Airtran pilot staffing

[Ty Webb]

Hi, Lear:

Your analysis would make sense, but, unfortunately, you're not here to gage the mood of the pilot group; if you were, I think you would probably have a different impression.

No one I know is willing to take concessions. Two months ago, when the rumor was going around that the Company would ask for a pay concessions in exchange for no furloughs, the reaction on the line was not only "no" but "hell no". Even newhires were saying "no".

Also, management must be cognizant of the fact that they want every pilot here to be eagerly doing their part to save fuel, creating angered embittered and resentful pilots is not smart. . . that could cost a lot more than any perceived payroll savings.

We shall see . . . fasten those belts, folks, it could be getting bumpy up ahead.

 

[Ty Webb]

Pole-smokin' Pipe-jockey

If our government would just let the weak wither up and die already, most of us would be better off, except for the traveling public.

Hey, Pole-jockey, maybe we should have let DAL, NWA, UAL , MEH and USAirways die, since they all went bankrupt. Wouldn't that be the right thing to do, under your stated credo?

What a tool!

 

[Lear70]

For everyone's sake, I hope you two are right... Pilot concessions just don't make enough of a dent to make or break an airline. Never have. SkyBus is the perfect example of how little you can pay pilots and STILL have a failed airline.

Hope it's just a case of being "out of the loop" on this one, although I'm sure Scarlet will be around any minute to tell us how we're all wrong...

Gotta call you guys later and let you know the latest. Been keeping it to myself for a few days because, if I started talking about it, I'd probably say more than I need to on a public board. It's not the NPA, it's more company antics regarding me and DL and I don't want MB and other NPA reps getting a bunch of calls about it right now, as they're doing what they can and they're overwhelmed as it is.

 

[SkiFishFly]

Could it be...

Perhaps, the concessionary tone in what MB and the NPA put out (quoted by Lear earlier) was only intended to draw the company back to the table for negotiations. Make them think that the NPA leadership is taking a concessionary look at things in order to get the company to come to the table...

Not sure how a vote might go down right now - I do sense there are some that would rather give some up than have furloughs. I am of the "No Concessions" mindset.

I think there is potentially a lot of opportunity for us with all the cutbacks of other airlines. Especially, when you consider the fuel efficiency of our fleet compared to what others fly against us on most routes (MD-80s, DC-9s, RJs).

 

[PCL_128]

Perhaps, the concessionary tone in what MB and the NPA put out (quoted by Lear earlier) was only intended to draw the company back to the table for negotiations. Make them think that the NPA leadership is taking a concessionary look at things in order to get the company to come to the table...

Nope, couldn't be that, because they don't have to compel the company to the table. The law requires the company to come to the table as soon as the arbitrator is available. He's available for a few days next month, so the company has no choice but to show up.

 

[pipejockey]

Hey, Pole-jockey, maybe we should have let DAL, NWA, UAL , MEH and USAirways die, since they all went bankrupt. Wouldn't that be the right thing to do, under your stated credo?

What a tool!

Why yes actually! We should have. But that would create a better industry for those of us that work at the survivors, and higher fares. And our government cannot tolerate higher fares. They seem to think, as the 95% of the rest of the public, that everyone who has 2 nickels to rub together has a right to fly. As far as I'm concerned, the bottom 20-30 percent of travelers should not have the right to fly at the fares they are paying. Shouldn't there be a premium on being able to fly anywhere in the country in mere hours? Yet the cheapest way to travel is by air. Unbelievable! You'll pay more to travel by car, train, bus in most cases.

 

[717capt]

If they furlough 300, then I'll be in the line of fire, and I'll still vote NO to any concessions to supposedly save my own job.



Remarkable restraint on your part in responding to him. I probably would have gone off. The sad thing is that he's the BOD member that I trust more than any of the rest of them. If he thinks that way, then what are the rest thinking?



I'm not so sure. I don't doubt that the NPA BOD would agree to it, but I don't think the pilot group would accept it. The sentiment I'm picking up on the line, even from the senior guys, doesn't seem to be conducive to concessions. But I could be wrong.

Hey Lear and PCL,

I went back and re-read the exchange between Pete and Lear on the other website and Lear I don't see any reason for alarm. I think what Pete was saying is that you and DL are a priority for getting back but other events may be coming quickly that might mitigate LOA's or TA's or whatever to save jobs. Again I'm not privy to any inside info between you and the NPA but I don't think it's anything to be alarmed about. They did vote apparantly unanimously to send both cases to arbitration. I don't see how stopping everything and not engaging in talks with the company with what could be impending furloughs mis-reprepresents you or DL at all.

