DAL Poolie Info
03-01-2017, 06:54 AM
#8172
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
I still can't see how all the 88's could be parked in 2-3 years without a sizable net reduction in domestic flying. I didn't think there were nearly enough 739/321 orders remaining (plus the eventual C series) to cover 130 or so 88's during that short of a timeframe. Especially since it doesn't even remove a category since the 90's will stay. Earlier last month they were saying 900 were "funded" and a bit more was likely. To now say 700 is a sizable cut from just over a month ago.
03-01-2017, 08:37 AM
#8173
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
Then there's the C Series, which despite the few micro-operators working some of the bugs out, its still a very open question of their ability to meet their increasing delivery schedule while maintaining their advertised (and our expected) optimistic marketing based dispatch reliability assumptions. If all of those stars don't align perfectly (and odds are they won't) we would need the relief from at least a flexible 88 remnant to some degree.
So when we're told 900 is approved and that will probably go several hundred higher (just like pretty much every other year's numbers the last several years) then suddenly a hard 700 hiring number is floating around, the only thing that really explains that is a planned capacity purge to subsidize the endless growth ULCC's and possibly starting the retreat from ME3 and scab FoC airlines early on in that battle.
Either that or the 700 is fake news...but why would it be since we're not in negotiations and there's no reason to try and manage our expectations in that regard.
03-01-2017, 09:27 AM
#8174
Moderator
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,891
Most likely the case. Someone out there loves to watch people spend hours trying to real between the lines on every schoolhouse rumor that gets posted on here.
03-01-2017, 10:13 AM
#8175
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Position: Widebelly FO
Posts: 560
Thanks for the info guys...that's what I found out so far...
Trying to figure out the size of the pool and expected class date.
Based on the numbers published on the most recent flying ops update:
In 2016, a total of 1187 CJOs were offered and 1126 started indoc class (not sure if it means received class date or physically started indoc). That means a total of 61 rolled over to 2017.
As of Jan 31. A total of 40 CJOs were offered and 78 started indoc class. Including the 61 from 2016 it means 23 swimmers not including those got the CJO in February....
Any thoughts? More accurate info?
Trying to figure out the size of the pool and expected class date.
Based on the numbers published on the most recent flying ops update:
In 2016, a total of 1187 CJOs were offered and 1126 started indoc class (not sure if it means received class date or physically started indoc). That means a total of 61 rolled over to 2017.
As of Jan 31. A total of 40 CJOs were offered and 78 started indoc class. Including the 61 from 2016 it means 23 swimmers not including those got the CJO in February....
Any thoughts? More accurate info?
03-01-2017, 11:22 AM
#8176
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,689
03-01-2017, 01:42 PM
#8177
On Reserve
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: 73N B
Posts: 13
Especially when fuel is still pretty reasonable, they're paid for, and the regional situation isn't anywhere near being stabilized despite the respite we've seen by throwing some money at Endeavor. There is still a lot to shake out in the sector, and the mass retirement hiring hasn't really even begun yet.
Then there's the C Series, which despite the few micro-operators working some of the bugs out, its still a very open question of their ability to meet their increasing delivery schedule while maintaining their advertised (and our expected) optimistic marketing based dispatch reliability assumptions. If all of those stars don't align perfectly (and odds are they won't) we would need the relief from at least a flexible 88 remnant to some degree.
So when we're told 900 is approved and that will probably go several hundred higher (just like pretty much every other year's numbers the last several years) then suddenly a hard 700 hiring number is floating around, the only thing that really explains that is a planned capacity purge to subsidize the endless growth ULCC's and possibly starting the retreat from ME3 and scab FoC airlines early on in that battle.
Either that or the 700 is fake news...but why would it be since we're not in negotiations and there's no reason to try and manage our expectations in that regard.
Then there's the C Series, which despite the few micro-operators working some of the bugs out, its still a very open question of their ability to meet their increasing delivery schedule while maintaining their advertised (and our expected) optimistic marketing based dispatch reliability assumptions. If all of those stars don't align perfectly (and odds are they won't) we would need the relief from at least a flexible 88 remnant to some degree.
So when we're told 900 is approved and that will probably go several hundred higher (just like pretty much every other year's numbers the last several years) then suddenly a hard 700 hiring number is floating around, the only thing that really explains that is a planned capacity purge to subsidize the endless growth ULCC's and possibly starting the retreat from ME3 and scab FoC airlines early on in that battle.
Either that or the 700 is fake news...but why would it be since we're not in negotiations and there's no reason to try and manage our expectations in that regard.
03-01-2017, 01:46 PM
#8178
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,689
Have heard people saying this hard 700 number several times...but all I can recall reading about is SD's FY17 Flt Plan saying "Hire more than 700 pilots." If I recall correctly, the past two CY's 14/15, both had qualified numbers which we surpassed. I miss stuff routinely but I would guess that management uses low numbers with qualifiers to manage expectation of potential hires. JMTSW.
03-01-2017, 04:47 PM
#8180
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
Total, or just total funded so far this year?
Every year's hiring numbers this cycle have been more than the announced numbers by several hundred. The number we get for much of the year has been (so far) an already funded and BoD approved number but then we've gone above that later in the year. Not sure exactly when later is defined, but I doubt its March.
So if every year they say a certain number, and then exceed it by hundreds, why in March would we see the relatively lower number of 700 and assume that's pretty much the cap for the year?
Every year's hiring numbers this cycle have been more than the announced numbers by several hundred. The number we get for much of the year has been (so far) an already funded and BoD approved number but then we've gone above that later in the year. Not sure exactly when later is defined, but I doubt its March.
So if every year they say a certain number, and then exceed it by hundreds, why in March would we see the relatively lower number of 700 and assume that's pretty much the cap for the year?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
