Staffing estimates before furloughs
03-16-2020, 10:30 AM
#1
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 45
Staffing estimates before furloughs
For those who have been through furloughs before:
Are airlines likely to give any indication of how much they want to cut staffing before they announce furloughs?
For example: Say I'm 1500 from the bottom and my company is offering long term leaves of absence. I have a chance to find another job but I'm better off continuing to fly for my airline if I can. If the company says they need to shed 1500 pilots via furloughs + leaves of absence, I would probably stay and take my chances that other pilots taking leave will save me from furlough. If the company says they need to shed 3000 pilots I would probably want to take a leave asap and get a head start on finding a job since I know I'm almost certain to get furloughed anyway.
When they've furloughed before have the airlines given any kind of heads up about staffing along those lines? Or was everyone in the dark until they said they were going to furlough X number of pilots?
Are airlines likely to give any indication of how much they want to cut staffing before they announce furloughs?
For example: Say I'm 1500 from the bottom and my company is offering long term leaves of absence. I have a chance to find another job but I'm better off continuing to fly for my airline if I can. If the company says they need to shed 1500 pilots via furloughs + leaves of absence, I would probably stay and take my chances that other pilots taking leave will save me from furlough. If the company says they need to shed 3000 pilots I would probably want to take a leave asap and get a head start on finding a job since I know I'm almost certain to get furloughed anyway.
When they've furloughed before have the airlines given any kind of heads up about staffing along those lines? Or was everyone in the dark until they said they were going to furlough X number of pilots?
03-16-2020, 11:07 AM
#2
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,276
This time appears to be different, I see more advance communication than I recall last time.
I think it's a kinder and gentler world, believe it or not. Also the managers know that if they're requesting federal financial aid (they are, $25B + $25B in credit lines), how they treat their employers will certainly influence the associated politics since congress will have to authorize that sort of money.
But it's a dynamic situation, what they plan today might change in a few weeks (for worse, or maybe better).
I think it's a kinder and gentler world, believe it or not. Also the managers know that if they're requesting federal financial aid (they are, $25B + $25B in credit lines), how they treat their employers will certainly influence the associated politics since congress will have to authorize that sort of money.
But it's a dynamic situation, what they plan today might change in a few weeks (for worse, or maybe better).
03-17-2020, 11:34 AM
#3
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 70
I can definitely echo the reality that things are changing on a daily basis. Using some pretty aggressive reductions in the following model it looks like a furlough would probably be the last thing companies would want to do since they will need those pilots sooner rather than later, thanks to many of the retirements lines up.
Probably see a concerted effort to offer incentivized early retirements, paid leaves etc to try to make their cost weight for the next 6-8 months.
http://www.audriesaircraftanalysis.com/2020/03/16/hybrid-model-covid-19/
Probably see a concerted effort to offer incentivized early retirements, paid leaves etc to try to make their cost weight for the next 6-8 months.
http://www.audriesaircraftanalysis.com/2020/03/16/hybrid-model-covid-19/
03-17-2020, 12:34 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2019
Posts: 1,256
How many bodies (Pilots) per jet, typically ? 10 ? 12 ?
If airline ABC parked 300 jets, that is what, 3000 to 3600 pilots possibly affected ?
retrain them for another model ? What happens to the new hiring ? Sim capacity ?
If airline ABC parked 300 jets, that is what, 3000 to 3600 pilots possibly affected ?
retrain them for another model ? What happens to the new hiring ? Sim capacity ?
03-17-2020, 01:32 PM
#5
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2020
Posts: 84
Originally Posted by PilotAnalyst
I can definitely echo the reality that things are changing on a daily basis. Using some pretty aggressive reductions in the following model it looks like a furlough would probably be the last thing companies would want to do since they will need those pilots sooner rather than later, thanks to many of the retirements lines up.
Probably see a concerted effort to offer incentivized early retirements, paid leaves etc to try to make their cost weight for the next 6-8 months.
http://www.audriesaircraftanalysis.com/2020/03/16/hybrid-model-covid-19/
Probably see a concerted effort to offer incentivized early retirements, paid leaves etc to try to make their cost weight for the next 6-8 months.
http://www.audriesaircraftanalysis.com/2020/03/16/hybrid-model-covid-19/
I also saw a Kit Darby link on the bottom of the page. Makes me question the objectivity of the analysis.
03-17-2020, 09:33 PM
#6
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 70
Ok real quick- the nice thing about this article is it’s pretty transparent about how it calculates its forecast, and is open about the assumptions. So anyone can look at, duplicate it, or modify it based on assumptions they think are more realistic in there own spreadsheet.
Hybrid Model (COVID-19) | Audries Aircraft Analysis
This model assumes a 50% initial cut (which is the most extreme among airlines using United’s announcements) so in that sense it’s actually pretty conservative. SouthWest just announced somewhere around 20%+ which is quite a bit less than the models 50% across the board.
Since the model uses percentage change in RPK, it’s not perfectly accurate but does capture the relative change in needed lift and workforce to compensate for lost traffic. From that approach we don’t need to calculate pilots/aircraft.
Hybrid Model (COVID-19) | Audries Aircraft Analysis
This model assumes a 50% initial cut (which is the most extreme among airlines using United’s announcements) so in that sense it’s actually pretty conservative. SouthWest just announced somewhere around 20%+ which is quite a bit less than the models 50% across the board.
Since the model uses percentage change in RPK, it’s not perfectly accurate but does capture the relative change in needed lift and workforce to compensate for lost traffic. From that approach we don’t need to calculate pilots/aircraft.
03-18-2020, 05:54 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2018
Posts: 564
Originally Posted by PilotAnalyst
Ok real quick- the nice thing about this article is it’s pretty transparent about how it calculates its forecast, and is open about the assumptions. So anyone can look at, duplicate it, or modify it based on assumptions they think are more realistic in there own spreadsheet.
Hybrid Model (COVID-19) | Audries Aircraft Analysis
This model assumes a 50% initial cut (which is the most extreme among airlines using United’s announcements) so in that sense it’s actually pretty conservative. SouthWest just announced somewhere around 20%+ which is quite a bit less than the models 50% across the board.
Since the model uses percentage change in RPK, it’s not perfectly accurate but does capture the relative change in needed lift and workforce to compensate for lost traffic. From that approach we don’t need to calculate pilots/aircraft.
Hybrid Model (COVID-19) | Audries Aircraft Analysis
This model assumes a 50% initial cut (which is the most extreme among airlines using United’s announcements) so in that sense it’s actually pretty conservative. SouthWest just announced somewhere around 20%+ which is quite a bit less than the models 50% across the board.
Since the model uses percentage change in RPK, it’s not perfectly accurate but does capture the relative change in needed lift and workforce to compensate for lost traffic. From that approach we don’t need to calculate pilots/aircraft.
Imho... i believe the assumptions are conservative...
China aerospace sector has been decimated.
https://in.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-china-southern/update-1-chinas-biggest-airlines-reduce-70-of-capacity-in-feb-as-coronavirus-bites-idINL4N2BB3OM
I believe it would be smart of all of us to plan on 75 percent reductions till year end... and than, recovery will be a long process with a crippled global economy. Sprinkle in geopolitical tensions caused by a worldwide depression and government financial intervention is only going to do so much.
Im hoping it's not that bad... it's easy to start looking at the hyperbole news believing the sky is falling, but let's be honest, pragmatically, travel will be impacted for years to come and no one can predict the bottom right now.
Please expect my humble opinion as only my sole opinion, I'm no genius or expert, but I don't trust the experts.
03-18-2020, 07:53 AM
#8
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2012
Posts: 70
Here’s some good news. It looks like the Chinese supply is beginning to recover from their initial drop. Granted the recovery is up to about a 35% drop from the initial but it’s a good start.
COVID-19 Chinese Recovery Begins | Audries Aircraft Analysis
It’s true the recovery is only a few weeks old its good to see some kind of bottom and turn on capacity. What’s also great to see is how short lived the most severe drops are.
COVID-19 Chinese Recovery Begins | Audries Aircraft Analysis
It’s true the recovery is only a few weeks old its good to see some kind of bottom and turn on capacity. What’s also great to see is how short lived the most severe drops are.
03-18-2020, 07:59 AM
#9
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2020
Posts: 84
It's really interesting to view this as an economic problem and analyze it with economic data, but in my view this issue is a psychological problem which is difficult to predict.
The irrational hysteria has made this virus out to be, by many, many factors, more dangerous than it actually is.
Until people start behaving rationally and assessing risk properly they will continue to destroy the economy very quickly. They will cause much more harm than this virus ever could have.
Where is the bottom? I wouldn't ask an economist. Perhaps there are some social psychologists that study this stuff.
The irrational hysteria has made this virus out to be, by many, many factors, more dangerous than it actually is.
Until people start behaving rationally and assessing risk properly they will continue to destroy the economy very quickly. They will cause much more harm than this virus ever could have.
Where is the bottom? I wouldn't ask an economist. Perhaps there are some social psychologists that study this stuff.
03-18-2020, 08:09 AM
#10
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,276
Originally Posted by OVC010CB
It's really interesting to view this as an economic problem and analyze it with economic data, but in my view this issue is a psychological problem which is difficult to predict.
The irrational hysteria has made this virus out to be, by many, many factors, more dangerous than it actually is.
Until people start behaving rationally and assessing risk properly they will continue to destroy the economy very quickly. They will cause much more harm than this virus ever could have.
Where is the bottom? I wouldn't ask an economist. Perhaps there are some social psychologists that study this stuff.
The irrational hysteria has made this virus out to be, by many, many factors, more dangerous than it actually is.
Until people start behaving rationally and assessing risk properly they will continue to destroy the economy very quickly. They will cause much more harm than this virus ever could have.
Where is the bottom? I wouldn't ask an economist. Perhaps there are some social psychologists that study this stuff.
But the young are already chaffing at the bit, including my wife who's stir crazy after a couple days working from home. I don't think people will permanently alter their behavior because of the virus; they might if the economy gets scary enough though.
That's really the big question, is this a two-quarter event with a V-correction, or a two-year recession event? Or a depression with a an even longer timeline and structural changes to the economy?
Hopefully not the last.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
