DAL Poolie Info
03-01-2017, 04:56 PM
#8181
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,689
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?
03-01-2017, 04:59 PM
#8182
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Position: window seat
Posts: 12,544
Right. But we've heard a number every year for 4 years in a row, only for that number to eventually be exceeded by hundreds. Why is 2017's early year number suddenly the hard number when no other year's number was, and all previous early numbers were exceeded significantly?
03-01-2017, 05:11 PM
#8183
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,689
Right. But we've heard a number every year for 4 years in a row, only for that number to eventually be exceeded by hundreds. Why is 2017's early year number suddenly the hard number when no other year's number was, and all previous early numbers were exceeded significantly?
03-01-2017, 05:34 PM
#8184
New Hire
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Position: Concourse A
Posts: 786
Right. But we've heard a number every year for 4 years in a row, only for that number to eventually be exceeded by hundreds. Why is 2017's early year number suddenly the hard number when no other year's number was, and all previous early numbers were exceeded significantly?
03-02-2017, 03:32 AM
#8185
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,689
They hired 300 to 400 additional pilots last year to increase staffing for schedule reliability. Hiring the forum assured us they would not possibly be able to do.
We spent the 3 years prior moving flying from DCI to the mainline. That transition is now for the most part over. Again something else the forum said would not happen.
Hiring going forward is going to be for a very low level of growth given the current focus on capacity discipline. 2% is probably a pretty good number for growth. That requires about 300 pilots a year. They expect 400 pilots to retire this year. Hence the 700 number. In 2018 they expect 600 retirements so I would expect about 900 new hires.
The increase in retirements is one of the reasons the timing of the 717 buy was so critical. They needed it done before the retirements ramp up.
If the economy trends better and growth increases a point or two then we will hire more. If it goes in the other direction we will hire less. Delta unlike American or United has a better ability to adjust capacity up or down the next five years. That can work for or against us!
As far as the two pacific joint ventures under consideration both would increase are need for pilots. If the Shanghai hub ever actually becomes a reality it would be a large increase due to the distance and augmentation requirements. If you look back on management timelines that should have been underway now so you are correct the JV is affecting manning. Just not in a good way.
We spent the 3 years prior moving flying from DCI to the mainline. That transition is now for the most part over. Again something else the forum said would not happen.
Hiring going forward is going to be for a very low level of growth given the current focus on capacity discipline. 2% is probably a pretty good number for growth. That requires about 300 pilots a year. They expect 400 pilots to retire this year. Hence the 700 number. In 2018 they expect 600 retirements so I would expect about 900 new hires.
The increase in retirements is one of the reasons the timing of the 717 buy was so critical. They needed it done before the retirements ramp up.
If the economy trends better and growth increases a point or two then we will hire more. If it goes in the other direction we will hire less. Delta unlike American or United has a better ability to adjust capacity up or down the next five years. That can work for or against us!
As far as the two pacific joint ventures under consideration both would increase are need for pilots. If the Shanghai hub ever actually becomes a reality it would be a large increase due to the distance and augmentation requirements. If you look back on management timelines that should have been underway now so you are correct the JV is affecting manning. Just not in a good way.
03-02-2017, 05:01 AM
#8186
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2016
Position: Here and there
Posts: 1,906
They hired 300 to 400 additional pilots last year to increase staffing for schedule reliability. Hiring the forum assured us they would not possibly be able to do.
We spent the 3 years prior moving flying from DCI to the mainline. That transition is now for the most part over. Again something else the forum said would not happen.
Hiring going forward is going to be for a very low level of growth given the current focus on capacity discipline. 2% is probably a pretty good number for growth. That requires about 300 pilots a year. They expect 400 pilots to retire this year. Hence the 700 number. In 2018 they expect 600 retirements so I would expect about 900 new hires.
The increase in retirements is one of the reasons the timing of the 717 buy was so critical. They needed it done before the retirements ramp up.
If the economy trends better and growth increases a point or two then we will hire more. If it goes in the other direction we will hire less. Delta unlike American or United has a better ability to adjust capacity up or down the next five years. That can work for or against us!
As far as the two pacific joint ventures under consideration both would increase are need for pilots. If the Shanghai hub ever actually becomes a reality it would be a large increase due to the distance and augmentation requirements. If you look back on management timelines that should have been underway now so you are correct the JV is affecting manning. Just not in a good way.
We spent the 3 years prior moving flying from DCI to the mainline. That transition is now for the most part over. Again something else the forum said would not happen.
Hiring going forward is going to be for a very low level of growth given the current focus on capacity discipline. 2% is probably a pretty good number for growth. That requires about 300 pilots a year. They expect 400 pilots to retire this year. Hence the 700 number. In 2018 they expect 600 retirements so I would expect about 900 new hires.
The increase in retirements is one of the reasons the timing of the 717 buy was so critical. They needed it done before the retirements ramp up.
If the economy trends better and growth increases a point or two then we will hire more. If it goes in the other direction we will hire less. Delta unlike American or United has a better ability to adjust capacity up or down the next five years. That can work for or against us!
As far as the two pacific joint ventures under consideration both would increase are need for pilots. If the Shanghai hub ever actually becomes a reality it would be a large increase due to the distance and augmentation requirements. If you look back on management timelines that should have been underway now so you are correct the JV is affecting manning. Just not in a good way.
03-02-2017, 05:43 AM
#8187
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 5,012
That 400 retirements projection for this year is very surprising. The last Projected Retirement list I've been able to find (from Aug 2016) shows age 65 only retirements would be only 265. That's 50% higher than forecast. In a nutshell, our retirement wave will be here much sooner than we expect if this trend continues.
1.7×265=450.
When we get to years with 800 hitting 65, that'd be 1360 off the top if 1.7 is accurate, or 10% of the seniority list annually. That, there, is some serious negotiating capital if we choose to use it next time around...
03-02-2017, 05:46 AM
#8188
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,689
Someone once told me that for every 10 mandatory retirements in a given year, there are another 7 who fall off the list (deaths, early retires, disability, etc.). Does anyone have historic data over the last few years?
1.7×265=450.
When we get to years with 800 hitting 65, that'd be 1360 off the top if 1.7 is accurate, or 10% of the seniority list annually. That, there, is some serious negotiating capital if we choose to use it next time around...
1.7×265=450.
When we get to years with 800 hitting 65, that'd be 1360 off the top if 1.7 is accurate, or 10% of the seniority list annually. That, there, is some serious negotiating capital if we choose to use it next time around...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
