System Bid
#154
This is nonsense. The numbers don’t add up. The bid close date doesn’t agree with what the System Chief said it would be and there’s no explanation for anything. Since I’ve been at jetBlue there has NEVER been a supplemental upgrade bid. They seem to write this stuff in concrete and then hope to make it through. As we’re already “running hot” and cancelling multiple flights for crew staffing how does any of this make sense? Snowstorm type IROP events for summer frontal line weather is a clear indication that staffing is below the threshold of operational necessity. Supplemental this or that it’s still a weak try at an annual bid.
-Bubs
-Bubs
#155
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2019
Posts: 442
12/1 bid (last quarterly) has 654 JFK 320 FOs, 634 current active, and 672 target active, for 38 vacancies.
But the 1/1 effective date shows 567 active FOs, 603 target. So there was a target of 672 by December 1st, and now a target of 603 by Jan 1st.
A couple others have some fairly big discrepancies as well, but this was the worst.
Across the spectrum, the number of active/target pilots, and the continuity from bid period to bid period, makes no sense.
From the 12/1 bid, there was a total of 3,944 target pilots., but on the 1/1 bid, there is a total 3817 target active pilots.
This is a perfect example of more blue math.
Using this system bid and its effective dates, given the inconsistencies from period to period with target/active pilots, the only real way to judge projected growth from today, imo is to take the 12/2 (final) target, and subtract the initial active pilots from the 1/1 bid period, which is 482. That incorporates remaining 2019 growth and 2020 growth thru 12/1/20. 2020 projected growth can be calculated by using final 12/2 target minus 1/1 target, or 4208-3817, which is 391.
According to the last quarterly bid, there were 237 inactive pilots (LOAs/mgmt), and the new target is 4208 active, so assuming the number of inactive remains the same, that’s a 4,445 person list.
As of yesterday there are 3,988 on the list. The 12/1 quarterly bid (the last one) had 3,944 target pilots with 237 inactive, for a total of 4,181. Don’t think there will be 193 pilots hired between now and 12/1 to reach that target. But discounting the last quarterly bid, using the 1/1 effective date target number (3817), and adding 237 inactives, we get 4,054. That’s 66 new bodies between now and 1/1. I’m showing 289 hired so far this year, with 3 having left, so 286 2019 hires on property still. Adding the 66 needed for the rest of 2019, that’d be a total of 352 hires in 2019.
So if there is a needed growth of 391 pilots in 2020 as this bid indicates, that means hiring roughly 480 if attrition is around 80-90.
That’s my rough analysis after making a spreadsheet and looking at it. But a lot of the numbers don’t make sense still, and doesn’t account for any A220/supplemental bids. Should be interesting and mildly frustrating to watch how this plays out. Kind of hard to make career decisions with this blue math.
But the 1/1 effective date shows 567 active FOs, 603 target. So there was a target of 672 by December 1st, and now a target of 603 by Jan 1st.
A couple others have some fairly big discrepancies as well, but this was the worst.
Across the spectrum, the number of active/target pilots, and the continuity from bid period to bid period, makes no sense.
From the 12/1 bid, there was a total of 3,944 target pilots., but on the 1/1 bid, there is a total 3817 target active pilots.
This is a perfect example of more blue math.
Using this system bid and its effective dates, given the inconsistencies from period to period with target/active pilots, the only real way to judge projected growth from today, imo is to take the 12/2 (final) target, and subtract the initial active pilots from the 1/1 bid period, which is 482. That incorporates remaining 2019 growth and 2020 growth thru 12/1/20. 2020 projected growth can be calculated by using final 12/2 target minus 1/1 target, or 4208-3817, which is 391.
According to the last quarterly bid, there were 237 inactive pilots (LOAs/mgmt), and the new target is 4208 active, so assuming the number of inactive remains the same, that’s a 4,445 person list.
As of yesterday there are 3,988 on the list. The 12/1 quarterly bid (the last one) had 3,944 target pilots with 237 inactive, for a total of 4,181. Don’t think there will be 193 pilots hired between now and 12/1 to reach that target. But discounting the last quarterly bid, using the 1/1 effective date target number (3817), and adding 237 inactives, we get 4,054. That’s 66 new bodies between now and 1/1. I’m showing 289 hired so far this year, with 3 having left, so 286 2019 hires on property still. Adding the 66 needed for the rest of 2019, that’d be a total of 352 hires in 2019.
So if there is a needed growth of 391 pilots in 2020 as this bid indicates, that means hiring roughly 480 if attrition is around 80-90.
That’s my rough analysis after making a spreadsheet and looking at it. But a lot of the numbers don’t make sense still, and doesn’t account for any A220/supplemental bids. Should be interesting and mildly frustrating to watch how this plays out. Kind of hard to make career decisions with this blue math.
Last edited by jamesholzhauer; 08-01-2019 at 12:09 PM.
#156
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 2,559
A 6 year old could have done better.
#158
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 2,559
That’s my rough analysis after making a spreadsheet and looking at it. But a lot of the numbers don’t make sense still, and doesn’t account for any A220/supplemental bids. Should be interesting and mildly frustrating to watch how this plays out. Kind of hard to make career decisions with this blue math.
Your spreadsheet sounds pretty much in line with mine. I think we should do this job, because it seems no one doing it now has a clue how to do basic maff.
Here's what I show...
286 hired and still here for 2019. (We seem to differ substantially here?)
43 attrition, 7 of those are retirees.
#159
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2019
Posts: 442
#160
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2019
Posts: 442
If you REALLY wanna see some screwy numbers, glance at BOS 190 CA. Doesn't make sense at all.
Your spreadsheet sounds pretty much in line with mine. I think we should do this job, because it seems no one doing it now has a clue how to do basic maff.
Here's what I show...
286 hired and still here for 2019. (We seem to differ substantially here?)
43 attrition, 7 of those are retirees.
Your spreadsheet sounds pretty much in line with mine. I think we should do this job, because it seems no one doing it now has a clue how to do basic maff.
Here's what I show...
286 hired and still here for 2019. (We seem to differ substantially here?)
43 attrition, 7 of those are retirees.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post