Originally Posted by forgot to bid

I was trying to figure out if we could get to a 9,000 pilot list. Which is hard to take in the variables especially since you cannot break out the 7ER domestic flying and you've got to take into account when a 9,000 remark would have been made and the addition of the 717s.

But, right now we're staffing the 88 fleet at around 10.1 pilots. Or at least will on Feb 13. At the same time the 320 is staffed at 11.6 and the 737 at 14.6.

So just get the 320 and 737 down to 88 staffing levels and bring the 717 on at the same level.

Heck, with the 717 take into account a 10.1 staffing number and you'd only need 889 pilots. Move all the 9 pilots over and you only need 650 pilots. Get the 320 and 737 down to 10.1 and you've eliminated 560 pilots. So now you only need 93 pilots moving forward.

And that's before you get guys off the 767 into the 7ER and junior 7ER As and Bs into a lower staffed 739.

So no wonder we don't need to hire.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid

does the 739 have that kind of range?

Originally Posted by groundstop

I think RA wants, obviously, to move us toward a more efficient pilot group where less pilots do more flying. He needs this to be able to compete with the new landscape in ATL that is approaching.

He is going to do it slowly, though. He doesn't want to rock the boat. Each contract will have more work rules given up, covered up by raises. This is why he didn't care about a short contract. Next time, he will do the same thing. Work rule give backs to make the pilot group smaller. Our pilot group will buy it again after another awesome ALPA marketing job. Eventually our pay rates will be southwest, but we will working like them too. Whether you like this or not, is a personal preference.

Originally Posted by tsquare

Interesting. I am not defending the call... I believe it was an intx too.. but... THIS particular picture is well after the call SHOULD have been made. IF, Tate had both hands around the ball in the EZ, it is a touchdown. At this point in the play, the plane of the EZ had been broken for a long period of time, and what is happening here is irrelevant to the play and the call. Now the fact that the zebras are looking at it here shows their lack of experience and inability to make the call.. I will give them credit for taking the time to let their brains process what it is that they just saw, and make the call they thought appropriate.. right or wrong. Tuck Rule part deux.

Originally Posted by FlyZ

I LIKE this because someone from ALPA, or at least with ALPA ties, is finally admitting that this TA traded jobs and progression for the (albeit measly) payrate increases. The first step toward recovery is admitting you have a problem, and we have a big problem with short term greed and myopia.

Originally Posted by johnso29

So who heard RA say he wants a 9000 pilot work force?

Originally Posted by NuGuy

Alfa,

It's clear that you have problems with people having problems with the process since we're past talking about the TA. I think everyone here has conceded that it's in the past.

Your entire diatribe above is based on a ridiculous premise that the company was content to languish in section six when there were large RJs to be bought, small RJs with very expensive maintenance requirements upcoming and staffing problems to contend with. The company came to us and we had more leverage than we wound up using.

It's my opinion that we need to pay closer attention to the numbers when the FT/DT LOA is dumped on our doorstep, so we don't make that same mistake.

Nu