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

what ALPA says is correct don’t read to much into MIN numbers unless you are in a known shrinking base (DEN 756).

they use the min to meter training. For all we know they awarded 150 extra NB CAs in anticipation of this bid. OR the training pipeline is full so they need to meter awards to prevent delays in training.

the min max means only 1 thing what number triggers a backfill…..that’s it

hopefully they give you a CJO so that you can the Delta forums…

Yes, there could be fewer captains after the award depending on the bidding patterns of pilots in the vacancy. But it is not restricted to a lower number than present. A loss of 150 positions would be indicated by the reduction in the MAX by 150 and again, that would not really a loss of positions, but a target to achieve on this vacancy in isolation.

To clarify the min max discussion… It always seems like people are saying different things. Here’s the bottom line as far as I can tell, using an example:

In the previous vacancy (26-07), the DEN737CA min max were both 537 and the category summary shows 536 after the award. The way I understand it, that means that if they were to train out 26-07, there would have been 536 Denver 737 captains.

For vacancy 26-09, the min is 518 and the max is 530. So let’s say the category summary for 26-09 ends up with 530 pilots. Doesn’t that mean that the company has effectively shrunk that category by 6 pilots? That a bunch of people bid out, and they didn’t backfill everyone? Seems straightforward.

You don't work here, bud. You won't be working at delta, either.

No. The NBCA MAX in this case is equivalent to all pilots currently in that seat or with a vacancy award to that seat. So there is no shrinking from what is to what will be assuming that all pilots leaving those categories are replaced by someone who wants it (which recent history says will be the case).

No. MIN/MAX is not "desired staffing levels". Its a tool to control which categories should and should not be backfilled because of training capacity. Between recent vacancy bids with a bunch of 737 CA and most of the new hires classes being 737 FO they probably have a sizeable training pipeline and not interested in unplanned training. So they lower the MAX to prevent from awarding people in categories on the 737 that would negatively affect training pipeline.

You have that wrong or maybe I am interpreting what you are saying wrong.

When the number goes below MIN is when backfills happen.

Lowering the MAX below current staffing levels would force a displacement.

thank god I try and be normal would you please! You really need to be at Delta

It WOULD be great if that were now the case.

Also a first.

The min/max can be used to control churn and meter training. It can also be used to attrite a base over time. You can’t know without following many bids.

setting every nbca category min slightly less than current is more indicative of churn management than somehow wanting a global, minor reduction in captains at every single base

Plus we’re literally gaining airplanes at a good clip, WB and NB. I can’t recall our biggest WB bids over the last few years but this is around 100 CA slots. That’s pretty excellent all things considered.

No. Nothing about MIN/MAX "forces" a displacement. MIN/MAX is NOT staffing levels. Its a tool they use for the vacancy award solver to control how many awards on a bid based on what the training department said they could handle in addition to what crew resources needs for staffing. If a fleet (737 for example) tells them that the 737 training pipeline is jammed for the next 4 months and to not allow any CA to bid in because they need the space for already awarded CA and new hire FOs then they set the MAX at a lower number so that as people upgrade to WB etc they are not backfilled as that would impact training.

They should probably not even show these because they do not 100% represent how many bodies they need in seats, but just how much training they want to have happen in the next few months.

You will fit right in with the culture there . Congrats in advance

So if MIN/MAX are not staffing levels, is there a better number somewhere that indicates the company’s desired number for a given seat?

yeah the MIN/MAX.

the problem is people freak out every time the MIN drops. unless we are shrinking don’t think to hard about it. Sometimes the MIN soul purpose is to meter the training load.

im in the “attrit base over time” camp. Look at MCO. Min on FO is 40(!) lower. Captain is 10 lower. That base was 230 in each seat at one point.

just close it already and rip the bandaid off.

This exactly. They absolutely do attrit bases slowly... if you slowly let people upgrade / change to WB and don't backfill, it's the same as shrinking the base. Same w retirements if they don't backfill.

People keep saying the min is meant to meter training, which is true, but the other side of the conversation is also true. Say for any given BES (ABC737CA) the max is 200 and the min is 190. During this vacancy there are exactly 10 ABC737CA that bid to another BES, then the company will not backfill and ABC737CA will indeed shrink 10 pilots. So in the short term they really are willing to shrink it, and yes that's perhaps the training environment couldn't handle backfill training courses. The fact is, they're still shrinking it though. They may on the next vacancy put more vacancies in there to return those 10 when training load lighten or they may not. It's their decision.

yeah. People say don’t commute, which is true if you can make that happen. But man, it’s frustrating to live in a base you can’t hold that just keeps on getting smaller. I’m closing in on half way on the seniority list, and junior to the bottom MCO CA (so no base trade option), and I don’t think I’ll ever be able to hold the base before I retire. (No, I don’t have 30+ years left).

oh well.

My wife and I both want me to be able to live and work in base. Both of us understand the massive QOL boost it provides. We’re having to consider IAH and leave FL overall. MCO just isn’t happening anytime soon and I’m far more junior to you.

So it looks to me like there really shouldn’t be “two camps” regarding min max, and I’m not sure why some people say “it has nothing to do with staffing!” every time there’s a post expressing dismay at a low min.

i haven’t seen anything to dispute this: Min/max is basically the staffing level. Yes, they can massage it to meter training, but it’s the single place (other than a displacement) where they set how many pilots they need. I glanced at a couple categories that have definitely reduced numbers over the last few awards via steadily lowering min mx.

If a vacancy ends with 500 pilots on the category summary for your fleet, and the next vacancy ends with 490, they’ve shrunk the number of pilots in your category by not backfilling. Seems that’s the bottom line.

correct….dont over think it

Sounds like you could hold it just fine as an FO but money is more important…..choices.

ignoring any details about me that you aren’t privy to; one of the reasons for opening MCO was to entice Spirit, etc pilots over to UAL (so it goes). They won’t be able to hold that base for a decade, if they’re lucky. SWA or AA is the place to be for Florida if you’re a new hire.

the real reason is because United needed Captains and no one wanted the job in our current bases because our reserve rules were horrendous. So United looked where United pilots lived and opened bases. We would have had more if we didn’t sign the new contract.

but yes the enticing of Spirit and Frontier pilots was an added bonus.

lol Thx for the good laugh.

Also if someone is close to 50% seniority they were hired well before MCO was ever talked about as a possible new base.

I haven’t paid attention to either, but has the same attrition happened at the LAS base? They opened both at the same time for supposedly the same reason. All I’ve ever heard is how wildly profitable (or cost saving?) MCO is, and that LAS isn’t. Has that base shrunk too?

Also heard the two were opened as a work around to the virtual pilot bases when that conversation was going around, and that these two were a way around the push back the VPB’s caused.

yeah LAS capped out around 100 it’s down to mid 70s

im actually surprised it’s still around. The company got REALLY burned opening LAS. Everyone bid it to bust their seat lock and then bail. Once the “new base” designation expired and everyone saw the garbage flying they all bid back to SFO and LAX. No one wants it anymore.