![]() |
17-03v
It's up. More 777 and 787 slots. LAX continues to shrink.
|
Originally Posted by Terrain Inop
(Post 2240053)
It's up. More 777 and 787 slots. LAX continues to shrink.
That's the big news |
Originally Posted by MasterOfPuppets
(Post 2240127)
Did you forget to read that there are 90+ New CA bids before backfills???
That's the big news |
Half of which are widebody slots
|
Going to be lots of movement. Bid what you want.
|
I want a pony.
Thank Dude I bid what I did when I did. |
Originally Posted by oldmako
(Post 2240196)
I want a pony.
Thank Dude I bid what I did when I did. “What are you doing?” the psychiatrist asked. “With all this manure,” the little boy replied, beaming, “there must be a pony in here somewhere.” |
Perfect! ;)
|
Originally Posted by SpecialTracking
(Post 2240224)
Worried that their son was too optimistic, the parents of a little boy took him to a psychiatrist. In an attempt to dampen the boy’s spirits, the psychiatrist showed him into a room piled high with nothing but horse manure. Instead of displaying distaste, the little boy clambered to the top of the pile and began digging.
“What are you doing?” the psychiatrist asked. “With all this manure,” the little boy replied, beaming, “there must be a pony in here somewhere.” |
Originally Posted by svergin
(Post 2240245)
Instead of a pony he found his IAH Displacement Letter.
|
Somewhat off topic, but does anyone predict some -400 FO slots opening as the fleet winds down and people transfer out when they choose as opposed to holding on...
|
Originally Posted by ReadyRsv
(Post 2240272)
Somewhat off topic, but does anyone predict some -400 FO slots opening as the fleet winds down and people transfer out when they choose as opposed to holding on...
|
Ahh, that makes sense. Good to know! Happy bidding.
|
Originally Posted by svergin
(Post 2240245)
Instead of a pony he found his IAH Displacement Letter.
|
Today -
<<By DAVID KOENIG, AP Business Writer 3 Hours Ago DALLAS (AP) — OPEC now sees oil prices rising more slowly over the next few years than it had expected, as the oversupply of crude takes longer to work off. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries said Tuesday it expects crude will rise $5 a year to $60 per barrel by 2020. A year ago, OPEC forecast that oil would hit $80 by 2020. Brent crude, which is used to price international oils, fell 11 cents to $46.04 a barrel on Tuesday. OPEC cited many factors that could limit energy demand, from slower growth in China to higher household debt. The cartel expects global economic growth of 3.4 percent over six years, down from a 3.6 percent prediction a year ago.>> |
Tough news indeed.
|
Originally Posted by ReadyRsv
(Post 2240298)
Ahh, that makes sense. Good to know! Happy bidding.
|
You have to understand the inertia on the 747. Meaning, once at rest, it's likely they will continue to stay at rest. Meaning, not likely to bid off, and hold on to the bitter end.
Even that, most are senior enough they can hold just about anything they want, so in most cases, a free bump is meaningless. |
Originally Posted by Dave Fitzgerald
(Post 2240418)
You have to understand the inertia on the 747. Meaning, once at rest, it's likely they will continue to stay at rest. Meaning, not likely to bid off, and hold on to the bitter end.
Even that, most are senior enough they can hold just about anything they want, so in most cases, a free bump is meaningless. |
Originally Posted by Dave Fitzgerald
(Post 2240418)
You have to understand the inertia on the 747. Meaning, once at rest, it's likely they will continue to stay at rest. Meaning, not likely to bid off, and hold on to the bitter end.
Even that, most are senior enough they can hold just about anything they want, so in most cases, a free bump is meaningless. Displacement allows a pilot to bid any position his seniority can hold, no vacancy required, and bid out asap if he decides he doesn't like the new position. You call that meaningless? The top third of SFO -400 FOs can hold 787 CAP or better. When was the last time the company posted 70+ 787 CAP bids? I think you'll see the -400 fleet drawdown be anything but meaningless to manpower planning. |
There is a reason the top 3rd are still fos. It is reasonable to presume using past performance the about half will bid fo again. For schedule or pay. A high value fo line can be worth more than a low value capt.
|
Originally Posted by blockplus
(Post 2240686)
There is a reason the top 3rd are still fos. It is reasonable to presume using past performance the about half will bid fo again. For schedule or pay. A high value fo line can be worth more than a low value capt.
|
1st snap shot is out.
|
I commute with several 400 guys to SFO, very senior FOs. They all corroborate what awax says, and are all planning to do exactly what he says.
|
Originally Posted by Grumble
(Post 2240884)
I commute with several 400 guys to SFO, very senior FOs. They all corroborate what awax says, and are all planning to do exactly what he says.
|
Originally Posted by SUX4U
(Post 2240888)
Makes sense. If I stay on the 787 snap shots I might just stick with it, as I really doubt a mid 11K seniority would get a one off vacancy on the 400 before the rapid retirements starts next year.
|
67 would have to get passed into icao law. Then the faa would have to propose a rule change with comment period.
I bet you don't see 67 for at least 3 yrs. If at all. That being said if the faa changed it first. They could do domestic. |
Originally Posted by socalflyboy
(Post 2240935)
Can it be next year already? Preferably before 67 gets put into law?
