forgot to bid

Actually, I have June 2012 numbers.

June 2012: 4808 Captains with 717 jets
April 2013: 4768 Captains (-40 loss) with 719 jets
April 2014: 4927 Captains (+159 over 2013, +119 over 2012) with 740 jets*


*I think the net is 740 after the DC9s left and 717s to date are added

buzzpat

Was also discussed at a recent DALPA confab in SLC. In addition to the 350s and 787s, possible 777s. 50 plus was the number. Company is making a buttload of money....pilot unity is down and attendance at events is a problem. We're leaving money on the table if we don't come together ASAP. Less than 20% of DAL pilots have weighed in on the NAI thing.

LOBO

I scoff the Scheduling Alert 14-04 that came out today.

If I have two X Days and I want to move one I can't because the computer doesn't think we have at least 30 hours off.

One X day = 24 hours

Plus (+)

The 12 hours from the first day of work that they can't call me for.

= A minimum of 36 hours.

What am I not getting?

80ktsClamp

Europe 24 ? an air traffic data visualisation

Roadkill

double post deleted

Roadkill

Can someone point me to what the Minimum Base Layover amount is? I think that's what it's called-- I'm looking for the minimum amount of time between end of one trip and start of another (release to report), for both the initial PBS bidding and for the PCS.

I got a denial reason of "minimum base layover" for 11 hours ish... I searched the contract, PCS handbook, and PBS gouge for that phrase and got nothing.

I found in PWA 12G (hours of service) this:
10. For purposes of line construction only, a pilot will be scheduled for a break-in-duty at
4 base of at least:
5 a. 11 hours following a duty period that does not include an ocean crossing.
6 b. 18 hours following a duty period that includes an ocean crossing (subject to
7 Section 23 M. 8.).

Which makes me think 11 hours from release to report should be good--but I got denied a WS with 11.12. Is there some new buffer applied now, and if so what?
Can anyone give me the required time, and point me to the source in our documents? Thanks!

tsquare

Maybe.....

scambo1

T;
This stuff was put out in the LCA meeting to disseminate to the troops. Howz about you don't play coy, I got a secret, and share what was said.

tsquare

Not playing coy, but not putting words in anybody's mouth either. There were a ton of "depends" qualifiers put on these kinds of statements. There is wayyyy too much view of these things as being set in stone, and this forum is very guilty of taking these statements to be gospel. They are intentionally vague for a pretty good reason. It is a dynamic world. The number stated was 50 widebodies. Do I think that will happen tomorrow? Probably not. Will they be all 777s? probably not. Will I get my hopes up that it will be 50? No. But the value in these statements is that we now know they are thinking about it, and that is good.


Oh, and also looking for some more 717s. Might be looking for some more 321s or 737-9s to replace the domestic 767s.

Stay tuned.

I'll believe any of it when I see it in the WSJ.

One last thought: I am not interested in being named "flyboy1". For that reason alone, I am going to be very guarded about what I DO say on here. Besides, talking about this kind of stuff on a public forum is kind of icky anyway. If you and I were to meet over a beer on a layover I would be much more forthcoming. But I will tell you this. I have been to quite a few of these meetings in recent years, and pretty much everything Mr Anderson and the rest of the team has told us has come to fruition. Going forward, things are bright.

Good thing bigger pays more though.

orvil

All time greatest post on APC, ever. I'm going to go hug a cat.