Recruitment/growth
11-18-2018, 04:10 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by da42pilot
Recruiters don’t report to chief pilots.
Chief pilots = flight ops departments
Recruiters = HR department
Chief pilots = flight ops departments
Recruiters = HR department
He says they do say there is potential for growth. I guess if we get staffed up to fully running 65 aircraft then yes we could grow. But that doesn't necessarily translate into new bases. I think there's been a misunderstanding. I would hate for anyone to choose or not close AWA based on this misunderstanding.
11-18-2018, 04:58 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,948
Originally Posted by diverdriver2
So I messaged the head pilot recruiter. Yah, he also said there's no truth to expecting new bases next year.
He says they do say there is potential for growth. I guess if we get staffed up to fully running 65 aircraft then yes we could grow. But that doesn't necessarily translate into new bases. I think there's been a misunderstanding. I would hate for anyone to choose or not close AWA based on this misunderstanding.
He says they do say there is potential for growth. I guess if we get staffed up to fully running 65 aircraft then yes we could grow. But that doesn't necessarily translate into new bases. I think there's been a misunderstanding. I would hate for anyone to choose or not close AWA based on this misunderstanding.
11-18-2018, 05:23 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2018
Posts: 112
Growth opportunity as in “we might actually fly all of our airplanes at full utilization.”
Which, depending on how you want to look at the numbers and who you want to believe, would be the equivalent of adding 10-20 airframes.
“Fully staffed” means 800+ pilots. We haven’t been there in a long time.
Which, depending on how you want to look at the numbers and who you want to believe, would be the equivalent of adding 10-20 airframes.
“Fully staffed” means 800+ pilots. We haven’t been there in a long time.
11-19-2018, 08:14 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2017
Posts: 142
Originally Posted by diverdriver2
So I messaged the head pilot recruiter. Yah, he also said there's no truth to expecting new bases next year.
He says they do say there is potential for growth. I guess if we get staffed up to fully running 65 aircraft then yes we could grow. But that doesn't necessarily translate into new bases. I think there's been a misunderstanding. I would hate for anyone to choose or not close AWA based on this misunderstanding.
He says they do say there is potential for growth. I guess if we get staffed up to fully running 65 aircraft then yes we could grow. But that doesn't necessarily translate into new bases. I think there's been a misunderstanding. I would hate for anyone to choose or not close AWA based on this misunderstanding.
11-19-2018, 01:48 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 237
Originally Posted by JuniorFO
ExpressJet picked up that growth with 20 CRJ200s in ORD, covering for Air Wisconsin. I don't see that growth happening anymore.
11-19-2018, 04:55 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,948
Originally Posted by Grumbletrousers
United isn’t anywhere near its 50 seat scope. If AWA offered E9+ rates it could easily grow to over 100 aircraft. Though they’ve made it clear that’s not their goal.
11-22-2018, 05:35 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 237
Originally Posted by DarkSideMoon
There’s only so many middle of nowhere cities that can fill a 50 seat RJ.
11-22-2018, 07:52 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,203
Originally Posted by Grumbletrousers
Many people are moving away from major cities like Chicago, LA and Detroit. One of the most appealing things for a small city to have is a regional airport which can offer flexible service to major hubs. The low cost carriers are constantly adding new destinations, although they’re mostly limited by runway length and infrastructure. Most things that a 50 seater really doesn’t have to worry about. While I agree that the current market of 50 seaters aren’t really fuel efficient or passenger friendly enough to survive long-term, I think with the right airplanes the smaller markets will grow while the major hubs shrink.
That may have been the case when said 50 seater was costing 125k a month on a lease or loan payment. But not that they are paid off at som regionals. The cost is actually quite cheap. Look at EAS bids brand new pilatus can’t compete with a CRJ200 paid off..
