Vacancy 1911V is up.
06-24-2019, 05:45 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
Chuck D
The game of ASM, RPM, CASM is a tactic the Company played years ago. We don’t control marketing decisions, but historically DAL has always beaten UAL in the area of RPM and that is main reason they are consistently more profitable than UAL. Kirby seems to be leading a trend to narrow that gap and that is good.
My post is only to show growth has limits and history is our teacher.
Oh and the numbers show lUAL contract seems to have been more manpower efficient than our current contract. But, I much prefer the current one.
The game of ASM, RPM, CASM is a tactic the Company played years ago. We don’t control marketing decisions, but historically DAL has always beaten UAL in the area of RPM and that is main reason they are consistently more profitable than UAL. Kirby seems to be leading a trend to narrow that gap and that is good.
My post is only to show growth has limits and history is our teacher.
Oh and the numbers show lUAL contract seems to have been more manpower efficient than our current contract. But, I much prefer the current one.
06-24-2019, 07:22 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,160
Originally Posted by Chuck D
This is why it's cool to have options. I can think of many people who would hate life if they were commuting to global rsv.
One straw man is a 40-something who's been slogging it in the regional trenches for a long time, commuting and now has young kids and finally at UAL w/ reasonable pay/qol as a narrow body pilot. Ditch that to commute to SFO or EWR for global rsv? Not a chance for some.
Another is a relatively senior narrow body pilot who hits Hawaii, the Caribbean, AK or whatever their pleasure, can pick up premium pay trip when desired, gets the vacations they want and likely most weekends off. That theoretical $40k difference goes completely out the window for them when you compare baseline rsv to the ability to hit 100+ credit hours when desired.
Lots of ways to skin a cat but hitching a ride at the bottom of a WB list ain't for everyone.
One straw man is a 40-something who's been slogging it in the regional trenches for a long time, commuting and now has young kids and finally at UAL w/ reasonable pay/qol as a narrow body pilot. Ditch that to commute to SFO or EWR for global rsv? Not a chance for some.
Another is a relatively senior narrow body pilot who hits Hawaii, the Caribbean, AK or whatever their pleasure, can pick up premium pay trip when desired, gets the vacations they want and likely most weekends off. That theoretical $40k difference goes completely out the window for them when you compare baseline rsv to the ability to hit 100+ credit hours when desired.
Lots of ways to skin a cat but hitching a ride at the bottom of a WB list ain't for everyone.
Currently junior NB CA line holder. I found WB FO reserve less fatiguing.
There's a reason why WB FO is senior to NB CA. As far as 'years on WB FO reserve,' that depends on a whole lot of things and one can't make that blanket statement.
The great thing about this airline is that there are a lot of choices.
06-25-2019, 02:46 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,193
Originally Posted by Andy
I rode the bottom of WB FO list for a while as a commuter. It didn't bother me; YMMV.
Currently junior NB CA line holder. I found WB FO reserve less fatiguing.
There's a reason why WB FO is senior to NB CA. As far as 'years on WB FO reserve,' that depends on a whole lot of things and one can't make that blanket statement.
The great thing about this airline is that there are a lot of choices.
Currently junior NB CA line holder. I found WB FO reserve less fatiguing.
There's a reason why WB FO is senior to NB CA. As far as 'years on WB FO reserve,' that depends on a whole lot of things and one can't make that blanket statement.
The great thing about this airline is that there are a lot of choices.
06-25-2019, 07:21 AM
#44
New Hire
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2019
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by Andy
I rode the bottom of WB FO list for a while as a commuter. It didn't bother me; YMMV.
Currently junior NB CA line holder. I found WB FO reserve less fatiguing.
There's a reason why WB FO is senior to NB CA. As far as 'years on WB FO reserve,' that depends on a whole lot of things and one can't make that blanket statement.
The great thing about this airline is that there are a lot of choices.
Currently junior NB CA line holder. I found WB FO reserve less fatiguing.
There's a reason why WB FO is senior to NB CA. As far as 'years on WB FO reserve,' that depends on a whole lot of things and one can't make that blanket statement.
The great thing about this airline is that there are a lot of choices.
Rule number two, never commute.
Rule number three, try not to be on reserve.
Everybody has choices to make, those are my top three.
06-25-2019, 07:06 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,138
Originally Posted by Regularguy
Ok the number of pilots represents the actual size of operation flown by UAL, not the hireling RJ outsourcing airplanes.
Historically the size of operation that requires about 12K+ pilots becomes a huge moving object that when the winds of change come about the losses mount very rapidly. Another analogy is when a small rudder attempt to turn a big ship (Titanic) and it just won't change course quick enough.
Of course history is never a perfect predictor of the future, but we also tend to repeat the same mistakes regardless of our past.
How many pilots have we added since the merge?
Mainline fleet:
2010 - 710 pilots 9878 13.9 per airplane
2011 - 701 pilots 9929 14 per airplane
2012 - 702 pilots 10187 14.5 per airplane
2013 - 693 pilots 10553 15 per airplane
2014 - 691 pilots 10612 15.6 per airplane
2015 - 715 pilots 11204 15.7 per airplane
2016 - 737 pilots 11454 15.5 per airplane - Kirby took charge this year
2017 - 744 pilots 11494 15.4 per airplane
2018 - 770 pilots 11742 15.2 per airplane
UAL has 60 more airplanes since the merge and added 1864 pilots. That's 31 additional pilots per additional airplane since the merge.
Yes stats can be twisted and lie to us, but the efficiency of a large operation seems to begin to decrease at a more rapid rate.
And since I'm not in charge of anything beyond my scope as a pilot all I can do is point out what I'm sure the World HQ masters already know.
Now you can read the numbers any way you want.
All info from UALCAL Hlds 10K reports.
What I see this management wanting is to keep mainline about the same size and expand the outsourcing in every way possible. Thus they expand UAL's market without adding capital expenses to the balance sheet.
Historically the size of operation that requires about 12K+ pilots becomes a huge moving object that when the winds of change come about the losses mount very rapidly. Another analogy is when a small rudder attempt to turn a big ship (Titanic) and it just won't change course quick enough.
Of course history is never a perfect predictor of the future, but we also tend to repeat the same mistakes regardless of our past.
How many pilots have we added since the merge?
Mainline fleet:
2010 - 710 pilots 9878 13.9 per airplane
2011 - 701 pilots 9929 14 per airplane
2012 - 702 pilots 10187 14.5 per airplane
2013 - 693 pilots 10553 15 per airplane
2014 - 691 pilots 10612 15.6 per airplane
2015 - 715 pilots 11204 15.7 per airplane
2016 - 737 pilots 11454 15.5 per airplane - Kirby took charge this year
2017 - 744 pilots 11494 15.4 per airplane
2018 - 770 pilots 11742 15.2 per airplane
UAL has 60 more airplanes since the merge and added 1864 pilots. That's 31 additional pilots per additional airplane since the merge.
Yes stats can be twisted and lie to us, but the efficiency of a large operation seems to begin to decrease at a more rapid rate.
And since I'm not in charge of anything beyond my scope as a pilot all I can do is point out what I'm sure the World HQ masters already know.
Now you can read the numbers any way you want.
All info from UALCAL Hlds 10K reports.
What I see this management wanting is to keep mainline about the same size and expand the outsourcing in every way possible. Thus they expand UAL's market without adding capital expenses to the balance sheet.
06-25-2019, 07:08 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,138
Originally Posted by drywhitetoast
You are assuming the 3-5% is mainline growth when it's recently been 1% and the other 3-4% has been their regional partners. It's got to the point when they announce a new destination you assume it's a regional flight.
Also you don’t here about mainline on new routes but did you here that mainline is now going to SBA? Probably not because we already served it. Go look at how many airports used to be regional only that see mainline now. I also read somewhere that we will be, or are, flying DEN-COS with mainline this summer.....how long has that been?
06-25-2019, 08:24 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,160
Originally Posted by Grumble
Which base and fleet for WBFO and NBCA? Why the switch, regret it?
SFO 320CA.
I could have taken LAX 787FO when the domicile closed but I'd now be the bottom FO. I'm 80% on the bus in SFO.
The bus is different; a lot more work. Also a lot of redeyes.
I'll go back to WB FO when I'm burned out.
06-26-2019, 05:57 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
Originally Posted by MasterOfPuppets
How did you factor in the 1400 furlough returns since the merger?
My guess is these are actual bodies on the property that were available for work.
You can massage them any way you see fit.
For those that f you who want to speculate on future Mainline growth consider which airplane and the number retiring over the next decade or so.
A320/319, B767s, 757, 777As?
Now consider the airplane order time; place order and put airplane into service.
06-26-2019, 06:44 PM
#50
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by MasterOfPuppets
How did you factor in the 1400 furlough returns since the merger?
But you are asking about why 1400 guys (actually less) returning are skewing the numbers? They are not. If you look at the year and numbers of planes vs pilots you will see a curve, less planes (parked) and more pilots followed by more planes (deliveries) and respectively less pilots per plane.
There has been approximately 3000 new hires since 2010. There has been a significant amount (in the thousands?) of retirements. Those new hires in addition to the 1300+ furlough returns was managements decision.
They either think we need more pilots per airframe, or there will be significant growth (max's etc) or we have grown by more wide bodies. I don't have those ac growth numbers handy. As Regular guy said, those are just the numbers.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
