Correlated to this math is the rising percentage of AEs that are 365-dayers. It sure complicates life planning when your training (the scheduling of which you have no control) could be anywhere in an 11-month window.

 

The difference is “opportunity.” In our time, JB’s and mine, there was never an opportunity to bid captain until about year 10 and then you’d be pretty darn junior in a not so desirable base. Slightly different now....

Denny

 

Huh....nearly 1/2 the frequency. I guess they are becoming less frequent.

The name "Francis Soyer" comes to mind....😁

 

Ted,


What is different was sudden sustained record hiring after a decade of minimal hiring. The 2016 MOAB was an anomaly in which many were caught off guard.


As I said the MOAB was probably the zenith of the quick upgrade. Many who were the plug back with the 2016 MOAB were either displaced or still at the very bottom. The tough part is many will not move up for years as more senior FOs bid in above them.



So to answer your question of "what is different" I will say that there are some differences, the biggest being an abrupt switch to sustained record hiring after a decade of minimal hiring which along with 1 year conversions caught guys flat footed. Many thought they would upgrade on follow up bids which never materialized.


Slowly but surely, just as water seeks its level, the seniority is working its way back to a more normal upgrade times. With continued robust hiring we should see "rapid" upgrades continue but "rapid" will return to a more conventional time such as 3-5 years. Plenty of guys have been burned by waiting for the next bid which never came. Combine that with a bunch of senior FOs (especially pre-2001 hires) with limited time left and we should see upgrade times return to a more historic norm. I doubt we will see many more sub 1 year Captains.



Hell, just look at the C series (220) left seat to see the trend already playing out.


Scoop

 

I think you're overlooking that the quick upgrades were also in the MD-88 which became the very much junior aircraft due to a combination of schedules and the automation/workload of the fleet. While there are pilots who love that airplane, there are also many who would have bid any CA position except that one. With that fleet shrinking new CA positions will be in more desirable airframes, even ones such as the C series that have potential for the similar number of legs/day have much better avionics etc.

 

In the olden days with 75 hard and a bow wave, guys bid up when they could. Averaged right around 9-10 years. No career co-pilots.

 

Conventional upgrade times once were considered to be 12 years to narrowbody CA and 20 years to widebody. I think if we have even very modest growth they will be better.

 

The combined efficiency of PBS and our data driven approach to everything we now do at Delta has reduced the QOL substantially for junior CAs (FOs also). For many, especially commuters, QOL is better in the right seat of a WB vs left seat NB. The trips are commutable and have higher daily credit. Reserve is more tolerable as a WB FO vs NB CA, in fact some senior pilots actually bid reserve in the winter on WBs.

Also the most junior captain bids were for NYC M88 while the memory of this incident was still fresh. https://airlinegeeks.com/2015/03/05/...runway-at-lga/

 

"The combined efficiency of PBS and our data driven approach to everything we now do at Delta has reduced the QOL substantially for junior CAs (FOs also). For many, especially commuters, QOL is better in the right seat of a WB vs left seat NB. The trips are commutable and have higher daily credit. Reserve is more tolerable as a WB FO vs NB CA, in fact some senior pilots actually bid reserve in the winter on WBs."




Some bid it in the summer too. July and August for me. It worked out well, I'm bidding reserve 6 out of 12 months in 2018. All those months were 80+ hour credit months with less flying than if I had a regular line.

Secret decoder rings for sale. Make me an offer.

 

This is based on there assumption that there is enough extra, unclaimed contract money out there to keep all other things equal while providing this rising pay floor. It also ignores the extremely obvious disincentive for smaller airframes. Not only would this massively pressure the 100 seat range, but ripple all across the entire fleet. We're already experiencing operational pressure (gates, slots, ramp space, even pilot supply) to up gauge airframes; now we would add additional cost pressures. More seats per plane = less pilots. So much for the "raise".