ORDinary

What are you talking about? Extra flow makes more new captains than extra growth.

buddies8

am i to understand you correctly that if a company grows this does not mean more captains since growth equates to more airplanes which in turn has more captains for flow also.

RyanP

The only pilots that want growth here right now are the lifers or naive new hires that don't understand how this game works yet. Anyone else with any sense knows growth here right now (and having to staff that growth) would have a serious negative impact on our future of getting out of here as quickly as possible.

We are already going to lose around 500+ pilots due to flow and outside attrition next year. Having to staff 20-30 more aircraft on top of that would be an absolute disaster. If anyone doesn't know exactly how AAG would deal with that staffing problem, then you haven't been here long enough.

The only positive that could come of this 10+ regional outsourcing disaster AAG created would be for AA to take back that flying in house, where it belongs. Giving it to us (and having to staff it) would not work out for our benefit, I can guarantee you that.

ORDinary

Thanks, I was too tired to spell it out for him.

buddies8

No I know what your saying. It is self serving for your desire at the expense of anyone else, really thats all.

Everyones greed for flow is evident at the shi+ they will do to another pilot or group to benefit themselves. Thats fine, it is the new regional pilot model.

Soap it up anyway you want, the end is the same.

ORDinary

But how is it at anyone's expense? I'm interested in helping all of us.

For the sake of argument, say for a short period we have 20 more new hires than we have attrition. If we add 2 airplanes to the fleet, those 20 surplus new hires would be basically the right amount to staff the 2 extra planes. We would have to upgrade 10 extra captains to balance the staffing. We would need the 20 surplus new hires for staffing, and the flow would have to be metered.

If we had 20 surplus new hires and no new aircraft, then we could flow 20 extra pilots, if AA requested them (AA is currently requesting them, and from what I'm hearing, Pedro wants to say yes, even though our middle managers don't). In that instance, 20 lost additional captains would require 20 additional upgrades to replace them. So what would you rather do, staff extra planes and have less upgrades and overall movement, or stay the same size (or even shrink), to send more to AA and have more upgrades, more movement, and better recruiting to keep things moving?

Look I am with you that flow is not worth a single concession, and I am certainly not willing to entertain giving up anything for the flow. But I'm not going to cheer if we get more planes to staff. I want AA to have the flying (and the pilots), not us. At this point it helps all of us if we don't grow.

go skers

Agreed, a static fleet of 150 airplanes with a transition to more E175s as CRJs and EMJs leave is probably the best case scenario for Envoy. Preserve max flow and transition to a more desirable fleet. The flow and outside attrition is robust enough to create continuous movement if we could just get a steady hull count without shrinking offsetting some of the larger flow numbers we're starting to see. There's no factual indication of that happening yet but I'm not exactly privy to any of these future big announcements.

MD-11Loader

Confirmed my slot at CAE for the ATP-CTP on 11/28 and class date on 1/9! So excited to be getting closer.

I am back in school working on my marketing degree. My thought is to drop down to 6 credits in the winter semester so that I can handle training as well as school. Has anyone done both at once? I would appreciate any advice. I don't want to drop everything for a semester, so if need be, I can always go down to 3 credits.

Nevada

I've done both at once- it's not fun but it's doable.

LongTimeListenr

You want to go through initial in January and still be in school at the same time?