|
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1082846)
Especially with their newly stolen seniority...
But maybe the SWA pilots should dump SWAPA and hire ALPA. I mean, when you're by far the best compensated airline pilots in the country and you get to do all your own flying, wouldn't you want the largest, most experienced union representing you? :eek: (we need an emoticon for "dripping with sarcasm." :D) |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 1082633)
We do not need pilots right now. We have pulled down our block hrs by over 20% from this summer, and are lower next year. I noticed that trips that had 48 hr layos like DXB are going to 24.
|
Originally Posted by CVG767A
(Post 1082870)
Going from 48 hr layovers to 24 hr layovers usually means a change to daily service from less than daily service. While it's not as enjoyable for the pilots, it usually equates to more flying.
DXB going to 24 may not be more enjoyable for pilots, but it definitely is more enjoyable for livers. ;) |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1082843)
I was gonna say that I think it would be OK with me to get ATL based pilots hotel rooms for recurrent training, but you are right.. we cannot have one group getting any kind of good deal when it might affect the good deals that the others don't get. :rolleyes:
I think all commuters want is some balance as the company makes more and more commuters. No paid move equals how many hotels or positive space passes? I know, someone is going to point out that I could get commuter good deals for awhile and then take a paid move and then round and round we go. As I've said before, commuters save the company a ton of dough by not having to move us every time they move flying around. We are their key to flexibility as they know most of us will just follow the flying from where ever we live. Add to that a closed base or two.......... The company can't have it both ways. If they are going to generate commuters they need to become a more commuter friendly airline. Shoot, as a start I'd be happy with being able to use my seniority on DCI:D Ferd |
Originally Posted by hockeypilot44
(Post 1082812)
I know they're closing MEM and CVG. I'm surprised you think MSP is on the chopping block. That means the only true NWA base left will be DTW. SEA doesn't count.
Has anyone else heard this? If true, MSP should be around for a while. |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1082876)
DXB going to 24 may not be more enjoyable for pilots, but it definitely is more enjoyable for livers. ;)
The UAE, middle east light....... |
I heard that MSP is solidly the #2 hub in terms of profitability.
Reference the loan payoff: they paid it off less than one year before it was due anyway. It was an 8% interest rate with prepayment penalties before this fall. To top it off it was secured credit. Even if they hadn't paid it early, the jobs agreement was only valid through 2012, and they're 4,000 jobs over the minimum required. MSP currently has the 2nd highest number on MAINLINE departures, as well as the 2nd best mainline/RJ ratio. With all of this in mind, I see MSP around for a long time. I bet it shrinks a little over time as the 7ER categories are reduced system wide. I would be surprised if it wasn't a 73N base as the fleet replacements start coming in 2013. If I were to bet on it, I'd say it levels off between 1,000-1,200 pilots in a few years before slowly trickling up again. |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1082460)
I don't think there will be furloughs from this AE. Its only a net surplus of 85, which is just a transient ripple on the surface in the grand scheme of things. But as Europe continues to collapse, and it will, 100%, and our economic malaise persists, and the LCC's try and find a place for their burgeoning growth based order books, we had better be willing and able to compete. Big pulldowns to save cash or impress the crackberry day trader crowd (doesn't work anyway) while competitors barf every seat we dump right back into the general capacity is a pretty sad strategy. Still worthy of massive bonuses, of course.
There will be more AE's next year. As we are able to outsource half our airline, at DCI including over 250 DC-9-10 replacement jets and hundreds of other jets, AS and their large 737's and of course all the JV's, and as our costs continue to rise as we shrink and get more senior while those we outsource to grow and get more junior, the pressure to continue the cycle will only increase. That's why "no scope concessions" isn't going to cut it. |
Originally Posted by Waves
(Post 1082933)
I haven't read all the AE related posts yet, but I seem to be missing something right out of the starting gate. As I read the AE, I see 362 Vacancies and 362 Surpluses. There isn’t a net Surplus of 85 pilots as far as I can determine. I’m not seeing where you are coming up with that number. Some posts are saying things like; “I don’t think there will be furloughs caused by this bid.” Huh? Why would anyone think this bid would trigger furloughs? Secondly, I also count 42 more Captain positions available, so when I read some of these posts saying that it was a wash, I’m sort of puzzled. :confused: Is my math off or am I missing a page on the AE’s? Ha Please enlighten me. Anyone? Bueller?
per the update, "Even though the plan we received from Network shows a 1 percent decrease in overall pilot block hours for 2012, the bid is net neutral for the pilot group with 362 Vacancies and 362 Surpluses" |
This bid reminds me of the bids in 08. Equal bids that resulted in lots of movement.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:48 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands