Originally Posted by
Bucking Bar
Rogue,
You raise an interesting point and I'd dare say ALPA's been working on that calculation. Very early when this was calculated it is my understanding the result was as published ... enough crews to staff for the 7 330's from the Motor City to the Stoner City and back again.
The fact the Company's been squeezing the list to staff the bottom ( MD88 / 717 ) from the middle (76 & ER to 320 & 737 to MD88 & 717 ) suggests if the Company had held extra staffing that they aren't doing so any more.
Yours is an interesting theory. But, not interested if it is a trial balloon for excused noncompliance. We've really got to do something to alleviate stagnation that results in the vast majority of our narrow body First Officers being qualified for membership in AARP.
Do not disagree at all. Of note, the number of frequencies needed dropped significantly from Feb to May, and it will be interesting to see what it is next month after the post that on the Committee page.
My point is if you want to toll and staff for those loses via seats, the look back would apply and we have had a lot of pilots sitting in seats that did not have flying attached to them. It may actually hurt you on a look back but may be a good idea going forward. Its in how it is done.
Taking EASK's and formalizing that in to seats not staffed may be the best bet for our pilots, but forcing a staffing solution on a look back may result in no need for payback to our group. Just food for thought. The whole, know the answer to the question before you ask it thing. It might be something that a resolution could make the MEC look at though.