Attrition
12-11-2023, 10:57 AM
#3732
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,115
Can't argue with that statement, but junior FOs will be where furloughs hit. Isn't it reasonable to see the attrition numbers compared to how many we could all guess/estimate would be furloughed from the bottom to see if there really is a need for all the doom and gloom furlough talk? Also, the recent hiring craze at Spirit brought in so many new FOs - isn't that where the airline is overstaffed the most? I know the FOs on reserve aren't getting used nearly as much as before. Is the captain side the same (not that a furlough or meaningful attrition would effect even low seniority captains all that much)?
More new FOs were hired because that's where the great bulk of the attrition is and remains, but upgrades have been limited to the number required to gainfully employ the FOs that were being retained. But if you furlough a hundred FOs you decrease the need for CAs by ~110. Except you are correct, you can't furlough them but you also can't gainfully employ them if you don't have enough FOs either. So you either pay them CA Reserve MMG to sit or you do something like displace them to encourage the junior CAs to attrit too. Because even a very jr CA (CA with four years seniority) is costing you over twice what you are saving by furloughing FOs.
Which is why incentivizing VLAs of the most senior people actually may make better economic sense than furloughing the junior guys.
12-11-2023, 01:08 PM
#3734
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 2,335
This is sort of just the opposite of the situation being seen in the regionals right now. But since each flight requires a CA and an FO, they remain interrelated. Typically you need a few percent more CAs than FOs to offset the longer vacations enjoyed by and the greater medical issue time incurred by the old f@rts.
More new FOs were hired because that's where the great bulk of the attrition is and remains, but upgrades have been limited to the number required to gainfully employ the FOs that were being retained. But if you furlough a hundred FOs you decrease the need for CAs by ~110. Except you are correct, you can't furlough them but you also can't gainfully employ them if you don't have enough FOs either. So you either pay them CA Reserve MMG to sit or you do something like displace them to encourage the junior CAs to attrit too. Because even a very jr CA (CA with four years seniority) is costing you over twice what you are saving by furloughing FOs.
Which is why incentivizing VLAs of the most senior people actually may make better economic sense than furloughing the junior guys.
More new FOs were hired because that's where the great bulk of the attrition is and remains, but upgrades have been limited to the number required to gainfully employ the FOs that were being retained. But if you furlough a hundred FOs you decrease the need for CAs by ~110. Except you are correct, you can't furlough them but you also can't gainfully employ them if you don't have enough FOs either. So you either pay them CA Reserve MMG to sit or you do something like displace them to encourage the junior CAs to attrit too. Because even a very jr CA (CA with four years seniority) is costing you over twice what you are saving by furloughing FOs.
Which is why incentivizing VLAs of the most senior people actually may make better economic sense than furloughing the junior guys.
12-11-2023, 02:25 PM
#3735
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2023
Posts: 338
12-11-2023, 03:35 PM
#3736
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 104
The last alpa graphic i have for attrition is from June 2023 and we’d lost 452 YTD at that time. I’d imagine we’re closer to at least 6-700 YTD.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
