

QATAR seem to be gearing up for that question. It's a bit thin on details but hopefully they can make it work.

[SaulGoodman]

PilotLZ

You need warehouses prepared for pharma. So my guess is on Fedex, DHL, UPS and specialized cargo companies. Flying PPE’s is easy. Can be done by anyone. Pharma is a different ballgame