You’re right that it’s dead FOR now. Hiring will come back again at some point, we just don’t know when yet. And he was spewing his BS before china flu.

That said, the ability or non-ability for Envoy to hire is the only thing management cares about when it comes to negotiating improvements in our pay and and our work conditions. It absolutely does matter. If his BS goes unchecked, potential hires will read it and think it’s true. And what he types today, can be read a year from now, two years from now...

And before you say what’s on APC shouldn’t carry that kind of weight, we have guys ON PROPERTY that bid 175 CA because Envoy’s APC profile says they’ll get paid more money as a 175 CA than a 145 CA.

Does that really surprise you, though? Judging by the large number of easily answered questions here or in the various FB groups, we've got a rack of people who can't be bothered to do their own research.

Paybanding and rates are all outlined on my.envoyair and in the contract, yet some folks can't be bothered to look. Or worse, high speed failed reading comprehension. Either way, nothing like flying 76 seats for 50 seat pay for awhile...

There’s no reason for the pay to be different other than the whole more seats, more pay thing. And at Envoy, there isn’t a difference. Just a different form of longevity pay.

It’s not about whether it surprises me or not, I was merely giving an example that the content on APC matters because it effects people’s behavior.

Yes. And unfortunately even “official” information on the profiles page isn’t correct.

It's definitely misleading for someone who has never been at an airline before and doesn't know what to look for when understanding pay. All they see is the higher pay rates and look no further

I was doing some research about 9/11 and I stumbled into something interesting unintentionally. I noticed that the flight loads for all four hijacked airplanes were less than 100 pax. The loads ranged from 30-100 and some of these aircraft were wide body flying trans con flights. I guess my question here is how did the airlines stay in business back then (Pre-9/11) flying loads so light and now that they’re back to flying similar loads they’re in a bankruptcy panic? Any ideas or insight?

The short version is that those loads, and that business model, pre-9/11 were not sustainable. If you consider how many more players existed then, the industry was ripe for consolidation. 9/11 simply accelerated something that was inevitable. Fast forward 20 years, and that consolidation has occurred. Now you have amusing loads at carriers that have largely gone through an optimization process geared around relatively high load factors. That is also not sustainable.

”Hard Landing” ends in the mid-90’s, I think, but it does hit on some similar issues that the industry ran into post-deregulation. It’s an essential read for those who haven’t read it yet.

Also, if you look more at the 9/11 attacks, the terrorists specifically chose those flight because they were known to be sparsely filled, trans-con flights that would be full of fuel. The biggest reason the were normally sparsely filled was they were early morning and the route required the range of a 75/76 instead of a smaller plane.

Also, I can’t say for sure, but those flights were on higher $ yield markets that would sell more first and business class that would cover the cost of otherwise empty coach class.

don’t forget, those wide bodies were 767-200’s. AA only had 167 seats in those, so even at 100 pax, that’s still roughly 60% load factor. AA replaced those 767’s with their 100 seat A321’s. Also remember, back then the 737-800 and A320 (A321 still had a long ways to go) were not really considered transcontinental aircraft. So you flew either the 757 or 767.