grappler72

Active pilots on vacancy 17-07 was 11,170. On the one that just closed it shows 11,108. Not much growth there, it seems we are just hiring for retirements.

GoCats67

True, but that was before the 747 fleet parking, so we went down on active numbers from then and are now on our way back up.

If you look at the minimum number that Manpower Planning wanted on the Vacancy 18-04 Min-Max document you see 10581. On the Vacancy that just closed (19-04 One year later) Min-Max you see 11021. That shows that Manpower Planning sees a need for an additional 440 pilots from a year ago.

More importantly the difference between minimum and actual is now very close (87 vs 460), so they don't have pilots in places they don't want like they used to. That means that now the increased need for pilots doesn't get filled by moving the excess from elsewhere, but gets filled by new hires.

Don't take this the wrong way, I would definitely want more and more pilots, but at least the data from Manpower now shows that we actually need more pilots. Since their view is much more important than mine, I am glad to see that even their stuff shows the need for more pilots.

pilotgolfer

Actually i think there has been significant growth. The difference is that they are getting more work out of each widget. We were certainly fat in many BES and with the shutdown of the 747, I think they have the manning more in line with what they want the utilization to be.

Reserve numbers are down, with guys flying more....at least on the 777. Not complaining...just an observation.

Andy

There's still some overmanning in some fleets/seats out there. LAX 787 comes to mind - I wouldn't be surprised to not see any vacancies there until 2020.

pilotgolfer

How is the Bus working for you?

Andy

Well, I have Christmas off.*

I'm moving up one or two every vacancy bid and have gotten lines for both Nov and Dec.

I miss WB flying; I'll give this some more time but may end up bidding back to 787 right seat. The pay difference is negligible and there's less time off on the Bus.

*I have a 30 hr layover in IND.

Dave Fitzgerald

Less time off on a narrow body is offset by the recovery time of international flying. So, at least for me, the usable time off is about the same. And, less wear and tear on the body domestic.

RJDio

So does that mean you’ll be bidding back to guppy captain

Andy

I've never had that issue when flying internationally. That includes SFO-PVG-LAX-PVG-SFO on the 787. YMMV.

pilotgolfer

I wonder if the lower cabin altitude in 787 makes that much of a difference. Im wiped out after any NRT trip. Im gonna give the guppy a chance for a while. If it sucks, i will bid 787.