Originally Posted by CallmeJB

At the risk of getting into a silly, unprovable argument on the internet, I will share my thoughts on these numbers. I respect you taking the time to reply and hopefully my response below demonstrates that respect.

The staffing charts that JS put together are based on the current number of pilots and number of airplanes. But the company has front loaded the 767 staffing a couple of months ahead of the aircraft deliveries. So, the current number of pilots is based on two or three more aircraft than are currently in the fleet count. This moves that '22 pilots per aircraft' down a few numbers. In other words, the number of pilots per aircraft on property right now is higher than normal, and higher than required.

Another point about the pilots per aircraft numbers: right now that includes staffing for five 'AMC passenger' 767s (640, 641, 645, 649, and 661; 767MW is sort of a separate animal so I'm not including it). Each of those AMC pax rotator routes require much higher staffing than a DHL or Amazon route. For example, a five day rotator from BIF all the way to Diego requires four or five full crews and burns them for all five days, whereas a five day MIA-BNA-CVG-MIA DHL run requires one crew for five days. So, those five 767s account for a high proportion of the pilots required for the entire 767 fleet (22 aircraft total right now). Furthermore, I don't believe the Company ever planned to maintain an AMC pax fleet of five; the bump from three to five AMC pax planes was a way to increase block hours on the fleet in advance of the Amazon growth, which takes care of some upgrades/consolidation/high mins issues in advance. Indeed, at least one of the pax aircraft is slated to come off the line in October and go to cargo conversion, with two more coming off the line next year (and one more pax aircraft coming, for a net change back to three AMC pax aircraft). Keep in mind, losing one of those AMC pax 767s can staff 1.5 or 2 DHL/Amazon 767s.

As for that Amazon flying starting next month, take a look at the lines. TPA-CVG-TPA every day (two legs), that's a pretty efficient line. SEA, on the other hand, is not as efficient. With the higher block time, those lines can only be built to fly one leg a day (SEA-CVG, then CVG-SEA). If Amazon adds another, closer city out of CVG, like ORD, MEM, ATL, or DTW, then those SEA lines can be built as two legs every day (SEA-CVG-ORD, then ORD-CVG-SEA). Essentially, an aircraft can be added to serve a close city and not require any additional staffing, just additional flying on the existing SEA line. In a bigger picture sense: the more aircraft we add for Amazon, the more efficient our staffing will become.

So, let's look at those numbers again.

Due to AMC pax aircraft skewing the staffing requirements, the actual staffing required for each additional Amazon aircraft is not 22 pilots per aircraft. I think it's as low as 12 pilots per aircraft, but I'll be conservative and say 18 pilots per aircraft.

Due to front loaded staffing for the next two or three aircraft, the 2017 staffing requirements do not require hiring for eight more 767s, but only five or six more 767s. I'll be conservative and say six.

Pulling one AMC pax 767 off the line will staff 1.5 or two Amazon 767s. I'll be conservative and say 1.5. With us pulling one AMC pax aircraft off the line in October to go to cargo conversion, that reduces the 767 staffing requirements this year from six additional 767s to 4.5 additional 767s.

I'm not including the one 'free staffing' aircraft that would be staffed by the existing SEA line, or any additional economies of scale that a larger fleet will provide.

4.5 767s at 18 pilots per aircraft will require 81 additional pilots in 2017, not 176. That number seems crazy low even to me, but as you can see I used conservative numbers.

Look, I know this is all conjecture and funny-math (from both sides of the argument). Attrition is picking up, and will continue to pick up until we get the CBA we deserve, and that is a material problem for the company. But the pilot group seems to have put a lot of eggs into the basket of 'our attrition will force the company's hand, because they can't grow Amazon if pilots keep leaving,' and in my opinion that is a dangerous thing for us to rely on because I think it is just wrong. Based on what I see, I think the company can hire their way out of this in 2017.

2018 is a different story. I tend to be optimistic, and I really think that we will have a better CBA by the first quarter of 2018, but of course maybe we won't. However, keep in mind that parking a couple more AMC pax aircraft can staff four additional Amazon aircraft, or parking three 747s could staff ten additional Amazon aircraft. That may not be the company's ideal choice, but I don't think it would hurt the bottom line so badly that they wouldn't do it if it was needed to support Amazon.

Look, I think we will get a new CBA for a lot of reasons: because we deserve it, because it brings the company stability, because us pilots will continue to behave badly until we get it. But the argument of 'the company can't support the Amazon growth until we get a new CBA' is fatally flawed, and we should not continue to rely on that as a silver bullet. One way or another, the company WILL support the Amazon growth.

As pilots, we need to rely on each other and support our Exco, because relying on numbers is not a winning strategy.