Originally Posted by
LumberJack
There would be more pilots, meaning more line holders and more reserves, meaning more short call reserves. Life is good.
H*** no to airport stdby. Been there, done that, it's terrible. THAT's what GSs are for. Here's an idea, airport standby is voluntary and pays quadruple.
Why is it any more difficult to increase staffing to the proper level than it is to increase pay rates? Both are costs, but better staffing is actually a win win, easier to justify than increasing pay rates.
Its not difficult to increase staffing. It’s just another cost. The problem is we have some of the highest staffing in the industry now per airframe. We are not currently short of pilots. We are short of pilots in the correct seats. That’s somewhat a management function however given the constraints of our contract to have the right pilots in the right seats would mean forcing network decisions way out in the future. I don’t think anyone wants to go back to the days of involuntary TAD’s ect.. If the company is going to respond to rapidly changing market conditions shortages in categories will always happen. What we have seen evolve over the last 20 years is vastly different than 30 years ago.
The other point is reroutes are not really a lack of reserve issue. Reserves only a small percentage of reroute needs unless you went to airport standby.