2 months for our class in MCO, DEN maybe 10 or so

I was just in recurrent and the higher ups said ORD to stay current size, 85ish CAs 85ish FOs (only due to no gate availability) They would love more! They want MCO at 150 each seat (currently 85ish also), and Den to stay current size (275-300) each seat with possible small growth in DEN next year. My money would be on DEN being the fastest line for everyone hired in 2016, because that's were 95% of our upgrades will be from, and at worst they want to keep DEN at its current staffing levels. Also since DEN is the biggest base, it has the biggest open time pot. With mid level seniority, you can pretty much just build your own schedule.

Even as a new guy on reserve, I've been able to dictate my own schedule to a large extent. The aggressive reserve bid is icing on the cake to go hit the beach a few days a month. So being in Denver, even at the bottom of the barrel, ain't too bad.

I wonder where the recent articles about Frontier "hiring 500 flight attendants in Chicago" fits in to this. I would love to see CHI grow; the 42 new routes announced included a number of additional Chicago ones. Hopefully using the L concourse gates more as common use will aid in our growth there.

I saw several flights in ATL. Glad to see we're getting some competitive fares.

A lot of the hiring of flight attendants is because 70% of new hire FAs quit within their first year.

Holy Turnover, Batman!! Is that a verified number, or a WAG?

I knew the FA turnover was high, but not that high. Any visibility on if it's movement to other airlines (for presumably better paying and/or better work rules), or "this job isn't for me!," or something else altogether?

I asked this question once before about pilot turnover, and, if that 70% is accurate, I'd say it's even more applicable here: at what point does it become cheaper for the company to pay more / establish better work rules / "make it a better place to work" than to deal with high turnover?? I just don't get it....

Someone asked Mr. Baffle himself about the flight attendant turnover in my recurrent ground school last summer. He acknowled a very high turnover rate (thinking he said 50%, but can't remember for sure) within the first year.

He acknowledged that this is a problem, but insisted that the solution was better screening of applicants and specifically said that more pay and better work rules was NOT in the cards for a solution.

Based on my personal experience, I believe the safety of our operation and the quality of our product are suffering as a result of the high turnover rate. Management won't care and won't lift a finger to fix the problem until it costs them more to lose them than to keep them. We're nowhere near that point, so don't expect a solution anytime soon.

I have never seen or witness any sort of company or industry turn anything around without offering better working conditions/more money. Many US employers should take lessons from overseas businesses in how to treat your most value assets, employees!

Does anyone know what the chance of an interview might be with only 1000 ME instead of the stated 1500 ME? All the other boxes checked but that one.