![]() |
Originally Posted by UPTme
(Post 3091717)
You guys have heard of make up, right? If you want to fly more, you can.... Lower Line values out of PBS via a reduced ALV is a good deal.
|
Originally Posted by UPTme
(Post 3091717)
You guys have heard of make up, right? If you want to fly more, you can.... .
|
Originally Posted by biigD
(Post 3091706)
I see it as a win only if the reduction in my paycheck goes entirely to keeping other guys from being furloughed. I need to see the math and some strong contractual language. Not just a wink and a smile from management. I'm not an industry veteran by any means but I've seen this movie before.
|
Originally Posted by Systemized
(Post 3091763)
You've heard of MMAX right? If you want to fly more, you can't...
|
Does anyone have a valid argument for why management would agree to a lower ALV?
Management will be looking to achieve greater productivity, not less out of the remaining employees. A lower ALV doesn’t achieve that. A lower ALV is strictly a feather bedding strategy that preserves jobs, but unlikely to address employee productivity or cost. A 20% reduction in ASM results in an approximate surplus of 1300 pilots for July 2021. I expect Vasu to announce a revised 25% ASM reduction for summer 2021 at the July 23rd state of the airline. That will put us at an 1800-1900 surplus for July 2021. The July 2021 forecast (20% ASM reduction) currently shows a need of 10,997 active pilots. The fall 2020 forecast shows an approximate need of 10,000 active pilots. It’s a real possibility that the same fall reduction will still be in play for fall 2021. There’s around 850 planned retirements between July 2021 and December 2022. With a 25% ASM reduction and a normal fall drawdown in flying, I could easily see AA furloughing 1500 and be properly staffed until early 2023. |
Originally Posted by BackintheLPA
(Post 3091816)
Does anyone have a valid argument for why management would agree to a lower ALV?
So in short: more flexibility for a little extra net cost. |
When you have a displacement and reshuffle the deck with all group 2 FOs on the bottom, those training cost are minimal in the event of a short requal or medium requal if returning to the same equipment. You would have to be out 3 years to qualify for a full course on the same equipment.
|
Originally Posted by BackintheLPA
(Post 3091837)
When you have a displacement and reshuffle the deck with all group 2 FOs on the bottom, those training cost are minimal in the event of a short requal or medium requal if returning to the same equipment. You would have to be out 3 years to qualify for a full course on the same equipment.
”In a perfect world, we would have, by that time, the same ability to flex down the airline as we do to flex up.” |
Originally Posted by texaspilot76
(Post 3091557)
APA needs to negotiate more early retirements with the company and then put the pressure on these old crusty holdouts to retire. It would be a win win for everyone. They would get to retire early with pay, and then a young guy with a family would not lose his job. This is best for the company too, as widebody flying is where we have no demand, and that’s the majority of where the retirements would be. Besides, these guys spent a majority of their career anticipating having to retire at 60, so there’s no loss in them retiring early, especially with pay.
"Crusty old hold outs"? Really, Really? Us crusty old hold outs carried your water before you knew what it was. Here's an idea...you quit and open a position for a deserving pilot. Last night I worked with an A320 "Crusty Old Holdout" that put in for a VPLOA as soon as he was eligible. He didn't get it. He was told that the program didn't deliver the savings predicted. Junior pilots loss, but excellent captain. My guess..the company will move towards other ideas to save jobs. Our NC will get right on it. Oh, wait. JA |
Originally Posted by BackintheLPA
(Post 3091816)
Does anyone have a valid argument for why management would agree to a lower ALV?
Management will be looking to achieve greater productivity, not less out of the remaining employees. A lower ALV doesn’t achieve that. A lower ALV is strictly a feather bedding strategy that preserves jobs, but unlikely to address employee productivity or cost. A 20% reduction in ASM results in an approximate surplus of 1300 pilots for July 2021. I expect Vasu to announce a revised 25% ASM reduction for summer 2021 at the July 23rd state of the airline. That will put us at an 1800-1900 surplus for July 2021. The July 2021 forecast (20% ASM reduction) currently shows a need of 10,997 active pilots. The fall 2020 forecast shows an approximate need of 10,000 active pilots. It’s a real possibility that the same fall reduction will still be in play for fall 2021. There’s around 850 planned retirements between July 2021 and December 2022. With a 25% ASM reduction and a normal fall drawdown in flying, I could easily see AA furloughing 1500 and be properly staffed until early 2023. Oh, and if President Trump gets re-elected as well. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:51 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands