Virgin America Latest and Greatest
09-18-2016, 12:37 PM
#2252
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,935
09-27-2016, 02:46 PM
#2254
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Posts: 784
I didn't think we were interviewing.
Is Alaska taking over the hiring process? Some of the guys in an AS thread we're claiming the VX poolies we're going to have an additional screening to make sure they meet alaska's standard. Whatever that means
Is Alaska taking over the hiring process? Some of the guys in an AS thread we're claiming the VX poolies we're going to have an additional screening to make sure they meet alaska's standard. Whatever that means
09-27-2016, 04:55 PM
#2255
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: MD-11 FO
Posts: 493
Nada...
I sent in the questionnaire and the trail went cold. Speculation would say Alaska has halted the VX hiring, but I personally have no clue.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
09-29-2016, 06:45 AM
#2257
New Hire
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 1
I've been in the pool since late Spring and I know there were interviews until late june or July so the pool is probably only 3-5 months deep if I had my guess. Hoping to get a call soon, nerve racking swimming around in the pool with the merger going on, feels a little like sitting in a lifeboat past titanic sinking hoping help comes (dramatic but its the best ive got ha)
10-01-2016, 08:51 AM
#2258
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 128
Heard on the line...
AS flight ops management in process of putting together analysis for use in decision on final fate of airbuses.
One of the large items under consideration is whether or not to bring the airplanes/crews up to the Alaska level (i.e RNP .1, handflown CAT III, etc.) which will cost money in euipment and training. The less interchangeable the airplanes are the higher the cost to run 2 fleet types; the bigger the difference the less likely they are to stick around much beyond a bridge period.
AS HR is going to take over hiring at both airlines in all positions (pilot and non-pilot) at deal close.
The following is my opinion...as I have seen this airlne operate for the last 10 years I have some guesses as to what is going to happen going forward fleet/base-wise...
According to management, when we got rid of the MD-80 7-8 years ago, it saved Alaska tens of millions/year in non-fuel cost. When AS employees ask management in various forms why we don't buy xxx airplane, one of the most cited reasons is the added cost of running two fleet types. I could possibly envision AS running a second fleet type if it gave us some new way to make money (787 anyone) but another fleet type of essentially the same airplane, not trying to troll, but I don't think it is likely that the Airbus survives beyond a bridge period.
Still not convinced? What about the Airbus 321NEO? Ask yourself this question...Why doesn't Alaska Airlines have an order in for the new Airbus?
Because they didn't want any.
JFK base long term...sorry, really don't see that happening either. Pilots at Alaska have been trying to get various bases opened by management over the years. In the last 10 years they have looked at ORD, DEN, SAN, Bay area, Hawaii, and PDX. Only PDX was opened. The hang up are the reserves. The last time they did a big study about 4-5 years ago they came up with $15 million dollars of cost to make a station a pilot base. Mostly that cost is the need to have reserves as most need for reserves is because of sick calls at the start of a trip. So the savings gained from the times the NYC reserves saved the day, the hotel cost savings, etc. need to exceed $15M. Additionally, Alaska runs the pairing generator to seemthe systemwide impact cost. For example, having a base in NYC could make the lines in PDX less efficient when all the NYC flying is taken out.
Alaska has always been able to cover trips at outstations pretty easily just by offering premium or by getting somebody home 12 hours early for the same pay.
How many pilots does Alaska have in the Bay Area that currently has much higher frequency then NYC is ever predicted to have?
Zero.
How many pilots are based in SAN that also has higher frequency then the whole NYC base would cover?
Zero.
How many pilots are based in Hawaii that represents 20% of Alaska Airlines capacity... zero.
Under Alpa merger policy, new hires after the announcement date get a DOH integration regardless of where you were actually hired.
We need to get this JCBA done ASAP so we don't get whip-sawed against each other. Not looking forward to the SLI results, but I am looking forward to getting on with this so we can hopefully grow like crazy.
Fraternally...
AS flight ops management in process of putting together analysis for use in decision on final fate of airbuses.
One of the large items under consideration is whether or not to bring the airplanes/crews up to the Alaska level (i.e RNP .1, handflown CAT III, etc.) which will cost money in euipment and training. The less interchangeable the airplanes are the higher the cost to run 2 fleet types; the bigger the difference the less likely they are to stick around much beyond a bridge period.
AS HR is going to take over hiring at both airlines in all positions (pilot and non-pilot) at deal close.
The following is my opinion...as I have seen this airlne operate for the last 10 years I have some guesses as to what is going to happen going forward fleet/base-wise...
According to management, when we got rid of the MD-80 7-8 years ago, it saved Alaska tens of millions/year in non-fuel cost. When AS employees ask management in various forms why we don't buy xxx airplane, one of the most cited reasons is the added cost of running two fleet types. I could possibly envision AS running a second fleet type if it gave us some new way to make money (787 anyone) but another fleet type of essentially the same airplane, not trying to troll, but I don't think it is likely that the Airbus survives beyond a bridge period.
Still not convinced? What about the Airbus 321NEO? Ask yourself this question...Why doesn't Alaska Airlines have an order in for the new Airbus?
Because they didn't want any.
JFK base long term...sorry, really don't see that happening either. Pilots at Alaska have been trying to get various bases opened by management over the years. In the last 10 years they have looked at ORD, DEN, SAN, Bay area, Hawaii, and PDX. Only PDX was opened. The hang up are the reserves. The last time they did a big study about 4-5 years ago they came up with $15 million dollars of cost to make a station a pilot base. Mostly that cost is the need to have reserves as most need for reserves is because of sick calls at the start of a trip. So the savings gained from the times the NYC reserves saved the day, the hotel cost savings, etc. need to exceed $15M. Additionally, Alaska runs the pairing generator to seemthe systemwide impact cost. For example, having a base in NYC could make the lines in PDX less efficient when all the NYC flying is taken out.
Alaska has always been able to cover trips at outstations pretty easily just by offering premium or by getting somebody home 12 hours early for the same pay.
How many pilots does Alaska have in the Bay Area that currently has much higher frequency then NYC is ever predicted to have?
Zero.
How many pilots are based in SAN that also has higher frequency then the whole NYC base would cover?
Zero.
How many pilots are based in Hawaii that represents 20% of Alaska Airlines capacity... zero.
Under Alpa merger policy, new hires after the announcement date get a DOH integration regardless of where you were actually hired.
We need to get this JCBA done ASAP so we don't get whip-sawed against each other. Not looking forward to the SLI results, but I am looking forward to getting on with this so we can hopefully grow like crazy.
Fraternally...
10-01-2016, 12:56 PM
#2259
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Posts: 31
Heard on the line...
AS flight ops management in process of putting together analysis for use in decision on final fate of airbuses.
One of the large items under consideration is whether or not to bring the airplanes/crews up to the Alaska level (i.e RNP .1, handflown CAT III, etc.) which will cost money in euipment and training. The less interchangeable the airplanes are the higher the cost to run 2 fleet types; the bigger the difference the less likely they are to stick around much beyond a bridge period.
According to management, when we got rid of the MD-80 7-8 years ago, it saved Alaska tens of millions/year in non-fuel cost. When AS employees ask management in various forms why we don't buy xxx airplane, one of the most cited reasons is the added cost of running two fleet types. I could possibly envision AS running a second fleet type if it gave us some new way to make money (787 anyone) but another fleet type of essentially the same airplane, not trying to troll, but I don't think it is likely that the Airbus survives beyond a bridge period.
Still not convinced? What about the Airbus 321NEO? Ask yourself this question...Why doesn't Alaska Airlines have an order in for the new Airbus?
Because they didn't want any.
AS flight ops management in process of putting together analysis for use in decision on final fate of airbuses.
One of the large items under consideration is whether or not to bring the airplanes/crews up to the Alaska level (i.e RNP .1, handflown CAT III, etc.) which will cost money in euipment and training. The less interchangeable the airplanes are the higher the cost to run 2 fleet types; the bigger the difference the less likely they are to stick around much beyond a bridge period.
According to management, when we got rid of the MD-80 7-8 years ago, it saved Alaska tens of millions/year in non-fuel cost. When AS employees ask management in various forms why we don't buy xxx airplane, one of the most cited reasons is the added cost of running two fleet types. I could possibly envision AS running a second fleet type if it gave us some new way to make money (787 anyone) but another fleet type of essentially the same airplane, not trying to troll, but I don't think it is likely that the Airbus survives beyond a bridge period.
Still not convinced? What about the Airbus 321NEO? Ask yourself this question...Why doesn't Alaska Airlines have an order in for the new Airbus?
Because they didn't want any.
10-02-2016, 08:17 PM
#2260
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 14
Heard on the line...
AS flight ops management in process of putting together analysis for use in decision on final fate of airbuses.
One of the large items under consideration is whether or not to bring the airplanes/crews up to the Alaska level (i.e RNP .1, handflown CAT III, etc.) which will cost money in euipment and training. The less interchangeable the airplanes are the higher the cost to run 2 fleet types; the bigger the difference the less likely they are to stick around much beyond a bridge period.
AS HR is going to take over hiring at both airlines in all positions (pilot and non-pilot) at deal close.
The following is my opinion...as I have seen this airlne operate for the last 10 years I have some guesses as to what is going to happen going forward fleet/base-wise...
