Originally Posted by
ptarmigan
There is always going to be a cost at some point that makes that happen. Personally, I think they are more likely to go with the SIBA type option before they do that. My point is that it just does not cost that much more to do that.
I'm not sure how you come up with the idea that SIBA doesn't cost that much more than the FDA proposal.
Have you actually looked at the SIBA lines? The inefficiency of SIBA is staggering. Why do you think it goes so senior? I added up all the A300 SIBA Euro trips(Asia SIBA trips not included) and came up with some numbers to chew on from the MAR A300 SIBA lines:
Highest paying trip 78hrs, with 6 days of actual flying.
AVG trip value =
65hrs
AVG trip length = 10.16 days
Avg days actually operate FDX flt =
4.43 days
On average, that's 65 hrs of pay for working 4.43 days!!
So as you can see, a crew works less than 1/2 the days on the average SIBA trip. The other 56% of the time, is spent D/Hing and recovering(?) in hotels. Those averages don't even include the CDG STBY trips.
We're talking about an operation that could probably be done with at least 40-45% less pilots, with an FDA. THAT is where the big savings to the company comes from. Not, just the $6,500 avg in D/H fares, the cost of hotels, per-diem, ground transportation, etc. that alone, will more than pay for the allowances offered in this TA.
The new FDA LOA for SIBA flying is not even close to cost neutral. Again, we're giving much more than we're getting.