LeineLodge

Let mgmt decide what they can afford.

If we do the company's job for them and get too efficient, you and I might not be here anymore.

I'd say we're already pretty efficient. In some categories we are over-efficient and the company is getting by, by the skin of their teeth. This summer should be interesting.

I want more pilots, not less. Standing by for the argument that we could have 100,000 pilots if we only worked 10 hours a month . . . . . I don't mind soft time. It incentivizes the company to minimize the 32 hour domestic layovers and 4 hour sits.

Denny Crane

With so many different aircraft types vs one type, we cannot get away from the fact that we need more pilots on staff because of training. It's not our job to figure out a way to get pilots through training faster. That's the companys job. It seems they are having problems scheduling training by the last conversion date of and AE bid and with scheduling IOE's promptly. In the next few years they are going to have to figure that one out. Maybe going to the NW way of a monthly equipment bid would allievate the training bottleneck in both instances listed above?

Denny

gloopy

And the "limit" on 6 short calls is pretty much a blank check for scheduling to reel you in on day one almost every single time (except the transient fat staffed categories maybe). Unlimited SC but with 15 days off is a lot better for most reserves. Heck give guys the choice and I bet you'd see 80-90% chosing 15 days off and all SC versus 12 days off and the illusory limit of 6.

gloopy

Although I'd prefer a monthly bid, either way they do it still results in a similar to identical physical training pipeline/bottleneck. That is why they can go Jack Spratt all they want on staffing but they better get ahead of the upcoming retirement curve soon because once the wave starts, and no one really knows when it will, lean categories like we have today will see mass cancellations and even "properly manned" categories will be hurting.

I think we are rapidly approaching the time where we will not be able to get by with any lean staffing in any categories. With mandatory retirements in the single digits the last couple years we've been seeing (low) triple digit numbers actually leave. Statistics are somewhat unknown, but some percentage will leave early and odds are that number will increase in the next year or two before age 65 mandatories hit. The first couple years of that are manageable as long as everyone else who can stay does stay, but that is doubtful and beyond those couple years the outflow gets to be pretty big. A year or so after that and we had better have a massive hiring/training pipeline in progress and the infrastructure to handle it or the little games of lean staffing footsie we've been playing with pending reality will smoke our six bad.

I"m not advocating massive fat staffing right now. Far from it. Its nice to ride out some time while we can living in the land of unlimited GSWC's, paying down debt and all that jazz. But our time in that playground is limited. We know when it has to be over, but it can start to be over well before that and any time spent in that playground before reality hits at this point is pure bonus round speculation that borders on outright gambling.

We will need more bodies and training infrastructure and odds are we will need both before the mandatory numbers hit critical mass. I think the company knows this and there is the often rumored battle of wits between running very lean and preparing for the inevitable but the time in the lean happy time fun zone is coming to an end and we will not be able to wait until it fully hits to prepare for it.

Denny Crane

My point about going to a monthly bid was that, maybe, the company could better regulate the amount of training being assigned each month and avoid having more pilots sitting at home waiting for training to begin after the last conversion date of the current AE system.

The company is definitely going to have to increase the training footprint when guys start retiring. Unfortunately that is a BIG when........ They need to be looking at this very seriously and start hiring before this happens. I don't want a repeat of what happened when guys took early retirement just before bankruptcy and we (ALPA) agreed to the PRP (post retirement pilot) debacle.

Denny

KC10 FATboy

Leinelodge, your thinking boggles my mind. Why wouldn't we want our company to be efficient? And why in the world would you want more pilots? (Assuming the same amount of flying) If the flying stays constant and we keep bringing on more people, that means less money in our pockets and less money the company makes (again, profit sharing less money in my pocket -- company not healthy long term). When I'm at work, I would rather fly fly fly and make my trips more productive; therefore, getting my monthly hours in the shortest number of days which translates into more days off. In other words, maximize the paycheck, maximize the days off.
I don't understand your point and I've been on reserve for a while now. We only have 6 days of SC. I don't see what is so illusory. If you were required to sit 15 days of SC, wouldn't scheduling "have to reel you in" on every day of those SC days? Why would it be any different? I'm asking because I don't understand your point.

tsquare

How is your category manned? Unless there are "excess" reserves everyday, NO-ONE can drop swap trips with open time (unless you are swapping with the same exact day, and then I'm not so sure) There either needs to be a slop factor that allows for swapping when there are ANY reserves available, or they need more bodies. I understand what you are saying about being productive, but you above as a reserve should realize that this is a myth. When was the last time you filled up before the end of the month? They will break up rotations and use a reserve for only a portion of a published trip... just because they can... Personally, I think the company should have to justify - with historical data - the number of SCs USED every day.. and come up with a number for each bid month. Then divide the number of reserves by that number and the reserves bid on when they wanna sit SC. Add another to the schedule.. and it's pay no credit. Or am I missing your point?

gloopy

Because with 6 SC's they can effectively make almost 100% of commuters be in base 18 days a month. LC means nothing. And for locals and commuters alike, 36 additional off days per year is a lot better for the vast majority I'd wager. In many categories LC is scarce and when doled out to a commuter its worse than worthless because long sits at the pad/hotel blow. For locals it may be cool to be on a longer leash for drinking or child care issues or whatever, but still I'd take 36 guaranteed off days extra per year all day long.

36 more off days guaranteed per year IMHO is far, far better for the QOL of the vast majority of reserve pilots. Scheduling works obscenely hard on making sure you don't get LC on your first day and even when you do they work very hard to convert you to SC or give you a trip as early to the limit as possible and in most cases your LC ends up almost exactly the same as a noonish SC anyway. The glory days of guys bidding LC, bypassing and fantasy flying 3 days a month are over. Either way we are going to be utilized. Might as well get a lot more guaranteed days off.

36 more off days per year, guaranteed, that's my thinking.

In any case, I'm sure that if we could negotiate 15 days off for reserves, we could easily negotiate reserves being able to volunteer for 12 off with the "limit" of 6 SC.

satchip

This may be a consequence of the new rest requirements. Everyone is rejoicing that we may have to hire to staff for the new requirements but the block hours won't increase, they will just spread the available hours over a bigger pool. You will end up working more days to make the same hours.

The way to combat that is to link pay with duty time not flying time. I think the new rest rules are based on duty time not flight time, are they not? Pay starts a sign in and ends at the hotel at the end of the day. Watch how efficient the trip builders get if that were the contract.

LeineLodge

I think we're more alike than you may realize. Of course we all want the part I bolded above. The issue I have is with your reference to "we" needing to get more efficient. I'm guessing by your screenname that you're prior military so you may not have the ingrained level of work rule fatigue that us RJ guys have. You're more mission oriented, etc which is great. I respectfully disagree with you though that it is up to the pilot group to figure this out.

Many regionals have the ability to fly their guys up to FAR block limits, and do. They run much leaner than we do. I don't want to go there again. There is a balance between having a ton of pilots just to pad the seniority list, and flying to the redline.

Believe me, I do not want to strangle the golden goose. I do, however, think it is management's job to manage and our job to get the best deal we can out of them. You don't start out buying a used car by worrying about how it will impact the other guy financially - that's his business and he WILL act in his own best interest. The same with us negotiating with the company. We should ask for a little more than we want, and the company will negotiate us down a little towards something that is acceptable to them.

When you say things like "we" need to become more efficient, you are managing the pilot group's expectations downwards. I admire your dedication to the company, and I want us to do well too, but please don't do management's job for them