Originally Posted by
notEnuf
It's not a philosophical problem. It's diminishing seniority. The reason it's FOs only is because captains, by knowledge of experience know how valuable seniority is. Where is the 2.76% number coming from?
With turn high turnover upcoming and all the OE for all positions coming out of FO lines this is low for sure. The cascading affects will impact all of the bottom 75% of FOs. Combined with tightening reserves required formula, trip swaps and drops to try to mitigate the effect will be impossible. If the evaluation was with historical data we already know it is wrong.
Thanks, notenuf.
I'll quote from another thread, below, to explain how I got to the numbers. Since that time, I've heard that there are a bunch of restrictions that make the number smaller. For example, you can't use it to train across bases. It's based on block hours, not trips. Credit time decreases that number. I'm told UAL should have an easier time than Delta to maximize their 75% of OE trips, since they pull the trips before any bidding occurs (no FO's can bid the trips at all), and
still they can only get about 35-40% of the "benefit".
As for your point that the numbers will increase with more retirements, my thinking is that the average % across the entire airline could do that, but I can't see us doing much more training in the NB than 100+/month. Purely a guess on my part, but I imagine as more people move up into WB due to attrition, they get to see changes too, offset by the WB growth.
Originally Posted by
Sink r8
I've previously quoted the 2% number, with the caveat I haven't verified it. I think it's possible, but my own napkin math is a little different, closer to the 3%.
My info is that we have 435 LCA's, 35 are on special projects, so 400 flying.
50% of their work is OE.
I'm assuming 6,400 FO's.
I'm assuming 15% on Reserve > 5,440 line-holding FO's.
I'm not accounting for FO's not flying, such as sick or MLOA at all.
I'm not accounting for LCA's on Reserve.
I'm going to pretend time and pilots are the same thing for now, although the TA deals in time, so I'm going to say 50% of 400 LCA used for OE like 200 LCA's worth of flying.
200 FO's worth of FO's flying with LCA's is 200/5,440= 3.67% of FO time.
25% of that time is safe, so 75% on the block is 2.76%
There are a number of factors that make this number smaller, so maybe the 2% is totally valid, but 2.76% is what's in my mind. That's the upper end effect I envision for the bottom-line holder and below: 2.76% of the time could be gone.
As you move up the list, depending on whether the guy is above or below LCA's, and how you rank trip quality, some % < 2.76% of the time, on average across categories, is gone.
So the philosophical issue is whether it's OK to take something from the FO's that's not being taken from Captains. One argument is that the TA puts serious funds in the pocket of 190 drivers, and adds 190's. Sure, the contract currently has 190 rates, but take a close look at them, and you'll see why the greatest gain in compensation in this TA, ahead of a 777 Captain, is an E190 guy, who has total compensation increases, W/O factoring PS, of $181K over the length of the contract.
It gets better. The total potential efficiencies available under 23.G.5 are 112 jobs, assuming that they get the full impact (not likely), and that there are no trips available for the people whose trip is dropped (not likely at all). The total number of E190's on order is 20, but in order to reach their 76-seat numbers, it needs to be 50. At 7 crews per plane, that's 140-350 additional captain jobs.
Maybe 23.G.5 can't be looked at in a vacuum, but as a shift of incentives for FO's. The net seems to favor FO's, surprisingly. How surprising is that, for a philosophical point?