![]() |
There is post upon post addressing Delta's long range plan(or more correctly the lack thereof) . Now, we are parsing a 4 pilot difference in a category over 400 pilots in size.....less than 1%?
I'm not picking any fights, but I am wondering what I have been missing all the years of AE's that I haven't been taking this seemingly important data into consideration? IOW....even with perfect data, how would you utilize it? Seems like sometimes I have used % for bidding AE's and sometimes # . What do you use this difference in dashboard number for if you determine the mostest, bestest numbers? I know I'll catch sheit, but you've really got me curious(I prolly cant use it but if it's a useful nugget, I'll pass it on to friends, kids in the biz) thanks |
Originally Posted by Gspeed
(Post 2962127)
On second thought, you're right about ATL 73N B, but the math doesn't work out for ATL 320 B.
ALPA currently projects 363 and the AE document projects 424 for a growth of 61. But the AE states that there are 65 vacancies for ATL 320 B. |
I wouldn't put much faith in a % bid and I definitely wouldn't be measuring with a micrometer. Categories have to potential to go up and down in size pretty fast around here. My category peaked in size on the AE I was awarded it, and has decreased ~30% in the last 2-3 years. I've only recently gotten back to my original relative seniority. A good friend just bid over to Captain and a few months later they announced their plans have changed and his category will be decreasing in size. It's all a crapshoot.
|
Originally Posted by crewdawg
(Post 2962359)
I wouldn't put much faith in a % bid and I definitely wouldn't be measuring with a micrometer. Categories have to potential to go up and down in size pretty fast around here. My category peaked in size on the AE I was awarded it, and has decreased ~30% in the last 2-3 years. I've only recently gotten back to my original relative seniority. A good friend just bid over to Captain and a few months later they announced their plans have changed and his category will be decreasing in size. It's all a crapshoot.
|
Originally Posted by crewdawg
(Post 2962359)
I wouldn't put much faith in a % bid and I definitely wouldn't be measuring with a micrometer. Categories have to potential to go up and down in size pretty fast around here. My category peaked in size on the AE I was awarded it, and has decreased ~30% in the last 2-3 years. I've only recently gotten back to my original relative seniority. A good friend just bid over to Captain and a few months later they announced their plans have changed and his category will be decreasing in size. It's all a crapshoot.
However, if you want to get crazy and actually bid for a posted vacancy, and if you want to use qualifiers (rather than the ol' "I don't care...just get me into the ATL777B"), then I would always recommend bidding based on "Low %" rather than Low Nbr" (unless you want to be, say, top 10 or better in the category). "Reg Only" is a moving target with more guesswork than the first SATs completed by Lori Laughlins' daughters. This is especially true with a new category where it will take time for the bid packages to mature. "Low %" protects you if the company decides not to award all of the posted vacancies which is not uncommon when they post for a new category. Let's say they post 40 vacancies for SEA220A and you want to be top half. Put "50" in the Low % column rather than "20" in the Low # column. If the company only elects to fill 30 of the 40 posted vacancies, Low # (20/30) just put you at 66.7% rather than top half. |
Originally Posted by tunes
(Post 2962338)
their pay might be a significant jump if they arent playing the scheduling games on the B side. They are absolutely 'working' a whole lot more as a NB A than a WB B....that's where you have to decide what's more important to you: the pay, or the QOL.
Originally Posted by FL370esq
(Post 2962400)
"Low %" protects you if the company decides not to award all of the posted vacancies which is not uncommon when they post for a new category. Let's say they post 40 vacancies for SEA220A and you want to be top half. Put "50" in the Low % column rather than "20" in the Low # column. If the company only elects to fill 30 of the 40 posted vacancies, Low # (20/30) just put you at 66.7% rather than top half.
|
Originally Posted by Gunfighter
(Post 2962467)
Great analysis, most WB B make more per day than they would as NB A. Taking rough numbers from 777 vs 73N you would go from 7 hrs x 250 down to 5:15 @ 285. If you work the same hours per month, you get a monthly pay raise by working more days in the month. 84 hours of pay is 12 days on the 777 and 16 days on the 73N.
So the denominator in the % calculation is the actual size of the category after the bid, not the staffing formula number? For example LAX 777 is shrinking by attrition. If someone bids 50%, will it be 50% of the category size after attrition or 50% of the 22.3.D. number? The number on 23.D.3 is the current size, but they have announced plans not to backfill, thus shrinking by attrition. Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by Gunfighter
(Post 2962467)
Great analysis, most WB B make more per day than they would as NB A. Taking rough numbers from 777 vs 73N you would go from 7 hrs x 250 down to 5:15 @ 285. If you work the same hours per month, you get a monthly pay raise by working more days in the month. 84 hours of pay is 12 days on the 777 and 16 days on the 73N.
So the denominator in the % calculation is the actual size of the category after the bid, not the staffing formula number? For example LAX 777 is shrinking by attrition. If someone bids 50%, will it be 50% of the category size after attrition or 50% of the 22.3.D. number? The number on 23.D.3 is the current size, but they have announced plans not to backfill, thus shrinking by attrition. |
AE Bidding Strategy Guide?
Maybe (probably) I'm a moron, but I've been trying to wrap my head around a coherent bidding strategy for this AE. I'm currently sitting at about 50% DTW 7ER B. For me, the schedules are still decent (not a ton of int'l which is fine by me), the base works for me (easy commute/commuter friendly) and I like the plane. As long as the schedules don't get (more) trashed I'm perfectly happy where I'm at for the next 4-5 years. However, I would like to have a smart backup strategy for what to do if the category starts shrinking/changing out from under me. I guess what I'm wondering most is the best way to go about:
Is there an "AE/VD/MD Bidding Strategy" guide posted somewhere? I've poked around on the ALPA website and on Deltanet without much success. |
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 2962469)
Good analysis. From a pure time off at home standpoint nothing beats the WB lifestyle aside from maybe those on the 73N and 7ER who can hold 8 hr turns
Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:37 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands