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 : ORD disappearing act


fortyeight
04-23-2018, 09:30 AM
Anybody know what’s actually going on in Chicago other than the typical “they’re shrinking it” rhetoric? Obviously they’re shrinking it, I think the last staffing outlook I saw had a target of 66 crews. The lines are miserable, there’s 6 SY 170’s in terminal 2 for every 1 YX 170. Our trips never see ORD again until go home leg and we spend more time in other bases than our own.

It seems like more and more every month Republic is perfectly fine being an east coast airline that runs everything through NY with massive outstation hubs. I honestly don’t understand what this company is doing. If they want to compete for new hires closing arguably the most commutable airport in the country isn’t the way to do it. The Indy and Columbus pilot pool will dry up real quick and who actually wants to be based at LGA/EWR unless you live there? Very confusing and frustrating.


N1234
04-23-2018, 09:36 AM
Anybody know what’s actually going on in Chicago other than the typical “they’re shrinking it” rhetoric? Obviously they’re shrinking it, I think the last staffing outlook I saw had a target of 66 crews. The lines are miserable, there’s 6 SY 170’s in terminal 2 for every 1 YX 170. Our trips never see ORD again until go home leg and we spend more time in other bases than our own.

It seems like more and more every month Republic is perfectly fine being an east coast airline that runs everything through NY with massive outstation hubs. I honestly don’t understand what this company is doing. If they want to compete for new hires closing arguably the most commutable airport in the country isn’t the way to do it. The Indy and Columbus pilot pool will dry up real quick and who actually wants to be based at LGA/EWR unless you live there? Very confusing and frustrating.

OO is taking over the LGA shuttle. DL wanted OO to start NY flying and it will be crewed out of ORD. So I guess DL agreed to shift all the ORD-LGA trips to OO.

fortyeight
04-23-2018, 09:48 AM
OO is taking over the LGA shuttle. DL wanted OO to start NY flying and it will be crewed out of ORD. So I guess DL agreed to shift all the ORD-LGA trips to OO.

Sooo we’re just screwed? Is there no one at HQ fighting for us or will they only stand up if another regional threatens IND or CMH? I get it DL wanted to diversify the shuttle, but why do we continue to allow ORD to whither away? Losing AA flying obviously didn’t help but that was 2 years ago, and another example of YX losing hub flying to someone else.


TJBrass
04-23-2018, 10:23 AM
ORD is the new GSO.

ORD170
04-23-2018, 12:31 PM
Republic loves outstation basing, and the east coast. Sad thing is many new hires probably show up expecting ORD, and they have no idea how bad it really is for the Midwest hub. I bet IND has close to 200 captains though.

PowderFinger
04-23-2018, 01:25 PM
When I worked for ASA Delta was the dog. We were the tail. After over 30 years in the business, the dog still wags the tail.

Welcome to the airline industry and God bless.

TJBrass
04-23-2018, 02:51 PM
When I worked for ASA Delta was the dog. We were the tail. After over 30 years in the business, the dog still wags the tail.

Welcome to the airline industry and God bless.

Doubtful Delta wants to force 15 flights a day through CMH

fortyeight
04-23-2018, 03:07 PM
Republic loves outstation basing, and the east coast. Sad thing is many new hires probably show up expecting ORD, and they have no idea how bad it really is for the Midwest hub. I bet IND has close to 200 captains though.


So f’ing typical of this company, step over a dollar to pick up a penny. The Republics and Skywests of the regional industry have zero chance in today’s climate. Envoy, Endavour, PSA, Piedmont, anyone with a CPP, etc. are the winners. Republic doesn’t even have industry leading pay anymore! IBT pushed this LOA trash through so we can “acquire new frames” and “grow”, lmao our union was played. I honestly don’t know why a single new hire would come here, unless you live in Indianapolis or Columbus. God bless.

ORD170
04-23-2018, 04:28 PM
So f’ing typical of this company, step over a dollar to pick up a penny. The Republics and Skywests of the regional industry have zero chance in today’s climate. Envoy, Endavour, PSA, Piedmont, anyone with a CPP, etc. are the winners. Republic doesn’t even have industry leading pay anymore! IBT pushed this LOA trash through so we can “acquire new frames” and “grow”, lmao our union was played. I honestly don’t know why a single new hire would come here, unless you live in Indianapolis or Columbus. God bless.

You should get your app in with those other regionals or maybe Spirit. Spirit has a ORD base.

Flightcap
04-24-2018, 06:13 PM
Anyone wondering why the company wants to shrink the hub bases has to look no farther than the last time the bids had to be completely re-run after results were already posted.

For the uninitiated, Flica builds the trips each month based on what it thinks is most cost-effective for the company. These trips are HORRIBLE for crew. Not commutable, awful credit, 75% day trips, etc. The union also builds trips based on more reasonable parameters and targets for QOL. Then the union and company come together on a trip package and that is what gets posted to Flica.

The reason the bids had to be re-run was that the company mistakenly used the Flica-provided schedule solution instead of the union/company collaboration schedule solution. Well guess what the trips looked like before the re-run? ORD and other hubs lost 1/3 or more of their flying. All that flying went to the outstations. Day trips prevailed. As I recall ORD had something like 10 or 15 commutable four day trips in the ENTIRE MONTH for the ENTIRE BASE. Like it or not, Flica hates hub bases for cost reasons and so therefore the company will hate hub bases into eternity.

Geardownflaps30
04-25-2018, 02:58 AM
Anyone wondering why the company wants to shrink the hub bases has to look no farther than the last time the bids had to be completely re-run after results were already posted.

For the uninitiated, Flica builds the trips each month based on what it thinks is most cost-effective for the company. These trips are HORRIBLE for crew. Not commutable, awful credit, 75% day trips, etc. The union also builds trips based on more reasonable parameters and targets for QOL. Then the union and company come together on a trip package and that is what gets posted to Flica.

The reason the bids had to be re-run was that the company mistakenly used the Flica-provided schedule solution instead of the union/company collaboration schedule solution. Well guess what the trips looked like before the re-run? ORD and other hubs lost 1/3 or more of their flying. All that flying went to the outstations. Day trips prevailed. As I recall ORD had something like 10 or 15 commutable four day trips in the ENTIRE MONTH for the ENTIRE BASE. Like it or not, Flica hates hub bases for cost reasons and so therefore the company will hate hub bases into eternity.

FLICA isn’t used to build the pairings FYI. The new Jeppessen software has been being used for some time now (>6 months).

4V14T0R
04-25-2018, 09:55 AM
Anyone wondering why the company wants to shrink the hub bases has to look no farther than the last time the bids had to be completely re-run after results were already posted.

For the uninitiated, Flica builds the trips each month based on what it thinks is most cost-effective for the company. These trips are HORRIBLE for crew. Not commutable, awful credit, 75% day trips, etc. The union also builds trips based on more reasonable parameters and targets for QOL. Then the union and company come together on a trip package and that is what gets posted to Flica.

The reason the bids had to be re-run was that the company mistakenly used the Flica-provided schedule solution instead of the union/company collaboration schedule solution. Well guess what the trips looked like before the re-run? ORD and other hubs lost 1/3 or more of their flying. All that flying went to the outstations. Day trips prevailed. As I recall ORD had something like 10 or 15 commutable four day trips in the ENTIRE MONTH for the ENTIRE BASE. Like it or not, Flica hates hub bases for cost reasons and so therefore the company will hate hub bases into eternity.



This is so wildly inaccurate. You must be part of the “uninitiated”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Flightcap
04-25-2018, 03:57 PM
Previous poster is correct, Jeppesen is the pairings construction software vendor. My bad.


This is so wildly inaccurate. You must be part of the “uninitiated”.


So what does all this mean:

The Union became aware of an issue with the United Airlines pairings as the award process was about to
begin. As is our normal process each month, members of the Scheduling Committee had spent 3 days at
headquarters building the monthly pairings for all three code-share partners. The Union makes this
investment of our resources each month to ensure that we have a hand in improving the pairings. The
ultimate goal of the Scheduling Committee is to optimize the pairings from a crewmember perspective
by emphasizing the parameters which improve the quality of our schedules. Variables such as length of
pairings (1-day, 2-day trips etc.), commutability, number of deadheads, and length of crew sits are
considered and weighted depending on the demographics of the base. Many of these variables (hotels,
or trip and duty rigs) add synthetic costs to the Company from the generic “optimized by cost” solution
the program solves for. This cost optimized solution is always very heavy on 1 and 2 day trips even in
our commuter bases. The Scheduling Committee works hard to find a solution that will have the mix of
3 and 4 day trips crew members desire. It is always a negotiation with the Company for the Scheduling
Committee to improve the pairings and add costs, until we reach an agreement which balances the
needs of both sides. While many months we are successful in improving upon the Company’s provided
pairings, some months the Company elects to use the pairings that they developed.

Such was the case this month with the United Airlines (UA) pairings. Despite the Union having a more
pilot friendly pairing solution, Crew Planning elected to implement their lower cost solution very close to
the opening of the bidding window. This decision left the Union Scheduling Committee virtually no time
to review the pairings for accuracy and perform our due diligence. Make no mistake, we find this
decision by the Company entirely unacceptable.

As reported, during the building of the March schedules it was discovered that the Company’s UA
solution did not account for the number of crew members available in each base that performs UA
flying. Think of it as telling the program “give us the cheapest solution because we can staff or displace
the bases however we wish”. Because of this error by the Company, bases such as ORD and EWR were
severely shorted available credit hours to bid on, while certain other bases had much more flying than
they had available crew members. The Company’s chosen pairing solution also greatly favored 1 to 2-
day trips in bases that are historically “commuter” bases. The system wide impact of this on our
members was too great for the Union to not intervene. To mitigate, the Company proposed that we
utilize the excess reserve crew members in these bases to staff the “extra” flying that was improperly
allocated to other bases by utilizing out of base reserve assignments. This solution, while it would have
preserved the integrity of the bidding timeline, was not acceptable. Further strategies were proposed
but none of them necessarily dealt with the quality of life issues that would be impacted. The massive
amount of deadheading and sitting that would have been required to cover the flying meant that a
majority would be awarded schedules with minimum days off to cover the unproductive flying,
predictable line holders would be awarded reserve assignments and commutability would be completely
thrown out the window.

Had the Union not acted, the Company’s proposed solution to their mistake would have affected crew
members in each base at most seniority levels in a negative way. For these reasons, the Union felt that
replacing the Company’s UA pairings with the Union created pairings was simply the best outcome for
our members.

If I've interpreted the sequence of events in the above blast incorrectly, I would appreciate being corrected with accurate information. Please also explain to me how the total pairings I saw in Flica for ORD FOs increased by ~100 pairings during the second round of bidding for March as opposed to the original bid package.

4V14T0R
04-26-2018, 04:58 AM
Previous poster is correct, Jeppesen is the pairings construction software vendor. My bad.



So what does all this mean:



If I've interpreted the sequence of events in the above blast incorrectly, I would appreciate being corrected with accurate information. Please also explain to me how the total pairings I saw in Flica for ORD FOs increased by ~100 pairings during the second round of bidding for March as opposed to the original bid package.



What happened was when the union got the data to begin building they had bad carry-in trips to start with which makes the monthly transition not go so smoothly. This was found out after the union already built their pairings and left HQ. The company then built their pairings with the correct carry-ins. The problem that resulted (pulling a ton of flying from ORD and other bases and depositing it in places like CMH/IND) was due to certain settings on the optimization software not being turned on. This allowed the flying to be put wherever it was most cost effective. Every month the company forces flying into certain places due to the staffing being there and so they don’t have to displace or TDY people. Part of the problem for why it stuck flying in the outstation has to do with the flying we are given by the codeshare partners. We ask for a certain amount of flying into our outstation bases so we can move planes around so the optimization software wants to increase flying there as it’s cheaper than in the hubs.

The union then forced the company to use a union built solution that had bad carry-in data as it would have the least impact system-wide.

FLiCA was not the problem here. It most certainly has been in the past and still continues to be in many other ways, which is why we’re looking at other software for bidding.

Hope this helps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Flightcap
04-26-2018, 09:16 AM
What happened was when the union got the data to begin building they had bad carry-in trips to start with which makes the monthly transition not go so smoothly. This was found out after the union already built their pairings and left HQ. The company then built their pairings with the correct carry-ins. The problem that resulted (pulling a ton of flying from ORD and other bases and depositing it in places like CMH/IND) was due to certain settings on the optimization software not being turned on. This allowed the flying to be put wherever it was most cost effective. Every month the company forces flying into certain places due to the staffing being there and so they don’t have to displace or TDY people. Part of the problem for why it stuck flying in the outstation has to do with the flying we are given by the codeshare partners. We ask for a certain amount of flying into our outstation bases so we can move planes around so the optimization software wants to increase flying there as it’s cheaper than in the hubs.

The union then forced the company to use a union built solution that had bad carry-in data as it would have the least impact system-wide.

FLiCA was not the problem here. It most certainly has been in the past and still continues to be in many other ways, which is why we’re looking at other software for bidding.

Hope this helps.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed with your above analysis. Perhaps my prior post was unclear. I'm not saying that FLiCA is to blame for the company's preference of outstation bases. I'm saying that the company wants to shrink ORD and other hubs if possible because it knows that outstation basing is the most cost effective solution. The events surrounding the March bid package are brought up here simply to provide evidence of the fact that outstation basing is cheaper for the company than hub basing.

We both know Republic works on the "cheapest solution wins" model. That's why the oustations will always be large and the hubs will always be small(er).

4V14T0R
04-26-2018, 05:10 PM
Agreed with your above analysis. Perhaps my prior post was unclear. I'm not saying that FLiCA is to blame for the company's preference of outstation bases. I'm saying that the company wants to shrink ORD and other hubs if possible because it knows that outstation basing is the most cost effective solution. The events surrounding the March bid package are brought up here simply to provide evidence of the fact that outstation basing is cheaper for the company than hub basing.



We both know Republic works on the "cheapest solution wins" model. That's why the oustations will always be large and the hubs will always be small(er).



That’s all true. They are letting ORD attrit naturally though, which is why they have backfilled ORD since August 2016. Its a business. I get why they do it. I wish they would get more flying out of ORD as much as the next guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1