Don't tell anyone but the June Boeing bid pack was the best one seen in about a year. Couple it with the relative 10% pay raise and I'd say over manning aint half bad.

 

You couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a weekend layover on the Boeing in June, which is good for lazy guys like me.

I like weekend layovers and I like buyup, but the only reason we enjoy these luxuries is because this company doesn't furlough.

The numbers I care about are the ones that changed with the age 65 rule. How many people have NOT retired that were scheduled to, and how many NDs are hanging on till the bitter end now?

How much would we be overmanned if the NDs just took their checks and walked away? I suspect that after the DC-10 retirement we would be pretty close to optimally manned (about +-100 or so) when the dust settled. The company had this figured out - they stopped hiring a long time ago and got blindsided by the Age 65 change. Now we all get to pick up the pieces together.

Personally, I'll take seat and seniority advancement over weekend layovers for months on end. I'm L-A-Z-Y and I'd still make the trade.

 

How do you figure? I wish there was more carryover in it.

 

Normally I only see about 6-8 lines I want to bid. This month there were 30 that gave me my days off and only had me working < 10 days. Hope you aren't asking about the relative raise because that is obvious.

As a guy who bids carry over every month I hate to see it go. But at least we have proven we don't have an over manning problem we have a work rules problem. Eliminate carry over in the other bid packs and they will have to start hiring by peak.

 

Overmanned is a relative term. Overmanned to what? In terms of historical significant use of VLT and Draft yes. What people fail to realize, is a large portion of that 300-500 will be sucked up fairly quickly once this training cycle begins. The school house is currently basically empty. There is roughly a 2 to 1 instructor to student ratio. All those flex guys currently flying the line will go back to work.

In the short term we are going from 4 airframes to 6, then to 5 for the foreseeable future. There is a significant amount of people "overhead" with each additional airframe. Training, standards,tech pilots, reserves, etc.

Now what happens with fuel and the economy is anyone's guess. But it is quite conceivable, that 18-24 months from now, we wouldn't be able to hire fast enough.

 

"Now what happens with fuel and the economy is anyone's guess. But it is quite conceivable, that 18-24 months from now, we wouldn't be able to hire fast enough."

Barkeep..I'll have what he's having!

 

I must have logged on to the APC in an alternate universe, because guys here are actually trying to find a bright side of things. This is absolutely NOT the board that I'm used to. There, guys only b!tch and moan. What gives. Never mind. I'll go look for the right board.

 

Funny thing is I agree with you to a point. The difference is I happen to think 18-24 months is a long time.

I've heard the comment we are 500 overmanned BUT it will "get sucked up" when training starts. I'd like everyone to keep in mind that 500 pilots extra at the start of a long training cycle means about 10 months until newhires.

All I know for sure is the next training cycle needs at least 500 pilots. That is a good thing.

 

Don't turn that dial!

 

That is only because the union kept what was discussed in their strategic planning session a secret. Wait for the details to leak; no doubt they were trying to figure out what (I would say "who" but that is a given) to give up in order to get 787 pay rates.

PS I know we are scheduled to get the 777.