Originally Posted by
Jersdawg
I just accidentally deleted my entire response, so I'll try again.
The poll indicated that most would not make a lateral move - they will wait for the "right" LCC or legacy. This is my point - The largest hiring wave of the century is just starting, and the wave will be continuing for at least a decade. The LCCs and legacies will be hiring like gangbusters. Pilots at ENY will not HAVE to make a lateral move if the flow is tampered with in any way.
I agree, but non-lateral attrition a
constant in that it will occur regardless of Envoy's flow. The future flow rate for most of these pilots will not alter their conduct, since a lateral move to another regional isn't in play. Thus, if the flow is diluted to a slower rate for Envoy pilots in the future to allow the inclusion of pilots from the other WO's at an approximately equal rate (provided they are of approximately equal size), it wont change the Envoy pilot retention equation much. Although increased hiring at both legacies and LCC's is projected for the forseeable future, both can still be very choosy as legacies have 10-15,000 apps on file (mostly the same pilots) and LCC's don't hire in large enough numbers due to their smaller size and lower attrition because of younger age metrics associated with retirements.
Originally Posted by
Jersdawg
Flow is ENY's only recruiting tactic right now. You and I both know the pay is average, the QOL is in the tank, upgrade is currently long, and rsv times will range at least a year or two until they clear out the clog. If flow is tampered with, the recruiting tactic is gone. There is no other reason for anyone to come - new hires will be gone, folks at the very bottom of the seniority list will bail, and those who were thinking about applying elsewhere but really haven't because of the flow, those apps will be out in a hot second.
My argument is that the flow NATURALLY evens itself out after the protected pilots. They can continue paring ENY down as they flow guys out. Once the protected group is gone, all three WO'd will be right sized with similar flows and similar contracts. AAG doesn't have to do anything.
It just seems that our views on the regional landscape are very different. You think mgmt will be free to push whatever demands on the WO's that they want, and they will take it. You may be right, you may be wrong. I am saying that it's folly to do so, because the landscape across the industry is vastly different than it was even two years ago - folks won't be stuck at regionals any more. And for ENY, where flow is currently the ONLY thing going for current pilots and recruits? Dilute it, modify it, or do to it whatever you want to call it, and folks will respond with their feet. That's all.
*Quote pared down by me to spare smart phone users
I like your use of the word "tactic" when describing what Envoy (and others) are doing to draw in pilots from an EXTREMELY small available pool. The 2.5/6 claim is exactly that, a tactic. The fact that it is rationally unsupportable in the case of the 2.5 year upgrade claim and excessively assumptive in the case of anything 6 years down the road only seems to support something designed to meet a temporary need, in this case the desire of Envoy management to remain viable by proving they have the best access to a desirable resource. Regional attrition is somewhat modest now, but soon that will increase and the pool in the future will be only smaller. It's just I think your assumptions here (if I understand you correctly) as that enough regional pilots will be able to move elsewhere to legacies and LCC's to not have to temper the flow. To me that is illogical because if that occurs at Envoy, Envoy has to hire that many more pilots to maintain the engine speed of upgrades and eventually flow and according to you, for upwards of 6 years and because it will have engineered a VERY hungry engine that must be fed a huge amount fuel (in this case, new-hire pilots that don't exist in the numbers necessary), it invariably won't be able to feed that engine at that power setting without running out of fuel or blowing apart like RAH. This desired engine speed of 2.5/6 simply isn't sustainable and so Envoy simply will HAVE to back off the attrition, ESPECIALLY if as you believe, outside attrition will spike in the absence of keep the Envoy engine running at this rate.
Sounds like a classic Catch-22 to me.
Envoy likely won't have to reduce power, they will be overhauled either with a smaller engine or only be tasked with providing one power source to a multi-engine platform and multi-engine platforms usually don't work well with asymmetrical or imbalanced power settings. I think Envoy will gradually contract over the next 12-18 months and PSA and Piedmont are likely to grow. If one or both of those carriers merge or acquire a non WO (who might have no other choice if AAG has the drop on them) or consolidation of the WO's occurs, look for the balancing I describe and that's 12-24 months, not more then 6 years from now. The process will also involve as I stated MORE emphasis on steady flow to AA (even 50-65% of classes), but spread out over far more pilots at multiple WO's. Unfortunately, the result for Envoy pilots is a slower result then is now claimed. Whether or not X number of pilots goes elsewhere or how fast or soon is irrelevant as most of those that do go elsewhere (non-laterally) would have done so regardless.