What staffing increase?
09-06-2018, 10:57 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by RiddleEagle18
The biggest driver to staffing doesn’t hit until 2020.
But you already knew that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But you already knew that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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...
09-06-2018, 11:09 AM
#15
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,473
Originally Posted by Mattio
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...
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...
09-06-2018, 06:56 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,206
Originally Posted by SmitteyB
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.
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.
If that is the case, the bids have less to do with staffing needs, and more to do with damage control.
09-06-2018, 07:44 PM
#17
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Posts: 30
Originally Posted by Southerner
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.
If that is the case, the bids have less to do with staffing needs, and more to do with damage control.
09-06-2018, 08:45 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: 190 captain and “Pro-pilot”
Posts: 2,918
Originally Posted by Bluedriver
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.
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.
Yeah I have no idea what they are doing. But I think you will agree the things that could drive the most staffing are far from being implemented.
The company is doing some odd stuff and I have no clue why.
09-06-2018, 09:45 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: 190 captain and “Pro-pilot”
Posts: 2,918
Originally Posted by Southerner
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.
If that is the case, the bids have less to do with staffing needs, and more to do with damage control.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
