Atlas Application Question
04-25-2017, 06:57 PM
#102
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 611
Originally Posted by CallmeJB
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.
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.
This ship is sinking and those with life boats are climbing in them.
04-25-2017, 08:22 PM
#103
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2011
Posts: 182
Originally Posted by Whiplash6
Are you the guy that cost us the catering that Michael's made in Hahn? Asking for a friend.
04-27-2017, 09:59 PM
#104
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: 747
Posts: 1,290
Originally Posted by CallmeJB
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.
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.
Atlas has no staffing problem but we'll get a contract because we deserve one.
05-03-2017, 11:01 PM
#106
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: L188
Posts: 979
CX pilots are in a work slow down (contract compliance) over work rules. It was announced that Atlas will be flying two B748s for CX beginning this month.
I hope the Atlas pilots realize what they are doing. If Atlas were to eventually go on strike, what support would they like to have especially Americans?
ATLAS PILOTS, PLEASE DON'T DO IT!
I hope the Atlas pilots realize what they are doing. If Atlas were to eventually go on strike, what support would they like to have especially Americans?
ATLAS PILOTS, PLEASE DON'T DO IT!
05-04-2017, 02:49 AM
#107
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Posts: 611
Originally Posted by Braniff DC8
CX pilots are in a work slow down (contract compliance) over work rules. It was announced that Atlas will be flying two B748s for CX beginning this month.
I hope the Atlas pilots realize what they are doing. If Atlas were to eventually go on strike, what support would they like to have especially Americans?
ATLAS PILOTS, PLEASE DON'T DO IT!
I hope the Atlas pilots realize what they are doing. If Atlas were to eventually go on strike, what support would they like to have especially Americans?
ATLAS PILOTS, PLEASE DON'T DO IT!
05-04-2017, 03:54 AM
#108
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2013
Posts: 198
Originally Posted by Braniff DC8
CX pilots are in a work slow down (contract compliance) over work rules. It was announced that Atlas will be flying two B748s for CX beginning this month.
I hope the Atlas pilots realize what they are doing. If Atlas were to eventually go on strike, what support would they like to have especially Americans?
ATLAS PILOTS, PLEASE DON'T DO IT!
I hope the Atlas pilots realize what they are doing. If Atlas were to eventually go on strike, what support would they like to have especially Americans?
ATLAS PILOTS, PLEASE DON'T DO IT!
Is there a picket line we can refuse to cross? Should we just refuse to fly those flights and be fired?
If you have a legitimate way we pilots can stop those flights then I think most Atlas Pilots would cooperate. We want to disrupt Atlas....as much as CX Pilots want to disrupt CX.
Both groups deserve better contracts!
05-04-2017, 05:08 AM
#109
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 693
Originally Posted by JonnyKnoxville
If there is a strike planned, please contact our union (Teamsters Local 1224) in advance to inform us. We will NOT cross your picket line.
That said, I wish Cathay crews all the best. I recommend all Americans come home and find a good union job.
05-04-2017, 05:31 AM
#110
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by zerozero
Unions are illegal in Hong Kong. Cathay cannot strike (legally). And Atlas has a long history (i.e. status quo) of providing lift for Cathay from time to time.
That said, I wish Cathay crews all the best. I recommend all Americans come home and find a good union job.
That said, I wish Cathay crews all the best. I recommend all Americans come home and find a good union job.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