PCL,

Pete's a great guy. I've known him for years and you will not find a more stand up guy than him. I really enjoyed flying with him when I was an FO and now if the rumors are true it looks like I may be one again. I bet others that post on here will agree as to his character. A little exchange / disagreement don't mean a thing. He and hopefully the rest of the BOD, but most defiantely Pete truly has the best interests of the pilot group at heart. Great guy and lots of fun to fly with too.

 

[PCL_128]

PCL,

Pete's a great guy. I've known him for years and you will not find a more stand up guy than him. I really enjoyed flying with him when I was an FO and now if the rumors are true it looks like I may be one again. I bet others that post on here will agree as to his character. A little exchange / disagreement don't mean a thing. He and hopefully the rest of the BOD, but most defiantely Pete truly has the best interests of the pilot group at heart. Great guy and lots of fun to fly with too.

I'm sure he is, which is why I said I trust him more than the rest of them. But I completely disagree with him on this issue. Getting the hostages back should be priority number 1.

 

[Lear70]

Hey Lear and PCL,

I went back and re-read the exchange between Pete and Lear on the other website and Lear I don't see any reason for alarm. I think what Pete was saying is that you and DL are a priority for getting back but other events may be coming quickly that might mitigate LOA's or TA's or whatever to save jobs.

And that's why there may be room to negotiate our return, if the company needs cost savings quickly.

I'm the last person to stand in the way of any kind of "win-win" for the pilot group where the pilots would BENEFIT with NO give-backs to the company; that goes without saying.

But if the company NEEDS something, the NPA bears a DUTY (Duty of Fair Representation) to negotiate the return of hostages prior to implementation of any T.A. or LOA. There's legal precedent I won't go into, but I've been advised of the DFR requirements under this circumstance and I think PL needs to rethink his position.

Again I'm not privy to any inside info between you and the NPA but I don't think it's anything to be alarmed about. They did vote apparantly unanimously to send both cases to arbitration. I don't see how stopping everything and not engaging in talks with the company with what could be impending furloughs mis-reprepresents you or DL at all.

That's the problem. There's more going on behind the scenes than most people know about at the moment. Without going into detail, the company waited until the distance LOA was signed to "pull a fast one" that could easily add another 6 months to 2 years to DL and myself being on the street as "hostages". Would YOU like to be out 2-3 YEARS?

The NPA is fighting it through several avenues but, if those avenues fail, the ONLY way DL and I will see our jobs back for YEARS is if hostage return is negotiated into ANY T.A. or LOA. That's why I was so sensitive to his comments, and why I am HOPING his ideas are in the minority on the subject as far as the BoD is concerned.

There's no need to "stop negotiations". Quite the contrary, the NPA should hear what the company has to say, hammer out an agreement, and then tell them at the end that everything is contingent upon hostage return based on their violation of the status quo. It's all done in front of Tossi who will have his notes on what the company said on the subject last year and, if the company refuses to reverse their stance on their recent change in status quo, the union says "no deal" unless the hostages are returned effective immediately.

That's Union Negotiations 101. American JUST accomplished this a few months ago with one of their termination cases. It CAN be done in this environment, but it takes a union playing hardball to do it.

 

[RIDETHELIGHTING]

but most defiantely Pete truly has the best interests of the pilot group at heart. Great guy and lots of fun to fly with too.

He is a good guy, but he did vote for TA2-3 or what ever # we are on. But the biggest problem I have with him, he feels that scope is not important. I find that to be a big issue.

 

[PCL_128]

He feels that scope isn't important? Did he put that in writing anywhere, or did you just hear it somewhere? Scope is my number one priority. I will be very concerned if a member of the BOD thinks it's "unimportant."

 

[Lear70]

I think it came up right before you got here. Vaguely remember something about it, but can't remember where I read it... I think it was phrased something along the lines of he didn't think the company really had anything in mind and didn't see the issue with Scope as he didn't believe the company would go to all that trouble having already "experimented" with 50-seaters.

Might have been one of the other guys like Rico or something, I just don't remember that clearly.

Why don't you ask him, since it's one of the company's top priorities and he's in such a "talkative" mood on the other board. I'm sure he'll tell you, and it'll be out there for everyone.

