Vacancy 26-09 (WB’s are back like the McRib)
 

Some big WB CA openings. Not a sizable FO offering.

92 Total WB CA vacancies

787 CA
EWR 27
LAX 12
ORD 10
SFO 18

777 CA
DCA 10
EWR 15

756 CA
EWR 17

787 FO
EWR 24
LAX 3
SFO 5

777 FO
DCA 14

756 FO
EWR 10

737 FO
EWR 75
SFO 75

The 737 FO is enough for 2 new hire classes not including the 600 vacancies from the last couple bids.

Sizable is relative. ;) Much less than last vacancy, I had expected more with all of these big hiring plans.

Over 150 NBCA reductions.

It’s not reductions, it’s a manpower tool pertaining to this (and every vacancy) to control the award. It’s been discussed so many times, but I am too lazy to explain it again.

Although I don’t see anything in the min/max to suggest what I think you mean, so perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

MIN/MAX has 5041 current and MAX NBCA, and 4888 MIN NBCA. If they elect to drop NBCA down to MIN by not replacing the NBCAs that bid WBCA/WBFO it COULD reduce the amount of NBCAs by 153. We wont know until the awards come out.

.....

Ah… that’s a misinterpretation of the min/max, then. Restricting backfills is done on the max side. There isn’t a loss to NBCA positions as posted and even then, it’s an over simplification of what they actually mean as a vacancy tool.

that’s not how it works

this is good to know! Thanks for the insight.

The only thing I could find was this (ALPA): "As with prior standing practice, the published MIN is not indicative of a staffing target. The Company uses this parameter to control attrition and manage manpower and training capacities". So, to me that sounds like not planning to reduce the amount of NBCAs, but depending on things there could be fewer NBCAs after the awards. If I am wrong about that please let me know where to find the right answer.....

I sure hope RStrawberry is ok