Originally Posted by bourbon scamp (Post 2533849)

Sorry if this was already brought up elsewhere, but doesn't the fact that we are short on CA's and fat on FO's negatively impact flow? If we don't have FO's upgrading, there are fewer captains to flow, therefore pushing back everyone's timeline. Granted it's understandable why FO's are not wanting to force upgrade, but it's just a thought. I'll hang up and listen.

Originally Posted by bourbon scamp (Post 2533849)

Sorry if this was already brought up elsewhere, but doesn't the fact that we are short on CA's and fat on FO's negatively impact flow? If we don't have FO's upgrading, there are fewer captains to flow, therefore pushing back everyone's timeline. Granted it's understandable why FO's are not wanting to force upgrade, but it's just a thought. I'll hang up and listen.

Originally Posted by moon (Post 2533855)

Yes we need FOs to upgrade. The complaint is the company should be doing something to incentivize the upgrade. Instead of forcing people to upgrade not on their own terms.

Originally Posted by E175 Driver (Post 2533865)

Left seat for me on the next go around! :)

Originally Posted by Otterbox (Post 2533859)

Isn’t Envoys flow based on total pilots like Piedmont and not eligible CAs like PSA? If so, FOs don’t have to upgrade to flow so the ration of CA:FO has no effect on the timeline.

Originally Posted by FlyyGuyy (Post 2533892)

PSA is no longer based on anything. Just ten a month. Period.

Originally Posted by FlyyGuyy (Post 2533892)

PSA is no longer based on anything. Just ten a month. Period.

Originally Posted by 1704LIFE (Post 2533610)

This will get your blood boiling in sure,

I read on the AA forum a while ago that a guy retiring from the military got called for his interview, he did his 20 years.

During the interview he was very candid and let them know he hasn’t flown in over 12 years, working a desk position. They interview committee said don’t worry, it’s a non-issue.

He got the welcome aboard call a few days later.