FYI: Last four months of reserve I've "sat around" for exactly 2 days.

The inability to grow this company has never been about getting the planes or the contracts. They have a very aggressive and successful sales department.

It has always been about the ability to crew them.

That staffing issue will not become any better as long as we have one of the worst contracts in the industry.

8

I worked two flights on my 17 day R2 (short call reserve) this month. The 767 does not seem very short staffed at least on the FO side. I did deadhead every few days to cover flights but I would get to the city where the plane was and then scheduling would put a different crew on the flight I was supposed to work, it was a little bizarre.

Are you on the 74? I feel as though the company hired fat on the 76 in anticipation of the Amazon growth.

It sounds like you know about growth that was available to us that we were unable to capitalize on because of lack of crews. Can you verify this?

Because from my point of view (and I don't know anything more than anybody else, and I DO support the IBT!) it appears that the company has gotten all of the growth that they ever said they would, and are continuing to do that as we speak.

55 hours in 3.5 months on reserve on the 767. YMMV

No I can't verify that because I'm not company management. Earlier in this thread there are plenty of posts that talk about missed opportunities with airlines like Biman, Qatar, Emirates (the return), and a couple of others.

And yes, they are continuing to grow. The question that we may never be able to accurately answer is what growth have they missed out on because of staffing shortages.

You may be able to point out some pilots on reserve that "sit around" (isn't that what other airline reserve pilots do at "real airlines" anyway?) but according to the recent staffing charts from JS, we staff to a level of 22 crews per 767 with 8 more 76's due to arrive this year. That's 176 new pilots needed just on the 767 side of the house. Add to that the 22 pilots that are aging out this year and we'll need 198 pilots by years end.

In the first three months this year, Atlas hired 89 pilots and lost 67 for a net gain of 22 which amounts to a retention rate of about 25%.

Maybe the exodus won't be quite so bad for the rest of the year, so let's say that Atlas retains twice the current number of new hires with a retention ratio of 50%. That means we'd need to hire nearly 400 new pilots just to staff the 8 new Amazon 767's that are coming this year. So the training department would need to hire 44 pilots a month for the last 9 months this year.

I'll leave it to you to figure out whether or not that number is feasible with our current training center capabilities.

8

I would just like to point out that this answer has yet to be answered. Whether or not you think someone should join Atlas.

I don't hope folks respond any one way or another. Someone asked how much money guys are making after training and I gave him a realistic expectation, albeit not a guarantee.
Considering you came off as such a sarcastic, smart-ass prick, none of us Atlas pilots will have any heartburn over you NOT signing up. Stay at your regional and stop patronizing people that are here to inform and help.

If you're actually serious, one word: LOSER.

At the risk of getting into a silly, unprovable argument on the internet, I will share my thoughts on these numbers. I respect you taking the time to reply and hopefully my response below demonstrates that respect.

The staffing charts that JS put together are based on the current number of pilots and number of airplanes. But the company has front loaded the 767 staffing a couple of months ahead of the aircraft deliveries. So, the current number of pilots is based on two or three more aircraft than are currently in the fleet count. This moves that '22 pilots per aircraft' down a few numbers. In other words, the number of pilots per aircraft on property right now is higher than normal, and higher than required.

Another point about the pilots per aircraft numbers: right now that includes staffing for five 'AMC passenger' 767s (640, 641, 645, 649, and 661; 767MW is sort of a separate animal so I'm not including it). Each of those AMC pax rotator routes require much higher staffing than a DHL or Amazon route. For example, a five day rotator from BIF all the way to Diego requires four or five full crews and burns them for all five days, whereas a five day MIA-BNA-CVG-MIA DHL run requires one crew for five days. So, those five 767s account for a high proportion of the pilots required for the entire 767 fleet (22 aircraft total right now). Furthermore, I don't believe the Company ever planned to maintain an AMC pax fleet of five; the bump from three to five AMC pax planes was a way to increase block hours on the fleet in advance of the Amazon growth, which takes care of some upgrades/consolidation/high mins issues in advance. Indeed, at least one of the pax aircraft is slated to come off the line in October and go to cargo conversion, with two more coming off the line next year (and one more pax aircraft coming, for a net change back to three AMC pax aircraft). Keep in mind, losing one of those AMC pax 767s can staff 1.5 or 2 DHL/Amazon 767s.

As for that Amazon flying starting next month, take a look at the lines. TPA-CVG-TPA every day (two legs), that's a pretty efficient line. SEA, on the other hand, is not as efficient. With the higher block time, those lines can only be built to fly one leg a day (SEA-CVG, then CVG-SEA). If Amazon adds another, closer city out of CVG, like ORD, MEM, ATL, or DTW, then those SEA lines can be built as two legs every day (SEA-CVG-ORD, then ORD-CVG-SEA). Essentially, an aircraft can be added to serve a close city and not require any additional staffing, just additional flying on the existing SEA line. In a bigger picture sense: the more aircraft we add for Amazon, the more efficient our staffing will become.

So, let's look at those numbers again.

Due to AMC pax aircraft skewing the staffing requirements, the actual staffing required for each additional Amazon aircraft is not 22 pilots per aircraft. I think it's as low as 12 pilots per aircraft, but I'll be conservative and say 18 pilots per aircraft.

Due to front loaded staffing for the next two or three aircraft, the 2017 staffing requirements do not require hiring for eight more 767s, but only five or six more 767s. I'll be conservative and say six.

Pulling one AMC pax 767 off the line will staff 1.5 or two Amazon 767s. I'll be conservative and say 1.5. With us pulling one AMC pax aircraft off the line in October to go to cargo conversion, that reduces the 767 staffing requirements this year from six additional 767s to 4.5 additional 767s.

I'm not including the one 'free staffing' aircraft that would be staffed by the existing SEA line, or any additional economies of scale that a larger fleet will provide.

4.5 767s at 18 pilots per aircraft will require 81 additional pilots in 2017, not 176. That number seems crazy low even to me, but as you can see I used conservative numbers.

Look, I know this is all conjecture and funny-math (from both sides of the argument). Attrition is picking up, and will continue to pick up until we get the CBA we deserve, and that is a material problem for the company. But the pilot group seems to have put a lot of eggs into the basket of 'our attrition will force the company's hand, because they can't grow Amazon if pilots keep leaving,' and in my opinion that is a dangerous thing for us to rely on because I think it is just wrong. Based on what I see, I think the company can hire their way out of this in 2017.

2018 is a different story. I tend to be optimistic, and I really think that we will have a better CBA by the first quarter of 2018, but of course maybe we won't. However, keep in mind that parking a couple more AMC pax aircraft can staff four additional Amazon aircraft, or parking three 747s could staff ten additional Amazon aircraft. That may not be the company's ideal choice, but I don't think it would hurt the bottom line so badly that they wouldn't do it if it was needed to support Amazon.

Look, I think we will get a new CBA for a lot of reasons: because we deserve it, because it brings the company stability, because us pilots will continue to behave badly until we get it. But the argument of 'the company can't support the Amazon growth until we get a new CBA' is fatally flawed, and we should not continue to rely on that as a silver bullet. One way or another, the company WILL support the Amazon growth.

As pilots, we need to rely on each other and support our Exco, because relying on numbers is not a winning strategy.

Are you the guy that cost us the catering that Michael's made in Hahn? Asking for a friend.