Is ALPA aware of this? If ALPA allows any more changes in the retirement law I would not be in support of ALPA whatsoever. This career has yet to reimburse those of us who have suffered under onerous economic conditions. We have supply and demand on our side, and furthermore, any changes to increase the retirement law would not be in keeping with sane decision-making as it applies to aviation safety. Enough is enough. I would like to see ALPA out campaigning right now to keep the law at 65 and drive results instead of having the results being driven by outside governments or special interest groups. I remember all-to-well the "senior pilots coalition." Talk about greed. |
Originally Posted by blockplus
(Post 2240989)
67 would have to get passed into icao law. Then the faa would have to propose a rule change with comment period.
I bet you don't see 67 for at least 3 yrs. If at all. That being said if the faa changed it first. They could do domestic. That's true. BUT..............ALPA could be proactive and look these foreigners into the eye and stare them down and say NO, oh NO you don't. Instead of ALPA's ineffective efforts in shadow-boxing open skies and NAI maybe we could influence events at ICAO. |
Originally Posted by baseball
(Post 2241028)
Is ALPA aware of this?
If ALPA allows any more changes in the retirement law I would not be in support of ALPA whatsoever. This career has yet to reimburse those of us who have suffered under onerous economic conditions. We have supply and demand on our side, and furthermore, any changes to increase the retirement law would not be in keeping with sane decision-making as it applies to aviation safety. Enough is enough. I would like to see ALPA out campaigning right now to keep the law at 65 and drive results instead of having the results being driven by outside governments or special interest groups. I remember all-to-well the "senior pilots coalition." Talk about greed. So your premise is that the career owes you something but owes pilots who lost their pensions as they retired at 60 nothing? And it's only you who has "...suffered under onerous economic conditions...". Tool. |
Originally Posted by awax
(Post 2241038)
So your premise is that the career owes you something but owes pilots who lost their pensions as they retired at 60 nothing? And it's only you who has "...suffered under onerous economic conditions...".
Tool. each group wants more than the other group. (retired, senior, 18 yr double furlough, new hires) i fly with new fo's who are earning now what i was earning as a 25 yr captain under the bk contract. baseball is a typical pilot tool. |
Originally Posted by buscappy
(Post 2241051)
"tool" times ten
each group wants more than the other group. (retired, senior, 18 yr double furlough, new hires) i fly with new fo's who are earning now what i was earning as a 25 yr captain under the bk contract. baseball is a typical pilot tool. [emoji12] I kid, I kid. |
Originally Posted by awax
(Post 2241038)
So your premise is that the career owes you something but owes pilots who lost their pensions as they retired at 60 nothing? And it's only you who has "...suffered under onerous economic conditions...".
Tool. I agree with him. I don't want any changes. It absolutely sucked for the old hats getting screwed out of the A plan, but we ALL lost our A plan. |
OK, so back to this 17-03v vacancy thing...
Looking at the snapshot from yesterday, I've got a question for the WB guys. Why are the 777 FO slots going senior to the 787 FO slots? The 777 slots in the snapshot are going from 6000 seniority to 10,000. The 787 slots go from 7800 to 11,700. So there's about an 1800 seniority shift, or two years seniority, mas o menos. Any theories on this from some SFO wide body guys? QOL is better? more efficient trips on the triple? Why the difference here? |
Originally Posted by Point99orbetter
(Post 2241103)
OK, so back to this 17-03v vacancy thing...
Looking at the snapshot from yesterday, I've got a question for the WB guys. Why are the 777 FO slots going senior to the 787 FO slots? The 777 slots in the snapshot are going from 6000 seniority to 10,000. The 787 slots go from 7800 to 11,700. So there's about an 1800 seniority shift, or two years seniority, mas o menos. Any theories on this from some SFO wide body guys? QOL is better? more efficient trips on the triple? Why the difference here? |
Originally Posted by Point99orbetter
(Post 2241103)
Any theories on this from some SFO wide body guys?
QOL is better? more efficient trips on the triple? Why the difference here?
Originally Posted by intrepidcv11
(Post 2241116)
Just my guess, but junior 787 flying in SFO increasingly sucks. You won't avoid a 5-6 day China trip esp in summer once you get past 50%. Can't trade out of them and those trips get old fast. Senior stuff is some of best in system, but other then occasional bunkie seat you won't get it.
2 things you don't want to miss in China: 1.) The tour of the Great Wall. 2.) Your flight outta there. SFO 787 has largely become the China shuttle, and many astute practitioners can't come up with a good reason to justify going there. It's not quality of life, sanitation, air quality, personal hygiene, food safety, or clean water. |
Originally Posted by intrepidcv11
(Post 2241116)
Just my guess, but junior 787 flying in SFO increasingly sucks. You won't avoid a 5-6 day China trip esp in summer once you get past 50%. Can't trade out of them and those trips get old fast. Senior stuff is some of best in system, but other then occasional bunkie seat you won't get it.
|
Originally Posted by UALinIAH
(Post 2241082)
I didn't read his post like that. I read it as ALPA should have fought tooth and nail to keep age 60 but they didn't.
|
Originally Posted by Point99orbetter
(Post 2241103)
OK, so back to this 17-03v vacancy thing...
Looking at the snapshot from yesterday, I've got a question for the WB guys. Why are the 777 FO slots going senior to the 787 FO slots? The 777 slots in the snapshot are going from 6000 seniority to 10,000. The 787 slots go from 7800 to 11,700. So there's about an 1800 seniority shift, or two years seniority, mas o menos. Any theories on this from some SFO wide body guys? QOL is better? more efficient trips on the triple? Why the difference here? |
Originally Posted by pa slammer
(Post 2241061)
us new hires have to fly way more advanced 700, 800 and 900 series guppies. Much tougher than those old 200 and 300 models.
[emoji12] i kid, i kid. 😂😂😂 .............. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:29 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands