Snapshot
10-30-2013 | 05:34 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Likes: 0
Might be overstaffed. But if you're talking about captains, 38 of the 329 are SUP/LTA/RET=11%. Snapshot shows 111%. Take out the SUP/LTA/RET and you've got 100%. This is very similar to other equipment as well.
Last edited by APC225; 10-30-2013 at 05:51 PM.
10-31-2013 | 05:53 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,982
Likes: 0
From: A320 Captain
Doesn't this method conflict with the way that people bid for percentages in base? If you say you want to be in a base at 70% to ensure that you are a lineholder...the numbers don't match up. For example, in November I'm at around 80% on 756 in EWR but according to the snapshot, I would be at 101%. There weren't that many people senior to me bid into the BES.
10-31-2013 | 08:23 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Doesn't this method conflict with the way that people bid for percentages in base? If you say you want to be in a base at 70% to ensure that you are a lineholder...the numbers don't match up. For example, in November I'm at around 80% on 756 in EWR but according to the snapshot, I would be at 101%. There weren't that many people senior to me bid into the BES.
If you notice all of the bases with 100% plus are "overstaffed to the max" number on the bid sheet. The company is trying to minimize staffing in those bases through attrition (movement or retirements).
The end game here has us with only 9616 pilots per this bid. Right now it's less expensive to overstaff rather than do a displacement bid. Also, we don't have the means to do all the training required for new hires and displacements simultaneously.
Although we're "hiring" off the street right now, take a look at the min numbers on these last 2 vacancy bids. A better term would be "optimum" instead of "min" in that column.
If you notice, a base that is growing like 787 LAX or ORD747 will always have max and min equal. That's because it's growing. Those bases where the "actual" and "max" are equal, means that base is set to shrink because the company can fill the schedule with the min pilots according to their manpower model.
We're just playing musical chairs at the moment. All these retirements we thought were going to move up in reality will just amount to stagnation since many of the retirement positions are currently being shrunk through attrition.
10-31-2013 | 08:38 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,982
Likes: 0
From: A320 Captain
That's why the "snapshot" is just an "estimate" of where you would be. When the actual bid comes out, no one will be above 100% in base since the result will have the actual as the denominator. In the snapshot, the min number is the denominator. However, you won't ever be able to bid "into" a base that is showing over 100% staffing unless there are enough pilots that bid out of that base during the vacancy to bring the base to 100% - 1 pilot or more, thus creating the vacancy.
If you notice all of the bases with 100% plus are "overstaffed to the max" number on the bid sheet. The company is trying to minimize staffing in those bases through attrition (movement or retirements).
The end game here has us with only 9616 pilots per this bid. Right now it's less expensive to overstaff rather than do a displacement bid. Also, we don't have the means to do all the training required for new hires and displacements simultaneously.
Although we're "hiring" off the street right now, take a look at the min numbers on these last 2 vacancy bids. A better term would be "optimum" instead of "min" in that column.
If you notice, a base that is growing like 787 LAX or ORD747 will always have max and min equal. That's because it's growing. Those bases where the "actual" and "max" are equal, means that base is set to shrink because the company can fill the schedule with the min pilots according to their manpower model.
We're just playing musical chairs at the moment. All these retirements we thought were going to move up in reality will just amount to stagnation since many of the retirement positions are currently being shrunk through attrition.
If you notice all of the bases with 100% plus are "overstaffed to the max" number on the bid sheet. The company is trying to minimize staffing in those bases through attrition (movement or retirements).
The end game here has us with only 9616 pilots per this bid. Right now it's less expensive to overstaff rather than do a displacement bid. Also, we don't have the means to do all the training required for new hires and displacements simultaneously.
Although we're "hiring" off the street right now, take a look at the min numbers on these last 2 vacancy bids. A better term would be "optimum" instead of "min" in that column.
If you notice, a base that is growing like 787 LAX or ORD747 will always have max and min equal. That's because it's growing. Those bases where the "actual" and "max" are equal, means that base is set to shrink because the company can fill the schedule with the min pilots according to their manpower model.
We're just playing musical chairs at the moment. All these retirements we thought were going to move up in reality will just amount to stagnation since many of the retirement positions are currently being shrunk through attrition.
The last vacancy bid showed 10 unfilled A320 FO slots in DCA. As of this bid, those vacancies were not assigned to any new hires yet. I'm curious why those vacancies are not reflected in this bid. I wonder if they have new hire names penciled into those slots...they just haven't been hired yet??
10-31-2013 | 09:51 AM
#9
Peace Love Understanding
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
From: Airbus
Doesn't this method conflict with the way that people bid for percentages in base? If you say you want to be in a base at 70% to ensure that you are a lineholder...the numbers don't match up. For example, in November I'm at around 80% on 756 in EWR but according to the snapshot, I would be at 101%. There weren't that many people senior to me bid into the BES.
Its like the CAL MC trying to put some United pilots at 117% for SLI saying that they were moving up by being stapled because they would end up less than 100%.
The bottom line is you are X out of Y total pilots, and X can't exceed Y for obvious reasons.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
