|
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1862816)
"More Productive" also means less pilots required.
If everyone is flying 6+ hours per day instead of 5:15, they won't need as many pilots to cover all the flying. Be careful what you ask for. |
Originally Posted by bohicagain
(Post 1862829)
That's right also trips will tend to be less commutable. I am all for 6 hour but not a 6ADG, but a hard 6 hour min per day. I would love to work 13-14 days a month for 78-84 hours of pay.
|
Originally Posted by dtfl
(Post 1862998)
Less pilots & less commutable = QOL suck for many. The company would love it.......we, however...
|
I think it's the 737 that skews all the credit numbers, or at least it used to. Perhaps with all the new jets coming they can schedule something more than 3 legs in 4 days, and less 24 hour layovers.
|
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1862816)
"More Productive" also means less pilots required.
If everyone is flying 6+ hours per day instead of 5:15, they won't need as many pilots to cover all the flying. Be careful what you ask for. Six hours a day just means you fill up in 2 fewer days/month; no reduction in pilot requirements. Probably would increase the reserves required for narrowbody guys as more trips would push the limits on 117 rules. I do agree with the fact commutable trips would mostly disappear, especially for us narrowbody guys. Omar |
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1862816)
"More Productive" also means less pilots required.
If everyone is flying 6+ hours per day instead of 5:15, they won't need as many pilots to cover all the flying. Be careful what you ask for. |
Originally Posted by dtfl
(Post 1862998)
Less pilots & less commutable = QOL suck for many. The company would love it.......we, however...
Originally Posted by Timbo
(Post 1862816)
"More Productive" also means less pilots required.
If everyone is flying 6+ hours per day instead of 5:15, they won't need as many pilots to cover all the flying. Be careful what you ask for. |
Originally Posted by pilotjockey
(Post 1863118)
disagree with both of you only loss of pilot jobs would be if we also raised alv and tlv, higher daily credit might mean less commutable tho
|
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 1861534)
Regarding what happened with C2012, I will quote Hillary. "At this point, what difference does it make?".
My only objective in posting about this is to urge caution and hope the reps keep the administration on a much shorter leash this time or the same thing could happen again. The reps could wake up one morning and read in the paper that the Delta pilots have a new contract. Voting it down or sending it back for modifications is far more difficult after those headlines have run. That's the lesson of C2012. Sorry if that offends some people.
Originally Posted by Falcon7
(Post 1861313)
I'm not spinning Carl, because I'm not asserting everything was done exactly by the book, nor am I asserting that it wasn't. IOW I'm not joining Karnak, nor am I buying your assertion of proof just because you say so.
|
Originally Posted by Omar 111
(Post 1863045)
What?
Six hours a day just means you fill up in 2 fewer days/month; no reduction in pilot requirements. Probably would increase the reserves required for narrowbody guys as more trips would push the limits on 117 rules. I do agree with the fact commutable trips would mostly disappear, especially for us narrowbody guys. Omar If every domestic flew 6hours block time every day...and the company was able to eliminate all that sitting around/credit time, well, they'd need fewer pilots. Luckily, they haven't figured out how to do it yet. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:30 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands