Attrition
06-12-2022, 01:52 PM
#1331
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 417
This isn’t accurate. We do have enough pilots to fly what we have. The reduction in flying wasn’t due to lack of crews, it was done to adjust the ratio of reserve pilots due to operations inability to effectively mitigate disruptions. Most of the issues that prolong these disruptions are not caused by lack of crews, rather the inability to coordinate and communicate with the crews they have.
While that is an issue that affects pilots schedules/lifestyle, and yes attrition has been around 5-6% year to date. While that loss equates to higher training and recruiting costs, we are still net positive for total pilot count. Obviously that is not ideal long term, but to make a blanket statement that we don’t have enough pilots to “fly what we have” is a misnomer.
While that is an issue that affects pilots schedules/lifestyle, and yes attrition has been around 5-6% year to date. While that loss equates to higher training and recruiting costs, we are still net positive for total pilot count. Obviously that is not ideal long term, but to make a blanket statement that we don’t have enough pilots to “fly what we have” is a misnomer.
06-12-2022, 02:51 PM
#1332
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2021
Posts: 551
I think the real issue is with new deliveries our limited ability to staff (read staff FO) drastically goes down every month. Every base FO grid looks awful. Are they going to reduce more to “mitigate disruptions”? Delay deliveries? Park planes? None of that sounds very good to me.
If the airline wanted, we could run the ratio of reserve to line pilots up to 50/50 and never see another red day again. Obviously this would not be the most efficient use of crews, and productivity of each plane would go down.
Ideally you want each plane flying as much as possible, but to do this you need an appropriate amount of reserve pilots to absorb any disruption, be it internal (sick, vacation, training) or external (weather, airspace, disaster).
Forget future deliveries for a moment, we have enough pilots to fly all current aircraft. However recent history has shown an inability to absorb network disruptions effectively. This is a result of several factors ranging from frequency to mismanagement of communication and coordination. Lack of, or inexperienced schedulers, unacceptable hold times, useable crews timing out, etc.
If we stopped growth at the current 160ish aircraft, these issues would still continue if those factors aren’t fixed. Adjusting the ratio of reserves and reducing routes is a short term solution, but doesn’t remedy the underlying problem and doesn’t make the most efficient and profitable use of planes and crew.
As for growth, if recruitment and attrition problems were the main reason for the operational issues, the company would almost immediately want to open section 6 talks.
Historically carriers like NK, F9, and even B6 were alternative career paths. Low pay regionals would compel pilots to consider these alternatives, and lifestyle and advancement is what made so many stay. Now with several regionals who have actual route cancelling shortages upping pay, staying and flowing becomes more palatable. Look at the change the last 10 years at the regionals: signing/retention bonuses, guaranteed basing, hotels for commuters, pre hiring of low hour candidates, etc. It’s only when this has a pressure on recruitment will the alternative majors decide to throw money at it.
For now, they won’t park planes or delay orders, they will just fly planes with less optimal efficiency.
TL/DR: at the moment we are not short staffed, the problems are operational, but as the choice to wait it out in the regionals for the legacy call becomes more preferable and our total pilot count recedes, the problem will compound unless pay/lifestyle is addressed.
06-12-2022, 02:51 PM
#1333
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 2,335
This isn’t accurate. We do have enough pilots to fly what we have. The reduction in flying wasn’t due to lack of crews, it was done to adjust the ratio of reserve pilots due to operations inability to effectively mitigate disruptions. Most of the issues that prolong these disruptions are not caused by lack of crews, rather the inability to coordinate and communicate with the crews they have.
While that is an issue that affects pilots schedules/lifestyle, and yes attrition has been around 5-6% year to date. While that loss equates to higher training and recruiting costs, we are still net positive for total pilot count. Obviously that is not ideal long term, but to make a blanket statement that we don’t have enough pilots to “fly what we have” is a misnomer.
While that is an issue that affects pilots schedules/lifestyle, and yes attrition has been around 5-6% year to date. While that loss equates to higher training and recruiting costs, we are still net positive for total pilot count. Obviously that is not ideal long term, but to make a blanket statement that we don’t have enough pilots to “fly what we have” is a misnomer.
06-12-2022, 02:57 PM
#1334
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,464
This isn’t accurate. We do have enough pilots to fly what we have. The reduction in flying wasn’t due to lack of crews, it was done to adjust the ratio of reserve pilots due to operations inability to effectively mitigate disruptions. Most of the issues that prolong these disruptions are not caused by lack of crews, rather the inability to coordinate and communicate with the crews they have.
While that is an issue that affects pilots schedules/lifestyle, and yes attrition has been around 5-6% year to date. While that loss equates to higher training and recruiting costs, we are still net positive for total pilot count. Obviously that is not ideal long term, but to make a blanket statement that we don’t have enough pilots to “fly what we have” is a misnomer.
While that is an issue that affects pilots schedules/lifestyle, and yes attrition has been around 5-6% year to date. While that loss equates to higher training and recruiting costs, we are still net positive for total pilot count. Obviously that is not ideal long term, but to make a blanket statement that we don’t have enough pilots to “fly what we have” is a misnomer.
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
06-12-2022, 03:01 PM
#1335
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2021
Posts: 551
Attrition/recruitment is the inflation that will eventually affect you, but it doesn’t explain away your previous years of mismanaged spending.
06-12-2022, 03:05 PM
#1336
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2021
Posts: 551
Again I never said it wasn’t a problem, but it’s not the main issue with recent IROPs.
06-12-2022, 03:12 PM
#1337
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,464
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
Last edited by elmetal; 06-12-2022 at 03:32 PM.
06-13-2022, 04:54 AM
#1340
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 3,771
Again there are two separate issues here, and while not entirely unrelated, have to be looked at separately for context. The first is how many pilots we need to fly X number of aircraft, and the second is how productive each aircraft is.
If the airline wanted, we could run the ratio of reserve to line pilots up to 50/50 and never see another red day again. Obviously this would not be the most efficient use of crews, and productivity of each plane would go down.
Ideally you want each plane flying as much as possible, but to do this you need an appropriate amount of reserve pilots to absorb any disruption, be it internal (sick, vacation, training) or external (weather, airspace, disaster).
Forget future deliveries for a moment, we have enough pilots to fly all current aircraft. However recent history has shown an inability to absorb network disruptions effectively. This is a result of several factors ranging from frequency to mismanagement of communication and coordination. Lack of, or inexperienced schedulers, unacceptable hold times, useable crews timing out, etc.
If we stopped growth at the current 160ish aircraft, these issues would still continue if those factors aren’t fixed. Adjusting the ratio of reserves and reducing routes is a short term solution, but doesn’t remedy the underlying problem and doesn’t make the most efficient and profitable use of planes and crew.
As for growth, if recruitment and attrition problems were the main reason for the operational issues, the company would almost immediately want to open section 6 talks.
Historically carriers like NK, F9, and even B6 were alternative career paths. Low pay regionals would compel pilots to consider these alternatives, and lifestyle and advancement is what made so many stay. Now with several regionals who have actual route cancelling shortages upping pay, staying and flowing becomes more palatable. Look at the change the last 10 years at the regionals: signing/retention bonuses, guaranteed basing, hotels for commuters, pre hiring of low hour candidates, etc. It’s only when this has a pressure on recruitment will the alternative majors decide to throw money at it.
For now, they won’t park planes or delay orders, they will just fly planes with less optimal efficiency.
TL/DR: at the moment we are not short staffed, the problems are operational, but as the choice to wait it out in the regionals for the legacy call becomes more preferable and our total pilot count recedes, the problem will compound unless pay/lifestyle is addressed.
If the airline wanted, we could run the ratio of reserve to line pilots up to 50/50 and never see another red day again. Obviously this would not be the most efficient use of crews, and productivity of each plane would go down.
Ideally you want each plane flying as much as possible, but to do this you need an appropriate amount of reserve pilots to absorb any disruption, be it internal (sick, vacation, training) or external (weather, airspace, disaster).
Forget future deliveries for a moment, we have enough pilots to fly all current aircraft. However recent history has shown an inability to absorb network disruptions effectively. This is a result of several factors ranging from frequency to mismanagement of communication and coordination. Lack of, or inexperienced schedulers, unacceptable hold times, useable crews timing out, etc.
If we stopped growth at the current 160ish aircraft, these issues would still continue if those factors aren’t fixed. Adjusting the ratio of reserves and reducing routes is a short term solution, but doesn’t remedy the underlying problem and doesn’t make the most efficient and profitable use of planes and crew.
As for growth, if recruitment and attrition problems were the main reason for the operational issues, the company would almost immediately want to open section 6 talks.
Historically carriers like NK, F9, and even B6 were alternative career paths. Low pay regionals would compel pilots to consider these alternatives, and lifestyle and advancement is what made so many stay. Now with several regionals who have actual route cancelling shortages upping pay, staying and flowing becomes more palatable. Look at the change the last 10 years at the regionals: signing/retention bonuses, guaranteed basing, hotels for commuters, pre hiring of low hour candidates, etc. It’s only when this has a pressure on recruitment will the alternative majors decide to throw money at it.
For now, they won’t park planes or delay orders, they will just fly planes with less optimal efficiency.
TL/DR: at the moment we are not short staffed, the problems are operational, but as the choice to wait it out in the regionals for the legacy call becomes more preferable and our total pilot count recedes, the problem will compound unless pay/lifestyle is addressed.
If they reduce flying frequency and routes, I can see your point, but I don't see them doing that at either due to lost revenue and that problem only gets worse with more aircraft arriving. It just feels like we are always riding the razors edge in terms of available reserves and it's only a matter of time before things come unhinged. This last weekend was a sign of the times to come I think. The way I see it is they only have a few options:
1. Slow deliveries/Park aircraft like the 319's
2. Route reductions/Frequency reductions
3. Slow attrition/increase hiring pilots that will want to stay.
4. Bury their heads in the sand, claim no problems, have huge meltdowns this summer, have Bendo IROP emails every week, say they have the problem solved and pass this monster onto the next management team. (this being the option we all know they will take).
It just sucks as I actually believe we have a really great pilot group, one of the better FA groups, great mechanics in most places and they all have to suffer because the management here is inept or unwilling to solve the actual problems.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