According to management, when we got rid of the MD-80 7-8 years ago, it saved Alaska tens of millions/year in non-fuel cost. When AS employees ask management in various forms why we don't buy xxx airplane, one of the most cited reasons is the added cost of running two fleet types. I could possibly envision AS running a second fleet type if it gave us some new way to make money (787 anyone) but another fleet type of essentially the same airplane, not trying to troll, but I don't think it is likely that the Airbus survives beyond a bridge period.
Still not convinced? What about the Airbus 321NEO? Ask yourself this question...Why doesn't Alaska Airlines have an order in for the new Airbus?
Because they didn't want any.
JFK base long term...sorry, really don't see that happening either. Pilots at Alaska have been trying to get various bases opened by management over the years. In the last 10 years they have looked at ORD, DEN, SAN, Bay area, Hawaii, and PDX. Only PDX was opened. The hang up are the reserves. The last time they did a big study about 4-5 years ago they came up with $15 million dollars of cost to make a station a pilot base. Mostly that cost is the need to have reserves as most need for reserves is because of sick calls at the start of a trip. So the savings gained from the times the NYC reserves saved the day, the hotel cost savings, etc. need to exceed $15M. Additionally, Alaska runs the pairing generator to seemthe systemwide impact cost. For example, having a base in NYC could make the lines in PDX less efficient when all the NYC flying is taken out.
Alaska has always been able to cover trips at outstations pretty easily just by offering premium or by getting somebody home 12 hours early for the same pay.
How many pilots does Alaska have in the Bay Area that currently has much higher frequency then NYC is ever predicted to have?
Zero.
How many pilots are based in SAN that also has higher frequency then the whole NYC base would cover?
Zero.
How many pilots are based in Hawaii that represents 20% of Alaska Airlines capacity... zero.
Under Alpa merger policy, new hires after the announcement date get a DOH integration regardless of where you were actually hired.
We need to get this JCBA done ASAP so we don't get whip-sawed against each other. Not looking forward to the SLI results, but I am looking forward to getting on with this so we can hopefully grow like crazy.
Fraternally...
AS flight ops management in process of putting together analysis for use in decision on final fate of airbuses.
One of the large items under consideration is whether or not to bring the airplanes/crews up to the Alaska level (i.e RNP .1, handflown CAT III, etc.) which will cost money in euipment and training. The less interchangeable the airplanes are the higher the cost to run 2 fleet types; the bigger the difference the less likely they are to stick around much beyond a bridge period.
AS HR is going to take over hiring at both airlines in all positions (pilot and non-pilot) at deal close.
The following is my opinion...as I have seen this airlne operate for the last 10 years I have some guesses as to what is going to happen going forward fleet/base-wise...
According to management, when we got rid of the MD-80 7-8 years ago, it saved Alaska tens of millions/year in non-fuel cost. When AS employees ask management in various forms why we don't buy xxx airplane, one of the most cited reasons is the added cost of running two fleet types. I could possibly envision AS running a second fleet type if it gave us some new way to make money (787 anyone) but another fleet type of essentially the same airplane, not trying to troll, but I don't think it is likely that the Airbus survives beyond a bridge period.
Still not convinced? What about the Airbus 321NEO? Ask yourself this question...Why doesn't Alaska Airlines have an order in for the new Airbus?
Because they didn't want any.
JFK base long term...sorry, really don't see that happening either. Pilots at Alaska have been trying to get various bases opened by management over the years. In the last 10 years they have looked at ORD, DEN, SAN, Bay area, Hawaii, and PDX. Only PDX was opened. The hang up are the reserves. The last time they did a big study about 4-5 years ago they came up with $15 million dollars of cost to make a station a pilot base. Mostly that cost is the need to have reserves as most need for reserves is because of sick calls at the start of a trip. So the savings gained from the times the NYC reserves saved the day, the hotel cost savings, etc. need to exceed $15M. Additionally, Alaska runs the pairing generator to seemthe systemwide impact cost. For example, having a base in NYC could make the lines in PDX less efficient when all the NYC flying is taken out.
Alaska has always been able to cover trips at outstations pretty easily just by offering premium or by getting somebody home 12 hours early for the same pay.
How many pilots does Alaska have in the Bay Area that currently has much higher frequency then NYC is ever predicted to have?
Zero.
How many pilots are based in SAN that also has higher frequency then the whole NYC base would cover?
Zero.
How many pilots are based in Hawaii that represents 20% of Alaska Airlines capacity... zero.
Under Alpa merger policy, new hires after the announcement date get a DOH integration regardless of where you were actually hired.
We need to get this JCBA done ASAP so we don't get whip-sawed against each other. Not looking forward to the SLI results, but I am looking forward to getting on with this so we can hopefully grow like crazy.
Fraternally...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
