Originally Posted by ORDinary

The numbers posted above are all pretty accurate, but there are other factors in the equation.

Here's an interesting list:

Date Filed / Grievance # / Description
07JAN15 - MEC-0115 - Insufficient Pay Credit for AQP CBTs
18FEB15 - MEC-0415 - Vacation Freeze
19FEB15 - MEC-0515 - Failure to Pay Contractual Signing Bonuses
13FEB15 - MEC-0615 - Cat II Flight Confidence Checks
21FEB15 - MEC-0715 - Peoria Hotel
08MAY15 - MEC-0815 - Improper & Unilateral Changes to Reserve Assignments
16JUL15 - MEC-1015 - Scheduling Contact (during rest / notification)
16JUL15 - MEC-1115 - Issuance of MA/Disciplinary Action from Attempted Contact when pilot has no obligation to answer phone
24AUG15 - MEC-1215 - Missed Assignments for Fatigue Calls
08OCT15 - MEC-1315 - Unilateral Imposition of Cell Phone Requirements
27OCT15 - MEC-1415 - Failure to Honor RAP Preferences
27OCT15 - MEC-1515 - Unilateral Imposition of Flight Time Buffer
27OCT15 - MEC-1615 - Improper OT Denials
30OCT15 - MEC-1715 - Refusal to Remove Touching Legs of when using PVD
06NOV15 - MEC-1815 - Long Term Disability Differential Premium Rates
20NOV15 - MEC-1915 - Right to Transfer 401(k) Assets to SuperSaver
20NOV15 - MEC-2015 - Improper Use of “MA” or “FT” code for “ER”
17DEC15 - MEC-2115 - Improper Denial of PVDs
24FEB16 - MEC-0316 - Leather Jackets
24FEB16 - MEC-0416 - Prevention of Bidding for Recurrent Training
24FEB16 - MEC-0516 - Failure to Minimize 401(k) fees when switching investment options

The above is a list of current group grievances that the union decided were worth pursuing against the company. Add individual pilot grievances and the list is much longer. What is the relevance to flowthrough? Well, when management goes in front of the arbitrator and argues their side, they often don't have any contract-based defense of their actions--because our union doesn't typically go through with the expensive and time-consuming grievance process unless they think they have real backing in the contract language. Instead, management often argues "operational necessity" as a blanket defense for anything they do that isn't contractual. It is an argument that frequently works, since many arbitrators don't want to be seen as detrimental to business.

So what happens if we don't get enough new hires to support both flowthrough and outside attrition? That is a lot of new hires. If we have better flow than other regionals, that means we need more new hires than them to keep it going. So far we have much less. I'm not sure that we have had more than a single month of 30 in the last year, and now you're supposed to count on a flowthrough that requires 72 straight months of 30-40 new hires to sustain it. Can you count on that? When staffing becomes an issue, will the company choose to fully honor the promised flowthrough, even if it means they have to park expensive and profitable airplanes? Doubtful. They currently would rather violate the contract on a given day rather than delay a single flight a few minutes, or use an extra reserve that likely wouldn't be flying that day anyway. As evidence I present the above list. Operational necessity trumps all.

That being said, maybe we will compete harder for new hires, maybe they will throw more money at the problem. But so will other regionals. Or maybe some regional consolidation will happen, and with who knows what effect on flow. Time will tell, and I am not telling people not to come with to envoy. I'm saying that pilots should consider the flowthrough a promise made by people who, today, are not trustworthy. Do not treat the flowthrough as a guarantee, because it is not. Contract language guarantees nothing with this company, spoken promises even less so. If you come to envoy, come here knowing that the flow of the next year or so will cause good movement and bring upgrade times down from their current 8+ years. But look at all sides of the argument before you make your choice. And don't believe anyone who says they can predict the future (me included).