I agree with you that the current growth is far bigger than C2012, but I didn't read anything else into 76drvr's post. He was simply responding to my suggestion that someone look up the difference in staffing levels relative to required staffing over the past two years.

I think the point is this forum despite hard numbers and evidence continues to say there was a massive conspiracy at the MEC level to lie about the costing on jobs from contract 2012. It took me one 2 minute phone call to crew planning to confirm what the MEC put out. The reality is if the MEC numbers were right on. The growth projections put out were also shouted down here as utter BS. Turns out they were conservative.
The only area in the MEC projections that was off was retirements. They used the historical rate of early outs. The actual rate has been lower. Several pilots I know who had planned to leave at 62 are sticking around because they are making to quote, " to much money to leave now".

Oh, there is one other point never discussed here. Were it not for the overall outstanding operational performance of the airline we would need even more pilots. The better the airline runs the fewer pilots they need. Credit for line holders and reserve utilization drops. If we went back to our performance of just a few years ago they would have a huge manning issue.

If you say so. But I have to imagine that, were a majority of the MEC to disagree with a position or an action taken by a member of the "entrenched bureaucracy," they would readily have the power to take the appropriate action.

To the extent that my rep cannot convince enough other reps of his point of view to make a majority, my rep's point of view will simply not carry the day. That's how democracy works.

I don't believe that either of us have any proof one way or the other. I will say that RA is a bright and motivated enough fellow to get what he wants, with or without our "help." While selling him the 76-seaters when we did certainly greased the skids for him, the bankruptcy at PCL could well have done the same thing had we not agreed to C2012.

That could have been the hole into which to dump unwanted 50-seaters and upgauge his overall network with the 717's. He might have even been able to increase the mainline fleet size enough to trade in some 70-seaters for 76-seaters before parking the DC9's.

We'd have the 717s and the rest of the current growth, but without the leverage that the RJ deal gave us to get a quick deal, might still be working under the JCBA. :mad:

We had 400 to 600 surplus copilots at the time contract 2012 was signed. Just flew with a guy who over 3 years flew 400 hours total as a ER reserve. He is not enjoying reserve as much now but rolling thunder is raining money on him.

What have pilots been fooled on. Using the results of the survey base scheduling reps have been able to make meaningful changes in rotation construction. Why not give your base scheduling volunteer a call and discuss it with him. You might find yourself filling out the survey after the call.

My schedule has gotten worse on the 88 due to these rotation construction changes. My schedule next month has 11 days straight of nothing but 4 day trips. On trip finishes in the morning then start another 4 day in the evening. I wish we had it in the PWA that requires a minimum 1-2 days off in domicile between trips that only the pilots can waive. I can put it in PBS but it is just going to ignore the request.

There has been letter after letter put out by both the company and DALPA on why the 88 and 320 rotations have degraded. The company is running strictly a min credit solution this summer on rotation construction for the 88. You can read any one of several letters for the reasons why. The problem is not because of the rotation changes but the fact those changes have all been removed until fall.

Yeah...we all loved how the 5:15/dy doesn't kick in until November....

"Programming delay" my butt.

What category are you in?