View Single Post
Old 06-01-2015 | 10:34 AM
  #643  
eaglefly
Banned
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Waitingformins
Or 15,822 pilots currently at AAG <500 through some sort of flow = .03% of total pilots on payroll.



A few being since the late 1990's

If half the list is going to turn over in a dozen plus a few years that's 7K plus pilots your really think Eagle and PDT are gonna cycle through 7k flows. Don't get me wrong I think every one there now is set, and I am happy for them, but that doesn't mean the door will be held open for the next 5k+ new hires.
Don't forget, only about 330 or so of those 481 are part of the present flow-through. The previous were part of a different flow-through that mostly occurred prior to Chapter 11 and new management and since AAG is PRESENTLY hiring, Envoy is legally required to comply with an arbitration award for another 475-500 pilots. After that, the provisions are as a result of a contractual agreement between the parties as opposed to an arbitrators award and there is no specific number of pilots. As such, the future flow-through mechanism is at far more risk to significant alteration.

Additionally, there is no guarantee that AA retirements will equal a like number of vacant slots. The PBS scheduling system requires perhaps 10-15% less pilots once implemented (late 2016) and fleet reductions are in progress (30-35 less aircraft this year alone). Any increase in flying at AA, especially post 2016 (which would impact the future flow "protected pilot agreement") is likely to simply be absorbed by more block hours flown by present pilots combined with more efficient scheduling, at least to a significant degree. For example, this year I'm slated to fly 850 hours, but in pervious years it was closer to 550. Therefore, trumpeting a "retirement driven" flow is EXTREMELY assumptive and VERY optimistic considering Parker's knack for ringing out the staffing/flying dishrag until dry.

I think that claim SOUNDS good, but doesn't hold water at this point.
Reply