sailingfun

The bid is going to pose a challenge for crew planning. With more vacancies then displacements they have to make sure the vacancies don't stack into a couple of categories. How they backfill will determine that but will have to be done by hand.

Timbo

As with every bid, "It Depends" on where all those MD'd 767 pilots decide to go. Some of them are pretty senior, they can go where ever they want (except to the 747 if they are DL South), they don't all have to go to the 767ER.

If some of them go to the 777, A330, 764, etc. that will cause a cascade down through the rest of the categories. Heck, they may not even stay in ATL, they could displace to any other base, causing ripples there too.

Since a lot of the increased ATL 767ER trips will be even more domestic flying, we may see a lot of those ER guys jump off as well, to other "Real" international categories, like the A330, 764, etc. and not necessarily in ATL.


Most of those 242 Capt.s slots are in the 717, my guess is most of those will be filled by MD's, from higher paying equipment, or from the DC9, but not A/E's. And remember, some of the senior DC9 guys don't have to go to the 717 either, they can bump up to what they can hold above that, pushing people off the bottom, down to the 717.

scambo1

That's an undersatement. The timing of this bid and the potential size of the training footprint is going to really be tough to manage. Methinks fltops will get hiring funding, but its too late to happen prior to the summer. Stay of execution on the -9 anyone?

Flexibility is the key to airpower. Indecision is the key to flexibility.

sailingfun

Talk to some of the scheduling people about the effect that change would have on jobs. It would be huge. The company would certainly love it.
I have commuted almost my entire career. Plenty of GS's go out to commuters. I watch the trip assignments in my category and when the are short lots are covered the day prior. The driver of overtime is how a category is manned. At least with the GS process the company has to increase manning as a result of using that option. Considering the angst on here about job loss I am surprised anyone would advocate reducing overtime pay by 50 percent and losing the manning increases from GS's. the company could really run things skinny with everyone crawling all over each other to break 80.

Timbo

Exactly, that's why it takes days to proof read it. I'm sure the hampsters running the wheels that power DT's super computer can knock this out in 5 minutes or less. But then the humans have to tweek it and double check all the awards/displacements, before they publish it.

sailingfun

[QUOTE=forgot to bid;1374038]I've got a simple solution, keep GS system and add 1.5x pay for flying beyond 85? Or is it 80? Screw it make it ALV.[/

sailingfun

And watch the jobs go away.

Timbo

That's what my T-38 IP used to say, and he'd follow that up with,

"...now, bend over!"

TANSTAAFL

[QUOTE=sailingfun;1374071]So high time does effect staffing? At fNWA we were told repeatedly the 1.5 over 80 did not effect staffing because all staffing formulas were calculated before the open time came into the system. Unlike DAL the actual staffing was much more defined without the ability to temporarily overstaff a category

Open flying is either calculated into the staffing formula or it is not. Show me the math of how one would effect staffing and the other would not.

Timbo

[QUOTE=sailingfun;1374071]
I've got a better idea, how about we pay 1.5X for every hour flown UNDER the ALV, and NOTHING paid for hours flown above it?

Just like our old pay rates, and a 75hr. cap with the extra going into a bow wave.