![]() |
Originally Posted by ancman
(Post 3990399)
The irony is that while one side of Crew Resources is trying to do this sophisticated cost sharpshooting based on data received from Network, the other side of the same department (Scheduling) is lighting money on fire every day via complete ineptitude and mismanagement.
Every commuter wants a base where they live, but from the company’s POV that is a separate line item that needs to be justified and the only ones that might really know are marketing and even then they frequently don’t know because they make a lot of money being nimble and opening bases hinders that to a large degree. Opening a base requires as close to certainty as there is in this industry. If there is even the slightest doubt, it’s almost always far superior to wait and spend on hotels as that cost is small by comparison. |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 3990437)
Opening a base requires as close to certainty as there is in this industry. If there is even the slightest doubt, it’s almost always far superior to wait and spend on hotels as that cost is small by comparison.
My point in the previous message was that they will spend years overanalyzing, trying to sharpshoot category costs, and usually getting it completely wrong anyway. Meanwhile, literally down the other end of the hall at the same department, they are recklessly throwing away greater amounts of money on a daily basis with nowhere near the same level of care. They will focus on splitting hairs over whether the next AE should contain 11 CA vacancies or 12. At the same time, the “pod” concept and lack of any interest in managing scheduling effectively is tanking the operation and wasting hundreds of millions more. They consistently view the wrong things with a magnifying glass, and the right things with a blindfold. Some give way more credit to this management team, particularly Crew Resources, than is actually due. |
Originally Posted by ancman
(Post 3990450)
That’s basically what I’ve said for a while on this thread. At least from Crew Resources’ perspective, countless factors must fall into place perfectly for an AUS pilot base (or any other new base) to ever open. Even with every factor lining up perfectly, they will still default to not opening a base if they think they can get away with it.
My point in the previous message was that they will spend years overanalyzing, trying to sharpshoot category costs, and usually getting it completely wrong anyway. Meanwhile, literally down the other end of the hall at the same department, they are recklessly throwing away greater amounts of money on a daily basis with nowhere near the same level of care. They will focus on splitting hairs over whether the next AE should contain 11 CA vacancies or 12. At the same time, the “pod” concept and lack of any interest in managing scheduling effectively is tanking the operation and wasting hundreds of millions more. They consistently view the wrong things with a magnifying glass, and the right things with a blindfold. Some give way more credit to this management team, particularly Crew Resources, than is actually due. I’d love to see a FL win for so many people. Perhaps there’s hopium to be had with NB fleet growth post 737Max10, more 321’s, 757’s slowly fading (fleet consolidation, albeit slow slow), and TPA concourse. But, proximity to ATL means we have so many overnighting crews all over FL just under an hour flight time away. Crew resources spoke to this as a deterrent to a FL base, but they are “always looking at it”. |
Originally Posted by Ripinpeace
(Post 3990466)
I’m going to try and at least walk away with this win.. since BOS is technically “back” with the 330. The odds of the next new base being AUS, I think, is overwhelmingly the most probable post concourse B. Of course “if ever” thrown in there to satisfy those people.
I’d love to see a FL win for so many people. Perhaps there’s hopium to be had with NB fleet growth post 737Max10, more 321’s, 757’s slowly fading (fleet consolidation, albeit slow slow), and TPA concourse. But, proximity to ATL means we have so many overnighting crews all over FL just under an hour flight time away. Crew resources spoke to this as a deterrent to a FL base, but they are “always looking at it”. |
Originally Posted by khergan
(Post 3990497)
We always knew you were a new hire making stuff up. It's okay dude, no need to cope.
|
Originally Posted by Ripinpeace
(Post 3990519)
Huh? I never claimed I wasn’t making stuff up. Are you that gullible :confused:
|
Originally Posted by khergan
(Post 3990664)
Thats a cute way of sidestepping your 40 pages of trolling and/or nonsense.
If it was statements about Delta being the best and making the most, those are objectively true. Pretty easy google search if you try it or take a anon’s word for - they seem more or less have the same validity to you apparently :D |
Originally Posted by Ripinpeace
(Post 3990707)
It was implied it was non sense.. Declarative statements with no source under anon and you were taking me seriously?? You think I have some insider plug? Like I said, way too gullible.
If it was statements about Delta being the best and making the most, those are objectively true. Pretty easy google search if you try it or take a anon’s word for - they seem more or less have the same validity to you apparently :D |
Originally Posted by ancman
(Post 3990450)
That’s basically what I’ve said for a while on this thread. At least from Crew Resources’ perspective, countless factors must fall into place perfectly for an AUS pilot base (or any other new base) to ever open. Even with every factor lining up perfectly, they will still default to not opening a base if they think they can get away with it.
My point in the previous message was that they will spend years overanalyzing, trying to sharpshoot category costs, and usually getting it completely wrong anyway. Meanwhile, literally down the other end of the hall at the same department, they are recklessly throwing away greater amounts of money on a daily basis with nowhere near the same level of care. They will focus on splitting hairs over whether the next AE should contain 11 CA vacancies or 12. At the same time, the “pod” concept and lack of any interest in managing scheduling effectively is tanking the operation and wasting hundreds of millions more. They consistently view the wrong things with a magnifying glass, and the right things with a blindfold. Some give way more credit to this management team, particularly Crew Resources, than is actually due. who knows with these clowns. |
Originally Posted by Verdell
(Post 3991012)
I'm disappointed. While it's fun to rib at starry-eyed optimism, I was honestly/quietly rooting for you and your enthusiasm. To learn it was just passionless trolling is a bit of a downer.
For what it's worth I don't think most people believed him from the start. But it is interesting seeing that there's people with nothing better to do whose idea of a good time is to lie and make stuff up for months and months in a random forum. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:40 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands