Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   JetBlue (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/jetblue/)
-   -   System Bid (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/jetblue/122476-system-bid.html)

TurbineDriver 06-25-2019 06:22 AM

Can anyone post the results of the system bid??

hilltopflyer 06-25-2019 06:57 AM


Originally Posted by TurbineDriver (Post 2842968)
Can anyone post the results of the system bid??

It was posted awhile ago

BunkerF16 06-25-2019 07:32 AM


Originally Posted by TurbineDriver (Post 2842968)
Can anyone post the results of the system bid??

Bus:
JFK: Oct 2014
BOS: Dec 2013
FLL: Aug 2013
MCO: Mar 2006
LGB: Mar 2007

E190:
JFK: Apr 2017
BOS: Aug 2016
MCO: Oct 2013

360KIAS 06-25-2019 07:34 PM


Originally Posted by Bluedriver (Post 2842897)
Wow, you really stepped in it again.

Which doesn't surprise me coming from a guy who thinks our compensation peers are people who think a high end wall-oven is a fire pit on top of a boulder in Somalia.

Anyone who really knows me would laugh, out loud, at the suggestion that I am unhappy in life.

Then stop your effin whining and post the real tou for a change. Cuz all of us that know you here on APC think you're pretty miserable.

DMEarc 06-25-2019 09:31 PM


Originally Posted by 360KIAS (Post 2843339)
Then stop your effin whining and post the real tou for a change. Cuz all of us that know you here on APC think you're pretty miserable.

Have to agree with this guy.

I’m not sure why any professional airline pilot would post anonymously on a message board. I guess because they aren’t willing to stand behind their posts.

-TS

Gordie H 06-26-2019 12:02 AM


Originally Posted by DMEarc (Post 2843367)
Have to agree with this guy.

I’m not sure why any professional airline pilot would post anonymously on a message board. I guess because they aren’t willing to stand behind their posts.

-TS

I think when he writes “post the real you for a change”, I think he just means the guy’s posts as is currently reflect an unhappy person. Not that he should use his actual real name…

But I could be wrong…I just knocked back a 7 Eleven big beer :)

FWIW, I limit my real name usage on the internet in general but particularly on a board like this, to bare minimum. For many reasons to inclue…Sometimes I’m drinking and posting (like now!), sometimes I’m just venting or don’t really know what the hell I’m talking about (and don’t want to be held to it…lol), etc. It's just APC...

360KIAS 06-26-2019 06:54 AM


Originally Posted by Gordie H (Post 2843391)
I think when he writes “post the real you for a change”, I think he just means the guy’s posts as is currently reflect an unhappy person. Not that he should use his actual real name…

But I could be wrong…I just knocked back a 7 Eleven big beer :)

FWIW, I limit my real name usage on the internet in general but particularly on a board like this, to bare minimum. For many reasons to inclue…Sometimes I’m drinking and posting (like now!), sometimes I’m just venting or don’t really know what the hell I’m talking about (and don’t want to be held to it…lol), etc. It's just APC...


+1000, you nailed it all around, especially interweb drunk posting. 🤪

I actually enjoy and learn from his posts when he takes the time to make real posts that are not trying to demean people or hate his employer (who admittedly could use improvements, like most employers).

hilltopflyer 06-26-2019 08:27 AM


Originally Posted by Gordie H (Post 2843391)
I think when he writes “post the real you for a change”, I think he just means the guy’s posts as is currently reflect an unhappy person. Not that he should use his actual real name…

But I could be wrong…I just knocked back a 7 Eleven big beer :)

FWIW, I limit my real name usage on the internet in general but particularly on a board like this, to bare minimum. For many reasons to inclue…Sometimes I’m drinking and posting (like now!), sometimes I’m just venting or don’t really know what the hell I’m talking about (and don’t want to be held to it…lol), etc. It's just APC...

Ok I’ll bite my real name is Paul Hocking. It’s out now does anyone have any problems with the way I run my chief pilot office? I mean nothing like keeping Randy on forever as my ultimate yes man.

embraerjetpilot 06-26-2019 09:21 AM


Originally Posted by hilltopflyer (Post 2843543)
Ok I’ll bite my real name is Paul Hocking. It’s out now does anyone have any problems with the way I run my chief pilot office? I mean nothing like keeping Randy on forever as my ultimate yes man.

Reply all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PasserOGas 06-26-2019 08:10 PM


Originally Posted by hilltopflyer (Post 2843543)
Ok I’ll bite my real name is Paul Hocking. It’s out now does anyone have any problems with the way I run my chief pilot office? I mean nothing like keeping Randy on forever as my ultimate yes man.

Hey Paul! It's me Jerry!

hilltopflyer 06-27-2019 05:45 AM


Originally Posted by PasserOGas (Post 2843891)
Hey Paul! It's me Jerry!

You are fired. Sorry.

rvr1800 06-27-2019 07:15 AM


Originally Posted by hilltopflyer (Post 2843543)
Ok I’ll bite my real name is Paul Hocking. It’s out now does anyone have any problems with the way I run my chief pilot office? I mean nothing like keeping Randy on forever as my ultimate yes man.

I’d be careful with stuff like this on here. Trying to represent that you are someone that you’re not is a quick way to get some heat on you. This website has been subpoenaed to provide user identities in the past.

disenchantMINT 06-27-2019 07:52 AM


Originally Posted by rvr1800 (Post 2844056)
I’d be careful with stuff like this on here. Trying to represent that you are someone that you’re not is a quick way to get some heat on you. This website has been subpoenaed to provide user identities in the past.

In this case satire should not be mistaken for misrepresentation.

hilltopflyer 06-27-2019 08:33 AM


Originally Posted by rvr1800 (Post 2844056)
I’d be careful with stuff like this on here. Trying to represent that you are someone that you’re not is a quick way to get some heat on you. This website has been subpoenaed to provide user identities in the past.

And they were subpoenaed when it was a work action. If someone actually believes that was real they are a sad sad man.

360KIAS 06-27-2019 10:57 AM


Originally Posted by hilltopflyer (Post 2844099)
And they were subpoenaed when it was a work action. If someone actually believes that was real they are a sad sad man.

Wait, WHAT??

You're not really Paul Hocking?!? I thought we were really gonna get some things FIXED around here!

Aladdin 06-28-2019 09:11 AM

Hey guys, do you know if all LGB new-hire vacancies have been assigned or not yet?
I'm swimming in the pool as of today..

ClncClarence 06-28-2019 09:17 AM


Originally Posted by Aladdin (Post 2844594)
Hey guys, do you know if all LGB new-hire vacancies have been assigned or not yet?
I'm swimming in the pool as of today..

There were 7 available for the 6/19 class and 3 of them were filled.

coopervane 06-28-2019 09:43 AM


Originally Posted by hilltopflyer (Post 2844099)
And they were subpoenaed when it was a work action. If someone actually believes that was real they are a sad sad man.

OMG!! Did you just assume everyone’s gender is male? In a male dominated industry?

I’m triggered. Where are the bubbles and play doh?

More sensitivity training for you.....

goose15 08-01-2019 06:19 AM

So, if I read this annual bid right, we have a net number of 109 Upgrades for the entire year of 2020. Am I reading this right?

RedOverWhite 08-01-2019 06:24 AM


Originally Posted by goose15 (Post 2863015)
So, if I read this annual bid right, we have a net number of 109 Upgrades for the entire year of 2020. Am I reading this right?

188 320 vacancies is what I counted, didn’t factor in the negative vacancies on the 190, but that seat is obviously overstaffed *extreme sarcasm*

Bluedriver 08-01-2019 06:26 AM


Originally Posted by RedOverWhite (Post 2863021)
188 320 vacancies is what I counted, didn’t factor in the negative vacancies on the 190, but that seat is obviously overstaffed *extreme sarcasm*

Is that 188 320 ***CAPTAIN*** vacancies?

RedOverWhite 08-01-2019 06:32 AM


Originally Posted by Bluedriver (Post 2863022)
Is that 188 320 ***CAPTAIN*** vacancies?

Yeah, that’s what I counted....for the whole year.

Bluedriver 08-01-2019 06:38 AM


Originally Posted by RedOverWhite (Post 2863026)
Yeah, that’s what I counted....for the whole year.

Gracias Amy-go.

SmitteyB 08-01-2019 07:04 AM


Originally Posted by RedOverWhite (Post 2863021)
188 320 vacancies is what I counted, didn’t factor in the negative vacancies on the 190, but that seat is obviously overstaffed *extreme sarcasm*

Notice the fact that BOS 190 CA active pilots don’t change after the reduction. For instance they are forecasting -21 for 3 straight bid awards, but don’t change the Active pilots on subsequent bids. They probably overlooked that because it makes no sense.

They certainly can’t afford to reduce BOS 190 CA by 63 pilots.

Mattio 08-01-2019 07:56 AM


Originally Posted by SmitteyB (Post 2863044)
Notice the fact that BOS 190 CA active pilots don’t change after the reduction. For instance they are forecasting -21 for 3 straight bid awards, but don’t change the Active pilots on subsequent bids. They probably overlooked that because it makes no sense.

They certainly can’t afford to reduce BOS 190 CA by 63 pilots.

Maybe this means their "need" will be minus 21 but they don't intend to displace pilots? I saw that too and was trying to figure it out

HighFlight 08-01-2019 08:32 AM

The only thing I know for certain after viewing all the numbers in a spreadsheet is:

1) These folks have no idea how to plan
2) There will be several supplementals next year

Gibberish is what the numbers indicate to me.

RedOverWhite 08-01-2019 08:40 AM


Originally Posted by SmitteyB (Post 2863044)
Notice the fact that BOS 190 CA active pilots don’t change after the reduction. For instance they are forecasting -21 for 3 straight bid awards, but don’t change the Active pilots on subsequent bids. They probably overlooked that because it makes no sense.

They certainly can’t afford to reduce BOS 190 CA by 63 pilots.

That's a good point, I didn't even compare the vacancy number to the total for 190 CA, I guess I just assumed -21 (BOS) was what they were overstaffed by for the year, and it was a merely a placeholder until they need to backfill via supplementals.

Seems like it's all kind of a WAG anyway, should be entertaining to see play out...

Softpayman 08-01-2019 09:22 AM


Originally Posted by HighFlight (Post 2863091)
The only thing I know for certain after viewing all the numbers in a spreadsheet is:

1) These folks have no idea how to plan
2) There will be several supplementals next year

Gibberish is what the numbers indicate to me.

You have it right there (#2). There will be supplemental bids.

You wrote it yourself yet you don't understand? WTF?

capt707 08-01-2019 09:26 AM


Originally Posted by RedOverWhite (Post 2863098)
That's a good point, I didn't even compare the vacancy number to the total for 190 CA, I guess I just assumed -21 (BOS) was what they were overstaffed by for the year, and it was a merely a placeholder until they need to backfill via supplementals.

Seems like it's all kind of a WAG anyway, should be entertaining to see play out...

190BOS Capt overstaffed??? I doubt it.

rvr1800 08-01-2019 11:10 AM


Originally Posted by Softpayman (Post 2863119)
You have it right there (#2). There will be supplemental bids.

You wrote it yourself yet you don't understand? WTF?

None of it is clear. Maybe you can enlighten us. How many pilots are they hiring next year based on this bid?

rvr1800 08-01-2019 11:12 AM


Originally Posted by capt707 (Post 2863122)
190BOS Capt overstaffed??? I doubt it.

They’re shrinking the 190 flying out of Boston next year. At least that’s what the numbers seem to indicate.

todd1200 08-01-2019 11:18 AM


Originally Posted by rvr1800 (Post 2863151)
None of it is clear. Maybe you can enlighten us. How many pilots are they hiring next year based on this bid?

I count 482 plus whatever they anticipate for attrition.

BobbyLeeSwagger 08-01-2019 11:41 AM


Originally Posted by todd1200 (Post 2863157)
I count 482 plus whatever they anticipate for attrition.

That's great, but I heard LGB FO was not much.. Hopefully some supplemental bids help.

P-3Bubba 08-01-2019 11:46 AM

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

jamesholzhauer 08-01-2019 11:53 AM

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.

HighFlight 08-01-2019 11:55 AM


Originally Posted by Softpayman (Post 2863119)
You have it right there (#2). There will be supplemental bids.

You wrote it yourself yet you don't understand? WTF?

What I wrote is that the numbers they published are gibberish. It looks like a different person wrote the numbers for each bid period, and none of them talked at all.

A 6 year old could have done better.

HighFlight 08-01-2019 11:57 AM


Originally Posted by todd1200 (Post 2863157)
I count 482 plus whatever they anticipate for attrition.

Yeah, that's not what I got at all. The sum of all the vacancies for all bases and bids is 385.

HighFlight 08-01-2019 11:59 AM


Originally Posted by jamesholzhauer (Post 2863180)
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.

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.

jamesholzhauer 08-01-2019 12:04 PM


Originally Posted by HighFlight (Post 2863182)
Yeah, that's not what I got at all. The sum of all the vacancies for all bases and bids is 385.

482 comes from end target pilots minus current active pilots. So that incorporates remaining 2019 plus all of 2020 hiring.

jamesholzhauer 08-01-2019 12:07 PM


Originally Posted by HighFlight (Post 2863183)
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.

Yeah my bad I was looking at the wrong number. 286 this year still here, 3 gone who were hired this year.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:33 PM.


User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands