This looses sight of the big picture. PSA, as well as Envoy and Peidmont, are wholly-owned by AA. The cost of a given AA pilot is considerably more than that of of regional when considering pay, work rules, 401k, benefits, vacation, etc. Opting to flow pilots early wouldn't actually reduce costs since it prolongs the time that individual will spend on the highest cost portion of their career.

I don't know whether they are flowing the contractual minimum or if they are taking extra but I would say for certain the calculations being done revolve around staffing levels at both AA as well as PSA, the number of applicants at each, and the long term target staffing levels.

 

IF you flow a pilot early and they have a 37 year career instead of 35, that cost delta will only show up in years 36 and 37 (and only when you combine earnings over 36+ years). Year 1 AA pilot salary costs for 2025 will be the same regardless of where hired. But the reduction in regional labor costs will show up immediately if you goose the flow of high cost CRJ captains.

 

the last captain announcement called for 30 new captains. The previous class was 15, so 45 upgrades for that month. They are running 2 classes a month. We did get down to 1,700 pilots at one point but now we are at almost 2,100

 

Your Queing theory math needs to be reworked.

Delaying that flow for two years will save Delta the last two years pay eventually but it will ALSO save a two year increment of longevity pay from year one for the next 12 years both as FO AND CA. It also delays getting max vacation time and other longevity related benefits.

It is absolutely in Delta’s FINANCIAL interest to flow as few and as late as possible.

 

This makes zero sense. If they don’t flow a pilot they need to hire a pilot off the street. Either option has the same cost to Delta.

 

If you're looking at the individual's W2, yes ... that's true. But that isn't how public corporation accounting works.

As noted above, they are going to hire someone on X date. That person has a set cost on year X+1, X+7 etc. That cost is the same for a flow or OTS hire. The theoretical difference will only show up (if anyone tracks it .. and they won't) then Widget #24601 is doesn't retire in 2055.

Mainline accounting will show an immediate benefit if a high cost regional captain is replaced with a lower cost one. That benefit will accrue to the decision makers immediately.

 

The current answer to the thread title is 6 years by the way. The drift has been considerable.

I guesstimate that faster than contractual flow will continue until regional wages are driven back down. If the lack of hiring at LCCs and ACMIs continues that process will be accelerated.

Commodities traders say prices take the escalator up and the elevator down. Pilots are commodities too even if that characterization hurts our feelings. Graph our average pay over the past 3-4 decades.

 

They can rather easily hire others equally or more qualified - like retiring military - who are never going to max out a 37 year career, who will never get past year 12 scale or hit the higher levels of vacation usage. Or who for that matter will be covered by TRICARE and have no experience with being in a union. They absolutely do not have to hire someone who will max out their longevity for pay 25 years of a 37 year career. The longer they can keep someone at regional pay the better off they are economically. That’s why they HAVE regional feed. If they truly wanted progression from their regional to the major they could have a single contract. Wonder why they never suggest that in negotiations.

 

No, the cost is NOT the same, because the guy who flows will ALSO be replaced. By someone who will make very nearly as much. The 12 year CA making $202 an hour gets replaced by an FO (previously making $117.00 an hour) who will require a training period when he is STILL being paid while contributing nothing to the bottom line as well as utilizing instructor and Sim time and then himself be making $180 an hour. But before that can even happen, someone must be hired to replace him/her a with recruitment, interview, background check, etc time, and then given an ATP and type rating (again while contributing nothing to the bottom line) who - if they don’t wash out - will then get paid $102 an hour.

Max savings on the new junior CA is $5 an hour times 1000 hours a year (and seriously, how many of us actually fly 1000 hours every year) and on the new FO is $15 an hour for the first year and less for each subsequent year. So max possible salary savings the first year is going to be $20k and potential savings goes downhill every year thereafter. While the costs to make that switch are front loaded at recruiting p, initial, and upgrade training costs with inherent downtime during which the two “workers” produce no revenue and are occupying a company hotel and receiving company benefits and per diem.

You can’t SERIOUSLY believe that’s an economic win for the company. If you do, you desperately need to take an accounting class

if faster flow made sense for AA, trust me, their own accountants would be pushing for it.

 

That's exactly what is happening. PSA has a deal where captains get a major raise after 5 years. So they are flowing people faster because the new captains are paid much much less.

Agree that would not be a major savings under historical compensation models. But they have a queue-screwed compensation model atm.