Skywest Hiring numbers
08-18-2015, 09:30 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2014
Posts: 613
Originally Posted by Is offline
anyone who comes to OO expecting less than a 4 year upgrade really needs to rethink their decision process. It can be 4 today and 8 tomorrow. The flying we will be getting will be replacing other airframes.
08-18-2015, 11:27 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 504
Originally Posted by TheFly
Upgrade times are an ever changing number, at every airline, on every level. No way to truly tell what tomorrow will bring. Seniority is everything...the sooner one gets in, the sooner one can move up...and that's the truth.
08-18-2015, 12:53 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2014
Posts: 613
Originally Posted by Turbosina
That spreadsheet is about the only reason to visit the sapa forums these days. Keep it up, sir....
I use mine to track upgrades, block hours, PBS bidding pilots and reserve percentage. That is why I am not nearly as optimistic about our pay package leading to more staffing. The company has proven over and over again that they are willing to sell our QOL down the river and my data doesn't show SGU doing anything different.
We were supposed to see an increase in staffing due to 117. Well if you look at our staffing vs block hours over the past couple years, we didn't add pilots for 117. Now here comes the company wanting to reflow the line holders with the EFB. Again, this will be to cover for decreased reserve staffing. All the reasons given for reflow should be covered with reserves.
All of our issues with trip efficiency will not get better by adding pilot input on pairing creation. It will only get better when AS and JO are shown the door and SGU decides they need to do something different because "the way we always have done it" isn't working anymore. The fact that SAPA was able to show increased efficiency with Virtual Domiciles and it was shot down, should be a good indicator of how much SGU wants to work with the pilots on solutions.
08-18-2015, 02:47 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: CRJ
Posts: 249
Originally Posted by disillusioned
Upgrade was at 2 years when I started. After over 7 years, I had my first opportunity to upgrade. It would require a 4 hour commute to sit reserve. I'll upgrade after I can get decent seniority on the west coast other than Denver (85% 4 day trips, no thanks) If that takes another year or so, so be it. I honestly would rather spend my time applying vs studying for upgrade.
08-18-2015, 03:13 PM
#37
Dumb Pilot
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Position: Broke
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by amcnd
Ya. Upgrades can swing widly. Ive seen them offer newhires captain spots at OO.. Right this second its 3.5"ish years. Heard the VP say the plan on it droping to 2.5"ish by this winter...
08-18-2015, 04:09 PM
#38
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: EMB 145 CPT
Posts: 2,934
Originally Posted by disillusioned
That one is not mine, but I use it to make sure I am getting the same data. Guess we will see how useful the data is going forward. I'm sure it will be outdated by the time the post gets approved.
I use mine to track upgrades, block hours, PBS bidding pilots and reserve percentage. That is why I am not nearly as optimistic about our pay package leading to more staffing. The company has proven over and over again that they are willing to sell our QOL down the river and my data doesn't show SGU doing anything different.
We were supposed to see an increase in staffing due to 117. Well if you look at our staffing vs block hours over the past couple years, we didn't add pilots for 117. Now here comes the company wanting to reflow the line holders with the EFB. Again, this will be to cover for decreased reserve staffing. All the reasons given for reflow should be covered with reserves.
All of our issues with trip efficiency will not get better by adding pilot input on pairing creation. It will only get better when AS and JO are shown the door and SGU decides they need to do something different because "the way we always have done it" isn't working anymore. The fact that SAPA was able to show increased efficiency with Virtual Domiciles and it was shot down, should be a good indicator of how much SGU wants to work with the pilots on solutions.
I use mine to track upgrades, block hours, PBS bidding pilots and reserve percentage. That is why I am not nearly as optimistic about our pay package leading to more staffing. The company has proven over and over again that they are willing to sell our QOL down the river and my data doesn't show SGU doing anything different.
We were supposed to see an increase in staffing due to 117. Well if you look at our staffing vs block hours over the past couple years, we didn't add pilots for 117. Now here comes the company wanting to reflow the line holders with the EFB. Again, this will be to cover for decreased reserve staffing. All the reasons given for reflow should be covered with reserves.
All of our issues with trip efficiency will not get better by adding pilot input on pairing creation. It will only get better when AS and JO are shown the door and SGU decides they need to do something different because "the way we always have done it" isn't working anymore. The fact that SAPA was able to show increased efficiency with Virtual Domiciles and it was shot down, should be a good indicator of how much SGU wants to work with the pilots on solutions.
If staffing hasn't increased for 117, how is the flying being covered? I know your CCF has gone down a bit but not enough to make up for the increased staffing 117 required.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
