OK, I misunderstood what he meant by actual. I just thought it was saying we would have 6400 when we only needed 5600. Thanks for spelling it out. :o :D

That seems the case to me. I would still love to see some sort of short haul out of LAX to compete with LUV. During my relatively short commute out of LAX, you wouldn't imagine how many LUV pax asked me how to find the Bradley int'l terminal for their conx flights. If we could only capture some of that back, with our SYD and NRT connections. I could certainly understand that's not on top of the priority with route Planning at this moment.

Ya, mostly because pilots will stop *****ing about scope....

Nu

I don't have the numbers, but I'll buy the fact that June 09 was the same prior to LOA 46. But we're not talking about 09. We don't have anybody furloughed in 09 (save the bypass folks)

How did the numbers of say 97-01 compare with 2002, 03, 04 and 05? Contract changes accounted for their portion, sure. But we also parked all the old 73s, the 1011 and the 727s. Meanwhile some 2000 guys retired and DCI exploded, yet we remained out.

Your saying that one had nothing to do with the other? Really?

Actually, I missed it too. You know how it is: you're happily correcting someone else, and yet, at the most embarassing time, you manage to step on your own... Next thing you know, I'll even start correcting other people's grammer...;)

Actually, I thought it was a March vs. February problem, so I thought you got it backwards. But it's an "actual" vs. "required" problem.

The short answer is that there are always a lot more available than required. That's OK. The difference is in MIL leave, LOA's, LTD, etc. We never operate at the rquired number, to my knowledge. There is a 22D and 23D report, or something like that, which look similar to one another, but actually report different things. Call the CA guys for a better explanation on how to look at these reports, if needed.

Bottom line: you can't infer much from the numbers quoted.

I read it that staffing required is 800 less than staffing. He doesn't use the term "actual" staffing but it seems to be implied. In other words over manned by 800. Ouch.

That is also off the PBS min staffing model. We always run the company with more than the min.
I'd say we are 600 fat for the winter on the South side.

never mind to early for that.

LOL, I've NEVER been guilty of that. ;)

I've been expecting them to get the staffing in that position. IMO they've already done it on the DAL-N side. FO displacements off the 320 resulted in even greater understaffing on that seat, yet it was done anway.

I'm just hoping that the economy really is turning around. Perhaps the statements of a turn around will prevent furloughs. Something has so far, & things have been bad. I see everyday that passes without furloughs as a better chance of ZERO furloughs. Perhaps we've made it over the hump. :o