Just to go back a little bit the question really is the current system vs a 1.5>80 system moving forward.

The overall big picture is for many of us we would not want a system that would decrease the need for current pilots below the current level.

I just thought about looking at one mature category to compare and picked the 320 in MSP. There are 546 pilots. 320 are Captains with 288 regular line holders and 32 on reserve with an ALV of 72 in Jan. FO's come in at 291 with 258 regular and 33 on reserve with an ALV of 77 in Jan.

Now right there you can see... oh btw I'm talking out my butt because I am such an outsider to the "system" it's not funny... but there are 29 fewer FO's flying the same trips thus by increasing the ALV by 5 hours you equal out the 29 pilot difference.

Another words, 5 more hours on the ALV decreased the need for pilots by nearly 30. Increase it by 15 hours and you've got 90 A320 guys that are not needed on the line holders alone.

So if you remove the ALV and have a system that encourages pilots to fly more for $$ and the ALV would probably find itself at say 83 hours (equals average month with FAA max of 1000 hours a year) and that would mean about 60 pilots less are needed on MSP320. That's 10% fewer than currently exist and take that system wide that's 1000 pilots (working off the 10,500 line flying pilots not the 12000 number) assuming reserve levels stay at the same numbers and not just a percentage.

Right or wrong about those numbers, just eyeballing it I don't want to see any more "efficiency" in the staffing numbers for a lot of reasons from the MD's it'd create in every category to the inability of the company to remotely handle even a minor IROPS to the detriment of the airline and us. Sometimes you have to have people, you just do.

The money should come from the pay tables and while it may for senior pilots not be as lucrative as 1.5>80 system I can live with that.

Chicks liked the leather jacket even more than the bling jacket

If we staffed at the PBS min staffing formula there would be issues with convering the schedule.

I think the point of a GS is that it allows guys to fly that want to fly, but it does not effect the staffing formula. All of the trips that are in to pot are there due to IROP, sickouts, or PBS not being able to construct a legal line for the rotations left. This leaves trips open for pick up. When scheduling cannot cover them via WS, or reserve pilot, they opt for the premium pickup green slip. All of this is done after the min staffing for the seat is determined based upon block hrs.

The argument that GSing tips until you are blue in the face, may minimally effect staffing of a seat but not to the extent many think. The company still needs to hit the PBS staffing formula(easy), and build LOT's with the trips in the initial pot. The coverage we are looking at is due to an IROP. If you want to see what true coverage is, look at the reserves avail versus required is prior to the start of the month. That will let you see how the seat is staffed.

Of course the company can opt to carry more pilots as to never give out a green slip, and that is their option. It is cheaper to a point to do that. When premium pay get more expensive that it costs to hire, they hire. What 1.5 over 80 does is lower the PBS reserve staffing formula over time. As more guys pick up trips at premium pay, the reserves required number will go down, and as a result the staffing in a given seat goes down.

Many have issues with how the GS award process is done, but what it DOES DO is make the airline staff its seats relatively close to projected block hrs. GS's can be assigned before reserves under 12 hrs but the reality is that when GS's go out all of the reserves are used, and as a result the min staffing number edges up because of this.

Make sense?

FtB;
To do a 1.5 over 80 it would be done after the initial pbs award process, but not before the reserves are utilized, and as a result the need for reserves in the reserves required figure goes down over the three year averaging of the figure. If anything the GS process adds jobs to the list.

Kind funny that you always see one particular side of the equation wanting the fences to come down. Wonder what all the fuss is about????? Surely the 747 in noway compares to the 777.:D

According to T it is 500/hr 747 capt pay.:D

there's nothing fake about 12 days/month off while on reserve. :)

BTW, according to the merger committee guy I talked to a few months ago the overall cost difference between 1.5x>80 and FDAL system was negligible. It's a matter of how the money was distributed.

Looking back at the MSP 320 category in January you could look at it this way.

1. Say you took the ALV cap off and did a 1.5x>80 and say that the ALV settled around 83 hours, i.e. 3 hours at 1.5x pay,
2. To go to an ALV of 83 hours you just need to MD off the aircraft 38 pilots off the A spot and 19 off the B position.
3. Assume every pilot was 12 years longevity ($168.12 for A's and $114.83 for B's in 2011 numbers), that'd be 80 hours at straight pay and 3 at 1.5, that's $14,206/mo for an A and $9,703 for a B.
4. Total cost under the current system with 288 A's and 258 B's is $12,104 and $8,841 respectively.
5. Total cost under current system with 57 more pilots is $5.767M. Total cost with an ALV at 83 and 1.5x>80, $5.872M.

You see where the cost is negligible with a 1.7% difference in cost but you get to MD off 57 pilots or 10% of the current 546 pilots.

I was just assuming the reserve numbers, MSP 320 in January for instance, would remain a hard 30. The % would be higher then the current 10% but if guys fly harder guys get sick more often or one guy out affects more flying.

Just assuming. Remember, you know what they say about assuming, it makes an ass out of Clamp.

That's a pretty big conclusion to draw, when we have a couple of guys out of 7,000 pining to fly the whale.