 

[RIDETHELIGHTING]

He feels that scope isn't important? Did he put that in writing anywhere, or did you just hear it somewhere? Scope is my number one priority. I will be very concerned if a member of the BOD thinks it's "unimportant."

Trust me ask him he feels very strong about it.

 

[maxblast72]

It's more than that, though. The 5% reduction is compared to last year's block hours. The reduction from this July to September will be 20% of our total block hours. That's a big cut. Does it justify furloughs? I doubt it, but they didn't ask me.

Last year, we did about a 15% ASM reduction on the 717 after Labor day going from around 29,000 block hours in August 2007 to mid 24,000 block in September 2007.

True this years cut for September and October might be a little deeper (20%), but are we really going to cut the block hours that much from Mid-November to New Years holiday season?

The question will be how many airplanes do we end up with for the rest of 2008 and 2009. Fornaro said at the Merryll Lynch presentation that we have 143 airplanes today with 2 about to be sold. The slide presentation then listed the fleet for 2009 at 135-140 aircraft. If we drop to 135 aircraft, we are probably a little overstaffed. If we stay at 140, we are probably a little overstaffed for Sept, Oct, Jan, and Feb and pretty close to proper staffing for the busier times of the year.

How many guys do you think would be OK with lower average line values (tied to a more days off/better efficiency) for the slow times during the year to possibly prevent furloughs if we are overstaffed? That would show some unity in this pilot group by having the senior guys look out for the junior guys for once.

 

[JT12345]

I figured out about 140 pilots furloughed if we have 130 airplanes and a 8 hour reduction in line value to bring 140 pilots to 70 hours.

I would gander that 135 airplanes would mean about half that or 70 pilots furloughed with a 5 hour reduction in line value for line holders to carry 70 pilots at 70 hours.

Its really 7 hours and 4 hours respectively, but I added an hour to account for benefits of the furloughed pilots. I don't really know how that would be covered realistically. Figured $1000 per month per pilot for benefit costs.

I know we are alittle fat, but our staffing is still a pilot per airplane less than average.

 

[carl p]

It doesn't feel like we're fat when I keep getting nailed on the last day of a 4 day line on reserve to fly an extra round trip that happens to finish at 12 hrs duty on the dot. The last 3 times they have pulled this.

 

[islandhoper]

How' bout charters?

In the letter, the NPA mentioned a LOA for charter operations. Anyone knows what this is all about?
I remember a long time ago, the company mentioned looking at the Miami air structure and how they move crews and planes to Europe during slow season.

Wish-full thinking perhaps...

 

[relief tube]

Hate it when I start sounding like devils advocate.

Those that signed onto Airtran knew full well they were getting on with a fledgling carrier that was the only airline out there growing 20% a year while the next biggest grower was at 8%.....and even southwest was only at 6%. Face the consequences instead of a concessionary shot in the foot for even lower wages. Know thats easier than its easier said than done.

 

[27 driver]

Hate it when I start sounding like devils advocate.

Those that signed onto Airtran knew full well they were getting on with a fledgling carrier that was the only airline out there growing 20% a year while the next biggest grower was at 8%.....and even southwest was only at 6%. Face the consequences instead of a concessionary shot in the foot for even lower wages. Know thats easier than its easier said than done.

Your post is flawed my friend. I am a newbie here and we have seen unprecedented economic changes in a very short time. Airtran was not fledgling 6 months ago for one. Oil was in the $80 dollar a barrel range and we were profitable. Nobody could have known that oil would have almost doubled in just a 2 month range. Airtran negotiated killer rates on the new 73's. Things change fast in this business I guess. It sure is a lot easier to tell people to not take concessions when you are outside looking in. There are many affected that might lose their house, struggle to feed their family, etc. I am one of those. Most of my savings have been consumed by my last furlough just a short year and a half ago. I am hoping for the best, but it doesn't look good right now.

 

[PCL_128]

Hate it when I start sounding like devils advocate.

Those that signed onto Airtran knew full well they were getting on with a fledgling carrier that was the only airline out there growing 20% a year while the next biggest grower was at 8%.....and even southwest was only at 6%. Face the consequences instead of a concessionary shot in the foot for even lower wages. Know thats easier than its easier said than done.

What a load of crap. Fledgling carrier? Virgin America is a "fledgling carrier." AirTran is a well established major airline with $2.5 billion in annual revenue and many years of profitability.