Originally Posted by
Wingnutdal
Carl
I'm sure someone as smart and self assured as you seem to be realizes that ASMs are not the correct way to measure pilot productivity. You went to all of that effort and were comparing the wrong metrics! Good job with finding all of the ASMs and using your calculator.
I didn't use ASM's to measure pilot productivity. I used ASM's to measure the
growth of the airline. Then I reminded sailingfun that he was ignoring the growth of the airline in his attempt to use "required pilots" to prove that C2012 brought pilots a net gain in value. Here's my post again with bolded parts for your review:
Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
Let's start with your graph of "pilots required":
From Jan 2013 to Dec 2013 we went from 9,650 "pilots required" to 9,720 "pilots required". A gain of 0.7%. From Jan 2013 to Dec 2013 our airline grew Available Seat Miles (ASM's) from 230,415 million to 232,740 million (Source: Statista). A gain of 1%. If our "required pilots" had kept up with the growth of the airline, our Dec 2013 "pilots required" number should have been 9,746...but we were 26 pilots short. This partly reflects our productivity concessions in C2012 which requires less pilots.
From Jan 2014 to March 2014 we went from 9,780 "pilots required" to 9,900 "pilots required". A gain of 1.2%. From Jan 2014 to Mar 2014 our airline grew ASM's at 3% (Source: 1Q2014 10Q). If our "required pilots" had kept up with the growth of the airline, our Mar 2014 "pilots required" should have been 10,073...but we were 173 pilots short. This shows the accelerating value of our productivity concessions requiring a greater rate of less pilots as the airline grew.
Keep in mind that in the above, we grew the airline by adding ASM's in smaller aircraft while removing them in larger aircraft. This should have required even more pilots, but again our productivity concessions helps this to not happen.
Alfa, your entire premise ignores the growth of the airline in the stated time period. I'm sure it was just accidental. There's a more interesting point to make next, but I'll do so in response to a post from sailingfun.
Carl