Originally Posted by P-3Bubba (Post 2669320)

And the comments about the FO staffing being complete unrealistic based in Just aircraft deliveries alone is spot on correct.

-Bubs

Originally Posted by RiddleEagle18 (Post 2669093)

The biggest driver to staffing doesn’t hit until 2020.

But you already knew that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Mattio (Post 2669474)

Why do we have to rely on vacation to indirectly increase staffing? Vacation which can be canceled "due to operational neccesity", for example, if they don't hire enough people...

I said the staffing language was weak and that was a big part of why I voted no. Let's see what other ways this CBA and its weak language gets exploited by the company...

Originally Posted by SmitteyB (Post 2669307)

Although I find BlueDriver a very unhappy person and often shake my head at his posts, the staffing numbers do not add up.

Unless they have found with these new pairings that the overall pilots required for the operation is less than anticipated, it doesn’t make sense. Makes you wonder what kind of staffing model they have developed. More telling will be the December bid.

Originally Posted by Southerner (Post 2669819)

Pure speculation here, but I'm betting that they are being cautious because large bids give the ability for large amounts of transfers from E190 to A320. A large bid could drive a huge increase in training cycles. If they keep the bids on the small side, fewer people can jump over all at once, which helps to keep the training department from getting overwhelmed.

If that is the case, the bids have less to do with staffing needs, and more to do with damage control.

Originally Posted by Bluedriver (Post 2669204)

Well let's pick that apart. When I said, clearly, that this contract would require less staffing than most of you guys thought, I got push-back.

When said that if it does require additional staffing, it wouldn't be required for quite some time because of Vaca and reserve rules being phased in over a couple of decades. Yet, most of you would NOT publicly agree with me during the voting period.

Now we have a total of 7 Airbus FOs being added to the roster of a GROWING hull count over the next 3-6 months! That from the very FIRST system bid post CBA?!? When you grow the hull count over 6 months by about 6 airframes, and only add 7 FOs (don't know if there will be any openings on the December bid), that's a REDUCTION in staffing per hull.

Originally Posted by Southerner (Post 2669819)

Pure speculation here, but I'm betting that they are being cautious because large bids give the ability for large amounts of transfers from E190 to A320. A large bid could drive a huge increase in training cycles. If they keep the bids on the small side, fewer people can jump over all at once, which helps to keep the training department from getting overwhelmed.

If that is the case, the bids have less to do with staffing needs, and more to do with damage control.

Originally Posted by pilotpayne (Post 2669895)

Until the damage happens out on the line and our schedule