Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




View Full Version : Rumor Mill


Dasani
03-20-2018, 10:11 AM
Hi,

Compass planes?

Bahama flying?

Pay raise?

LA base?

What else have you guys "HEARD" ?


ParkingatMIA
03-20-2018, 10:19 AM
Weíre getting absorbed by mainline and all getting seniority numbers.

Endeavor pay plus $10.

Industry leading reserve rules.

Opening MIA E75 base.

bigtime209
03-20-2018, 11:07 AM
Weíre getting absorbed by mainline and all getting seniority numbers.

Endeavor pay plus $10.

Industry leading reserve rules.

Opening MIA E75 base.

Lol at the first 3. The last point isn't far fetched, at least at some point way down the line. Not anytime soon though.


wiz5422
03-20-2018, 11:25 AM
They are going to honor the flow with 50% going over.

E175 Driver
03-20-2018, 12:07 PM
E190's from AA are coming to us.

cr700
03-20-2018, 12:33 PM
Hi,

Compass planes?

Bahama flying?

Pay raise?

LA base?

What else have you guys "HEARD" ?

More than one of these should be announced in the near future. Just saying.

yeahbutstill
03-20-2018, 01:02 PM
More than one of these should be announced in the near future. Just saying.

Pay raise for captains only.. my guess

cabotage
03-20-2018, 01:44 PM
Don't we already fly to the Bahamas? Freeport, exuma?

go skers
03-20-2018, 02:43 PM
Don't we already fly to the Bahamas? Freeport, exuma?

Yep, except for ELH and some Cuba charters they completely stopped island flying when they closed MIA last time. Most of them are back in turn form now

inevitableneb
03-20-2018, 03:29 PM
Pay raise for captains only.. my guess

This is the only thing that makes sense right now

wiz5422
03-20-2018, 04:43 PM
Pay raise for captains only.. my guess

About time, FOs have been reaping all the benefits the past two years, time for the CAs to get their money.

Smutter
03-20-2018, 04:53 PM
This is the only thing that makes sense right now

Unfortunately it only makes sense in our minds, and the people holding the strings

cabotage
03-20-2018, 05:11 PM
For the Bahamas flying, looking in the NRTP It actually looks like we are taking away the MIA - EXUMA (Georgetown, GGT) route from Republic E175's in early April.

MIA also got a lot more lines in April.

So maybe there is the truth in the rumor mill, growth and island flying in MIA.

Seaplane
03-20-2018, 05:28 PM
More island flying isnít an announcement and nothing that would be kept ďsecretĒ while they negotiate. Island flying would just simply appear on schedules. If they donít announce pay increases, then envoy is in trouble. Maybe not now, but for the future. Especially if they are trying to attract CAs and get FOs to upgrade voluntarily. Money talks, along with better schedules.

Pedro4President
03-20-2018, 06:36 PM
More than one of these should be announced in the near future. Just saying.

See I keep hearing Money in March and compass 175s announced later this summer.

yeahbutstill
03-20-2018, 06:44 PM
See I keep hearing Money in March and compass 175s announced later this summer.
I would say money for captains and increased flow by 5 each month for certain amount of time.

Bigpimppilot
03-20-2018, 07:00 PM
Well itís time to start jerking off in one hand and hoping in the other. Listen people nothing has ever or will ever happen until Rick Wilson recognizes that there is a severe problem on the horizon and that heís going to be blamed if it happens. Does anyone think he has his binoculars pointed in the right direction? Back to work people

bigtime209
03-20-2018, 08:28 PM
This is the only thing that makes sense right now

It would make sense. However, it's not on the table right now.

NoValueAviator
03-21-2018, 06:37 AM
Lots more LGA flying soon.

Dynasty22
03-21-2018, 06:41 AM
Are the Envoy E-175s EOW? Or if anyone knows if the Compass ones are?

Dekal5
03-21-2018, 06:54 AM
Are the Envoy E-175s EOW? Or if anyone knows if the Compass ones are?

I heard from our program manager back when i was on recurrent that Envoy E-175s are ready for EOW when ever AA needs us to be. All the EOW planning has already been worked by the company.

bigtime209
03-21-2018, 06:56 AM
Are the Envoy E-175s EOW? Or if anyone knows if the Compass ones are?

Currently being worked on. I'm sure it will be finalized by the time we start DFW-EYW.

Ijustlikeflying
03-21-2018, 05:32 PM
Currently being worked on. I'm sure it will be finalized by the time we start DFW-EYW.

^^^^this^^^^

bourbon scamp
03-21-2018, 06:06 PM
Otherwise thatís a long ass flight along the coast....

Inop2
03-21-2018, 06:16 PM
Rumors? Sorry but what waste of time but I get it. It’s fun. If you want to have a guess at the future follow the trend. The LA base opening for Envoy is not going to happen. This is a terrible rumor started by an FA. This will be retained by another regional. Envoy pilots are here to fly the bases and lines knowone else will take or wants. We are the cleanup crew. I hope to GOD I am wrong.

AcesHigh
03-22-2018, 07:01 AM
Well solid facts from someone(Not me) that was in a recent Q&A with RW stated that

1)Vacancy Bid displacement at months end.

2) There's not going to be any matching of Endeavours contract in regards to pay raises in the near future

3) No fighting to union about lack of PBS because it will put a negative light on hiring prospects. When we want PBS(never) call and let him know.

4) Confirmed slowdown on hiring of Fo's.

uavking
03-22-2018, 08:42 AM
2) There's not going to be any matching of Endeavours contract in regards to pay raises in the near future


Don't forget to fill out your Envoy Pulse surveys, gents. Conveniently there's a comments block to the effect of what would make your job better...

griff312
03-22-2018, 05:22 PM
Don't forget to fill out your Envoy Pulse surveys, gents. Conveniently there's a comments block to the effect of what would make your job better...

And don't forget to drop in your complaints and comments in the first textual comment box of the survey. They lie and lead you to believe there'll be room for general comments later in the survey; there are not....

KodiakRS
03-22-2018, 05:50 PM
RE: 175 to EYW Has anyone looked at the performance numbers for the 175 in EYW? If you end up having to use icing speeds there's a decent chance you'll have to divert. I guess we'll be getting some MIA flying on the 175 after all.

FlyGood
03-22-2018, 05:55 PM
RE: 175 to EYW Has anyone looked at the performance numbers for the 175 in EYW? If you end up having to use icing speeds there's a decent chance you'll have to divert. I guess we'll be getting some MIA flying on the 175 after all.

You can land ice speeds in EYW no problem unless theyíre reporting less than 555

flysooner9
03-22-2018, 05:57 PM
When exactly do you plan on using icing speeds in Key West?

moon
03-22-2018, 06:45 PM
When exactly do you plan on using icing speeds in Key West?

Leave Dallas encounter ice there or enroute. Have to use ice speeds even if it's 90 in key West.

KodiakRS
03-22-2018, 07:05 PM
When exactly do you plan on using icing speeds in Key West?

In the 175 if you encounter icing in the climb or cruise you have to use icing speeds even if you've clearly shed all the ice. It posts an EICAS message that doesn't go away and increases shaker activation point until landing.

So if you pick a tiny bit of ice on the climb, you still have to land with ice speeds even if it's been 2 hours and there's clearly no ice.

You can land ice speeds in EYW no problem unless they’re reporting less than 555

Edit: was looking at wrong numbers, should be no problem.
Second edit: was looking at correct numbers:

Lowest distance requirement flaps full with ice speeds and 5/5/5/ is 4830. EYW runway is 4801. That's at 50,000lbs. With anything resembling a normal load you're not landing.

With a dry runway things are tight, but not as bad. ISA, calm wind, flaps full, and ice accumulation you are good up to 67,500lbs (with interpolation). So light pax load, dry runway, and no alternate fuel you'll probably be ok but anything else is going to be a diversion.

I haven't looked at takeoff numbers but my guess is they're pretty tight as well. Although flaps 4 may alleviate a lot of that.

FlyGood
03-22-2018, 07:35 PM
Maybe I was off on the 555 but RPA does or has done EYW from MIA (Iíve gotten ice speeds from MIA-EYW because...Embraer), CLT, DCA, EWR, and ORD without much of an issue. Makes it entertaining though.

KodiakRS
03-22-2018, 08:12 PM
The actual landing distance is significantly less than what the book shows. I'm not sure why the numbers are as inflated as they are, but they're the ones in the book so that's what we use.

The hilarious part is that we have a table for mechanical failures where you take a default distance and then apply a penalty based on what's broken. According to that table a 70,000lbs ice speed landing with a single break failure takes 4179'. According to our regular landing distance table a 70,000lbs ice speed landing requires 4930' under the same conditions.

In this situation the EYW runway wouldn't be long enough for a regular landing, but would apparently be long enough for a landing with a failed brake. :rolleyes:

HardLemonade
03-22-2018, 08:21 PM
When exactly do you plan on using icing speeds in Key West?

I once promised a filly I would give her a ride home in my Mercedes in exchange for some bathroom stall shenanigans. In reality I drove a white Geo Prizm with a dent in the fender.

What I'm trying to say here.. Is that you can pick up icing in the climb or decent into Key West.

flysooner9
03-22-2018, 08:28 PM
Didnít know the message latches on in the 175

KodiakRS
03-22-2018, 08:42 PM
Didnít know the message latches on in the 175

It's one of the 175's many....quirks.

griff312
03-22-2018, 10:19 PM
The actual landing distance is significantly less than what the book shows. I'm not sure why the numbers are as inflated as they are, but they're the ones in the book so that's what we use.

The hilarious part is that we have a table for mechanical failures where you take a default distance and then apply a penalty based on what's broken. According to that table a 70,000lbs ice speed landing with a single break failure takes 4179'. According to our regular landing distance table a 70,000lbs ice speed landing requires 4930' under the same conditions.

In this situation the EYW runway wouldn't be long enough for a regular landing, but would apparently be long enough for a landing with a failed brake. :rolleyes:

The inflight landing tables is the minimum distance required on a runway to accept a landing. It takes into account the land and stop distance, plus 40% (FAR requirement to land and stop within 60% of available runway). The unfactored landing distance tables are the actual land and stop distance..... unfactored for inop equipment, ect. So yes, you may be able to land and stop in less than 4930 feet, but the runway length required to ACCEPT a landing is the land and stop distance, plus 40%.

pilotmunk
03-23-2018, 04:59 AM
The inflight landing tables is the minimum distance required on a runway to accept a landing. It takes into account the land and stop distance, plus 40% (FAR requirement to land and stop within 60% of available runway). The unfactored landing distance tables are the actual land and stop distance..... unfactored for inop equipment, ect. So yes, you may be able to land and stop in less than 4930 feet, but the runway length required to ACCEPT a landing is the land and stop distance, plus 40%.

I just realized that I've never heard of the 40% factor. May I have a quote please for my reference?

NoValueAviator
03-23-2018, 06:18 AM
I just realized that I've never heard of the 40% factor. May I have a quote please for my reference?

121.195 is the regulation.

Hey, ATP/CTP is worth something after all.

AcesHigh
03-23-2018, 06:59 AM
Ok now that we all understand that, back on topic...

Rumours!!!!

Ijustlikeflying
03-23-2018, 07:10 AM
Ok now that we all understand that, back on topic...

Rumours!!!!

New MEC email talks about how increased flow has basically been negotiated and an outcome has been reached between the union and company appointed negotiator, but senior management is sitting on the results they have come up with...

Basically we are just waiting on a green light from management is what Iím getting out of that.

Union is sharing a lot more with us recently, and we have a lot of new reps volunteering and Iíve already seen an effort by the union to communicate more to us and I appreciate it! It sounds like flow is being pushed through, then pay/work rules. I like the plan so far.

Bozo
03-23-2018, 07:16 AM
121.195 is the regulation.

Hey, ATP/CTP is worth something after all.

Where does it say 40%? It's the standard +15% (115%) over required.

Sheg0theD
03-23-2018, 07:21 AM
Why would you negotiate more flow when we are already entitled to 50% of the class.... what are we giving up to gain what we are already owed....

This is a joke!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bozo
03-23-2018, 07:29 AM
Why would you negotiate more flow when we are already entitled to 50% of the class.... what are we giving up to gain what we are already owed....

This is a joke!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you had problems getting pilots in on the flow and they have to negotiate then I would say that it will come back as a reduction, delay and a carrot.

FullThrust
03-23-2018, 07:36 AM
Where does it say 40%? It's the standard +15% (115%) over required.

121.195(b)

60% I.e required plus 40. This is also for dispatchability only.

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c), (d), or (e) of this section, no person operating a turbine engine powered airplane may take off that airplane unless its weight on arrival, allowing for normal consumption of fuel and oil in flight (in accordance with the landing distance set forth in the Airplane Flight Manual for the elevation of the destination airport and the wind conditions anticipated there at the time of landing), would allow a full stop landing at the intended destination airport within 60 percent of the effective length of each runway described below from a point 50 feet above the intersection of the obstruction clearance plane and the runway. For the purpose of determining the allowable landing weight at the destination airport the following is assumed:

NoValueAviator
03-23-2018, 07:56 AM
Flow flow flow. In the 10+ years it's supposed to take for new hires to flow, Envoy will have been merged with Piedmont, fuel prices will have sent all the scrap metal back to the junkyard (along with the new FMS's lol) and a concessionary contract will have been extracted to keep the lights on which eliminates the flow and rolls pay back to $12/hr for 1st year FO's.

Or better still, AA will sell us to Skywest and they'll bleed the airline dry like they're doing to Expressjet.

Skip0927
03-23-2018, 07:59 AM
Rather than 40% I think the technical way to think about it is to multiply the unfactored landing distance by 1.67 and that will yield the regulatory requirement distance. The 115% is a turbojet factor for wet runways. I cant remember the regulation for that. So you get the base number or unfactored landing dist. Thats what a jet part 91 can use. Then the FAA says as 121 we need to land within 60% of the useable length (the whole obstacle plane/50ft phrase; displaced thresholds) so we multiply the unfactored distance by 1.67 and that number gives us a total landing distance that assures we will only use 60% of the useable runway. Further, if the rwy is wet, as a turbojet, we are required to add 15% to the landing distance. This is where the landing cards do allthe math for you. Its gonna be nice when the release the app for landing calculations. Think TPS for landing for your iPad.

Skip0927
03-23-2018, 08:00 AM
Maybe HardLemonade can name the landing app....

LineUpAndPay
03-23-2018, 08:37 AM
Why would you negotiate more flow when we are already entitled to 50% of the class.... what are we giving up to gain what we are already owed....

This is a joke!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Let's just say increased number is a hard 35/mo. That means they would have to consistently run 70/mo. A hard number would be great! So if there's a holiday slow down and they run 50, we would be down if we ran 50%. So a hard number would be great for that reason. And let's just say we went back to Eagle numbers, 3100 pilots-200 lifers = 7 years for a new hire to Flow. With current numbers, I think around 2300 pilots - 200 lifers = 5 year Flow for a new hire, add 5 months for no classes in December (which could change as their retirements ramp up) and doesn't that match the 5.5 Flow date that they were advertising for DEC recently? Interesting stuff.

But you're right, for violating the Flow of the current language, we need to be made whole again or some other hard gains.

highfarfast
03-23-2018, 09:31 AM
Let's just say increased number is a hard 35/mo. That means they would have to consistently run 70/mo. A hard number would be great! So if there's a holiday slow down and they run 50, we would be down if we ran 50%. So a hard number would be great for that reason. And let's just say we went back to Eagle numbers, 3100 pilots-200 lifers = 7 years for a new hire to Flow. With current numbers, I think around 2300 pilots - 200 lifers = 5 year Flow for a new hire, add 5 months for no classes in December (which could change as their retirements ramp up) and doesn't that match the 5.5 Flow date that they were advertising for DEC recently? Interesting stuff.

But you're right, for violating the Flow of the current language, we need to be made whole again or some other hard gains.

The number I heard was 5 more per month. At first it was just someone in the crew room that heard something and thought it would be 5 more per mo. Then had someone on the jumpseat who seemed to know more and seemed to indicate it would be 5 as well. When I asked if that was with the current group flowing now or is that 5 more for each flow group, he didn't know (I thought that was a pretty important detail). He also indicated that allowing the company to take flight time from lineholding FOs to boost flight time of FOs nearing 1000 hours would be a part of this. I didn't ask for details of this but figured it would be along the lines on the similar provision in the LOE that was rejected last fall.

Now, that is what I've heard and I'm not going to say whether I think that is good or bad because there's not enough details for me have an opinion on it. I do think the company owes the pilot group for violating the flow agreement but I also think reaching a compromised settlement is better than waiting around for a grievance to play out. I don't have much confidence in the union though.

As far as 'fixing flow' then 'fixing pay' goes, I think if they fix flow to a reasonable figure/method, there will be no pay increases because there won't be a need for it.

highfarfast
03-23-2018, 09:34 AM
double post



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1