Seems like the facts are backing up your analysis. Based on the A positions already awarded, and the recent retirements in WB fleet, we should have substantial advancement in the lowest 1/3 of the list, at least. The company is trying to force this into a "cascade"-less event, and the tool they use is the productivity gains.

The 3rd quarter.......

Oh yeah, that too.:D

my man, please try to utilize some common sense.

When you can actually provide facts to back your claim, then maybe I'll listen to you. But as usual, you drive me to keep the mute function selected ON.

Honestly, the numbers get murkier and murkier each time they post a 2013 AE that uses the same 10 or so 2014 757 replacements as an excuse for not backfilling ER F/O's. Either they're setting themselves up for a seriously ugly shortage in the near-term, or we're being lied to.

Crew Resources actually told us they would NOT backfill anyone bidding to the M88 on this AE.

That being said, the company has in the past stated they planned to park 31-36 757s by the end of 2015. This was stated this past June.

It's always the same suspects. I should have known tsquare would immediately pop up and completely mischaracterize my input. Dude, you need to learn to read the posts of others for what they are, and nothing more--stop displacing your issues onto other people's posts.
-- the absolute fact is that the positive gains in this last AE did NOT flow down to the bottom of the list.
-- I commented on that, and pointed out where the stop is and indeed that it was due to no backfill.

Apparently it bothers you when we folks at the bottom of the list, who have not moved upwards and indeed have moved BACKWARDS the last 4 AEs, all "positive" bids, point out that we are not in fact moving positively. You immediately jump in on the attack, talking nonsense like inferring I said anything resembling we should all jump off a bridge somewhere, or that the tone of my post was remotely that.

It's very easy to take the chipper high road while sitting as a 7ER Capt, and discount those below you who complain about stagnation, or even point out that apparent positive bids are not actually flowing down to the huddled masses. Do you have any remote idea how incredibly arrogant and insensitive it makes you sound to belittle those getting bumped out of base and off their aircraft as a result of the recent positive bids?

You don't think we should be allowed to look at an interesting result, a great positive capt bid that doesn't result in any movement of the bottom of the list, and ponder the reasons why, without you jumping in impugning our lack of enthusiasm while you cheerfully rake in $213 per hour work vs. our $130-140? It's quite easy to malign the concerns of the guy sitting in the back of the bus and not allowed in the restaurant, if you're the guy sitting in the front of the bus...

I haven't moved an inch in any of the last AEs either, stud. As a matter of fact, I moved down in the last one that had anything above my seniority. Stagnation affects us all, not just you. And as far as "you folks" at the bottom the list moving up, you will when the newhires start showing up. Until then, it is a simple physics problem.

johnso, you're exactly the guy I was thinking about when I said "unable to break the two events apart from the data stream."
There are numerous actions going on here, each one results in a gain or loss in "required new pilots". You look at the total, see that it's positive, and discount anyone's concerns that it should or could have been higher.

If we are unwilling to look at the results of individual changes to the contract, and analyze how each change actually affected us, we will never be able to form a basis for understanding and valuing contract tweaks and changes in the future. Your attitude quells discussion of these individual results, and does not serve us well in being informed decision makers in the future.

-- retirements, should result in a 1 for one new hiring replacement in a stable non-shrinking pilot pool. All results different than this MUST be allocated to gains from various changes (717) or losses from recognized or unrecognized workrule and productivity "losses" to the pilots.
--717 acquisition, results in net gain of pilots
--7ER retirements... Constantly being blamed for our contraction, but in fact the company has said numerous times that the 737-900 acquisition would be capacity neutral due to 7ER retirements. Filed this statement with the SEC many times. Not shrinking, not growing, neutral. ANY observed differences in pilot manning that can be attributed to 7ER factors that are NOT balanced by other gains (capacity neutral), should be analyzed and discussed to isolate where the differences originate, and if in fact we are seeing changes NOT offset by 900s and 88s gained that result in capacity neutral.
-- 900s, not a pilot manning gainer according to company unless you're ignoring all their filings and investor meetings.
--M88 additions, should be positive to some extent
-- 31 day to 30 day changes in critical "limiting factor" months of Jul and Aug, results in 3.3% productivity gain in those critical months, or 3.3% reduced pilot needs in those critical manning-driving months
-- ALV+15, results in some reduced # of pilots required due to reserves being able/allowed to be flown to approx 100 hours if needed by company vs. only 68 previously, during peak months. Allows company to man reserves for LOW months and bump UP in peak months, vs. man for peak months and have extra dudes for low months. Net loss of pilots, exact number UNKNOWN... Can ONLY be figured out if we're willing to look at the data and not attack our own fellows who don't immediately cheer "It's a net positive overall!"

Here's a Fable for you, Johnso, which I think is applicable in this situation:

Once there was a farmer named Roadkill. He had found some brown stones in his yard, which folks said might have trading value and give him leverage with a company in town. Roadkill also needed to sell his 100 gallons of milk a week to someone. And he wanted to buy the daily paper from someone. RK went to the "Tsquare-johnso" company, and their man johnso said, "Well we can do ALL of that for you! Let's see, we'll buy your milk from you for hrmm... market rates adjusted to some of your peers that are reasonable; and you'll have to pay us for the paper, that's a very costly item to produce these days and ink and insurance costs are going way up... carry the one, multiply by... Ok, and we'll pay you for these stones which do have some value. ALRIGHTY! We'll pay you $10 per week!"
Roadkill took the deal, as his advisors said it was the best he would get. In the next few months however, RK learned those stones had been diamonds, milk normally went for $40 a week for what he was selling, and the paper was only fifty cents. He began to suspect his TOTAL PAYMENT wasn't as good as it could have been--and the NEXT year he wanted to know more and be able to properly value all his deal items!
Roadkill went into town and began to ask around about the price of milk, and how much diamonds were worth. Upon hearing this, the TsquareJohnso company declared loudly to all who would listen, "Roadkill You total ingrate! We're paying you a NET POSITIVE, you're making money, and you have the gall to ask about the price of milk?" They organized a lynchmob and hung RK, and no farmer in that town ever questioned what they were getting paid for milk or charged for the paper again.