I will. One of those questions I don't want to risk getting the correct answers to. Thanks.

 

When you add up all the gain/loss, they only added 4 total to SLC of the 15 posted. Bottom guy 11893 added, a 7Jul14 hire. There were only 12 more 73 guys below him, all new in Jul/Aug also, assigned NYC and ATL.

Basically I'd say that a new hire did go to SLC. I'm surprised more of the 15 slots didn't get filled up though.

In OTHER analysis, only 7 of the 10 LAX73N B slots got filled, they left 3 unfilled.
In DTW, they were supposed to add 5 73nB, but they actually lost 4, so -9 difference they didn't fill, should go to new hires.

I know they didn't backfill all the WB, haven't had a chance to add/check those, but they did at least fill the 15 nyc and 15 slc 73nA spots, and the SEA330A spots advertised. SEA330B was backfilled.

 

Maybe they didn't have any takers to fill those extra slots?

 

Some more for the 747-400 future...has anyone on here posted about the supposed purchase of a couple ex-Singapore 747-400F's for part out? Richard loves buying up old planes and breaking them up for parts to avoid the vendors and apparently it's working on the MD-88/90 fleet with all the SAS birds.

 

Yeah, that was my point, I didn't make it too clear I guess. The fact that the last guy to bid into SLC73 was hired 7Jul14, and only 12 guys below him 73, means there weren't any other guys who COULD have bid it--all new guys are jet-locked for a year. Basically it went to the very bottom and only 4 of the 15 total spots were filled.

This is a pretty good illustration that it takes WIDEBODY spots to get the entire LIST to move up--even though I thought all those SLC 73nB spots looked great, they're basically at the bottom of the list, and no one wanted them (or DTW73, LAX73, etc...). All the guys junior enough to want 73 or 320 or 88 or 717 spots have already got one where they want it, now. More NB FO spots doesn't help anyone currently on the list out, just opens spots for new hires.

MOREOVER, the guys at the TOP of those NB lists, who would have to bid out and UP in order for me to see any movement, aren't getting enough opportunity to do so... thus, the lists are staying stagnant except at the very bottom. I haven't analyzed where to movement up and into the 110 capt spots came from, whether it all got fully backfilled or not, but the effect was diluted enough to only drive me up a single person in the 73 anywhere. I guess that makes sense with 33 categories x 2 pilot positions = 66 categories. The top 20 cats or so wouldn't see any movement, but that still leaves 46 categories perhaps to spread around just 110 Capt spots, so 1-3 folks moving in any one category makes sense.

 

except for the JV portion of our contract.

The hypocrisy really is infuriating.

 

A statistically significant sample of a population is right around 30%, given commonly accepted alpha, beta, and ANOVA (analysis of variance).

 

Seems like a reasonable analysis to me. The real driver is going to be when they finally need to replace captains that retire, especially off WB's. Anything they can do to shave a few numbers here and there, any little concession they can get to reduce staffing a little throughout the list, they will go for, I suppose.

 

Never said anyone was stupid!!! Nor do I claim that, we are all fairly intelligent folks who can use or discount the data I showed.

Also.....I don't think I'm a 767 CA, but I could be wrong. Never ever said I was the "average" or "we are all doing xxx", I said it was MY personal math. YMMV.

I had a couple greenies, but I pulled back 12 days worth of flying at my average to balance out that I worked about a day more per month than the 12-13 back then. (It would have probably actually driven my avg. hrs./day up slightly, but its better to use a lower number and be more conservative when mentioning a current situation).

I also made a note that international pilots have a bigger gap to close than I did.

I showed fairly detailed math, with examples. What are your days of work and pay hours accrued for the year (including CQ/bank deposits/Dist. Trng.)?

I do agree with your 78 hours or so... I actually used 79:15 for my 2004 example, it's better to overstate the comparator for where you want to be, makes it a higher goal to attain.

 

Be careful quoting a DOH with an AE award. It will send tsquare into a temper tantrum.