Originally Posted by word302 (Post 3985545)

Your data is not wrong, it's highly skewed to show your agenda. Choosing a date in the middle of a long stretch of not hiring as your start point for showing no growth isn't genuine in proving anything other than we were stagnant for 2 years thanks to Boeing and a catastophic failure. Just like choosing a date in 2019 right before we started offloading Airbus after a merger isn't genuine in showing a lack of fleet growth. You are picking worst-case scenarios that center on your agenda of how terrible this place is managed. We're a net positive 12 airframes for the year and even more if you include the HAL fleet (see how anyone can focus on different data points to "prove" a point?). You were adamant that we would still be smaller fleet-wise through the end of this year until it was obvious we wouldn't be and you'll do the same with pilot count until that changes. Then you'll find a different drum to pound. Rinse, repeat. You're predictable and unoriginal. You've been unhappy here since you were hired and I just don't understand how anyone can live their life like that. I've mostly stopped responding to you and I'll likely go back to doing so because you're a broken record and it's a tiring circular argument and neither of us knows what the future actually holds but you are adamant that it won't be good. I'm hopeful it will be.

Originally Posted by word302 (Post 3985536)

Show your math. Reductions do not change the fact that we are adding net captains. The same FOs that want to be captains bid whether reductions exist or not. If you understand math (complex I know) you'd know that reductions with a net gain in captains should not change that trend. Also you just prove the point that picking some random date in the past is a silly way to talk about growth/progression. Why don't you want to use September of 2021 as your gold standard of growth? Oh yeah, because it doesn't fit your doomsday diatribe. The point I was making is that hiring completely stopped and using any time during that 18 months is going to paint a different picture than if you pick a date before or after that. You choose to cherry-pick data that fits your agenda (and it's a weird agenda) just like you did with fleet count. You'll do the same thing you did with the fleet, you'll scream the same thing over and over again until it's no longer true and then quiet down for a bit until you find something else to take out of context and be angry about. It's old and tired man and nobody is listening.

Originally Posted by conquestdz (Post 3985582)

The real unknown variable is how many senior FO's decide to upgrade. There are a ton of them and if they see an opportunity here with the base opening, then the handful of net upgrades will do little to stem the carnage. Remember they do the vacancy first and then the displacements. You can assume all of the SEA Capt vacancies will go to senior FO's. Some SEA CA might go south, but probably not many. What are the senior LAX FO's going to do? If they take a bunch of the proffered captain slots as current LAX captains move to SAN, then the displacement portion of the bid will be a bloodbath. Same question with SFO. If the senior FO's in California like being senior FO's and don't upgrade, then everything will be not so bad. But if they are ready for a change, then things will get ugly quick. I really don't have a barometer on how this will go down, but it would be foolish to discount the threat of significant downgrades.

Originally Posted by conquestdz (Post 3985582)

The real unknown variable is how many senior FO's decide to upgrade. There are a ton of them and if they see an opportunity here with the base opening, then the handful of net upgrades will do little to stem the carnage. Remember they do the vacancy first and then the displacements. You can assume all of the SEA Capt vacancies will go to senior FO's. Some SEA CA might go south, but probably not many. What are the senior LAX FO's going to do? If they take a bunch of the proffered captain slots as current LAX captains move to SAN, then the displacement portion of the bid will be a bloodbath. Same question with SFO. If the senior FO's in California like being senior FO's and don't upgrade, then everything will be not so bad. But if they are ready for a change, then things will get ugly quick. I really don't have a barometer on how this will go down, but it would be foolish to discount the threat of significant downgrades.

Originally Posted by word302 (Post 3985586)

Sure, it could be a bloodbath, but if the last several bids are any indication it won't be. It is absolutely unknown, which is why it isn't worth getting worked up over one way or the other.

Originally Posted by conquestdz (Post 3985800)

I have decided not to stress over it, but I'm also holding off on spending any real money until I see how it goes. I'm very much in the danger zone for a downgrade, especially since I have no interest in commuting to reserve. I'd imagine that if the bid goes really bad, and generates too many training events they will cancel it as they have done in the past, and rework the vacancies in a subsequent bid to get to whatever number they deem acceptable.

Originally Posted by Jetlikespeed (Post 3985831)

I went airbus right seat fo 73 right so I got the full meal deal. for any downgrades do they do the full meal deal initial qual for downgrades?

Originally Posted by DenainaPilot (Post 3989809)

By my count there are 32 FOs with ANC as their number 1 bid, the plug is a an April 23 hire.