ASA 4 Days

[IFLYASA]

The ASA CRJ200 lines have very few 3 day trips anymore. 79 hours or less. I know SH says they are less efficient than 4 days but can someone prove to me how an 19 hour 3 day is less efficient than a 19 hour 4 day? Considering that's an extra 24 hours per diem that's paid out for all crew members on each trip.

I hear Southwest does alot of 3 days. Maybe they know something ASA doesn't.

I held 3 days about 3-4 years ago and can't even touch them unless I've been here like 18 years. What a joke.

I'm sure since the company is really pushing PBS, they would tend to make hard lines not so desirable to pursuade us to go to PBS. If this were the case, I would vote "NO" just because of what they are doing, regardless how good PBS is talked up.

 

[Data]

Not defending the practice but Southwest controls all of their flying, we're at the whim of Delta's schedule.

 

[Cpt Oveur]

This sounds like a great question for SH himself. Why not ask the Scheduling Committee to answer that too. They're the ones who should be enforcing a "mix of trips" per the contract, correct?

 

[LazyLightnin']

Someone explained it to me one time and said that it's due to the 3.75 min day and 75 min month guaruntees that 4 days over 3 days save the company money. Don't ask me to explain it because I can't. I'll say that when it was explained to me it made sense. Just another unintended consequence.

 

[Abernathy]

This sounds like a great question for SH himself. Why not ask the Scheduling Committee to answer that too. They're the ones who should be enforcing a "mix of trips" per the contract, correct?

I'm sure they'll just say "we've filed a grievance."

 

[Oakum_Boy]

don't buy that. next.

 

[ASA_Aviator]

The ASA CRJ200 lines have very few 3 day trips anymore. 79 hours or less. I know SH says they are less efficient than 4 days but can someone prove to me how an 19 hour 3 day is less efficient than a 19 hour 4 day? Considering that's an extra 24 hours per diem that's paid out for all crew members on each trip.

I hear Southwest does alot of 3 days. Maybe they know something ASA doesn't.

I held 3 days about 3-4 years ago and can't even touch them unless I've been here like 18 years. What a joke.

I'm sure since the company is really pushing PBS, they would tend to make hard lines not so desirable to pursuade us to go to PBS. If this were the case, I would vote "NO" just because of what they are doing, regardless how good PBS is talked up.

Well, your example is easy. A 19 hour 3 day is less efficient than a 19 hour 4 day because an extra overnight is covered with the 4 day trip, so it takes fewer pilots to fly a 19 hour 4 day, on average for the whole schedule. The more overnights there are per trip, the fewer distinct crews you need to cover them.

Remember, it all depends on what you mean by "efficient." Scott means, "Trips that require the fewest crews to operate the entire month's schedule." What you mean is, "Trips that utilize ME the most possible hours per day." Those are fundamentally two different points of view, and I think it is the main disconnect when crews hear that 4 days are more efficient than 3 days.

I agree that if they are making the lines bad for the purposes of "selling" PBS, it will backfire.

 

[79%N1]

To have more three days you need to have more naps. The company feels that nap lines are not cost effective and want to limit them. Hence, no 3 days.

Law of unintended consequences.

 

[samballs]

To have more three days you need to have more naps. The company feels that nap lines are not cost effective and want to limit them. Hence, no 3 days.

Law of unintended consequences.

I feel like everyone on this site learned this phrase last month. Now you all want yo use it like kids want the hot toy

 

[altimaklr]

ASA threads suck
Get your own message board

 

[ASApuppy]

I think the simple answer is we are running a little fat on pilot count. By having lines that are only 4 days and under guarantee it becomes difficult and non beneficial for a pilot to manipulate their schedule. The company does not want to pay over guarantee when they have too many reserves sitting around. Wait for PBS. There will be very few awards over 75 hours. Once attrition happens or growth occurs, then hours per month will rise until we reach our breaking point. FO's will wait longer to upgrade and our furloughee's will wait longer to be recalled. This is the cost advantage the company wants.

 

[Jack-O-Lantern]

Company's push for PBS.Coincidently there's a vote coming up on this. Hmmmm. Come on guys, have you not figured it out yet!?

 

[crj567]

ASA threads suck
Get your own message board

If there were no ASA threads, this site would have 3 posts per day-2 by Gen damn Lee hisownfoolself.

 

[boknowsASA]

I think the simple answer is we are running a little fat on pilot count. By having lines that are only 4 days and under guarantee it becomes difficult and non beneficial for a pilot to manipulate their schedule. The company does not want to pay over guarantee when they have too many reserves sitting around. Wait for PBS. There will be very few awards over 75 hours. Once attrition happens or growth occurs, then hours per month will rise until we reach our breaking point. FO's will wait longer to upgrade and our furloughee's will wait longer to be recalled. This is the cost advantage the company wants.

I don't know what seat you're in but if you take a look at the 700 Capt RES list we have no one! We have zero Res coverage for today. We need an upgrade class!

 

[SSDD]

I know there are conspiracy theorists everywhere, but low paying 4 days have nothing to do with getting you to accept PBS. It is the brainchild of a couple of people in SGU. Skywest has PBS, AND low paying, crappy, 4 days.

 

[xjlifer]

At XJ we have 4 days that are low value AND get you back in base at 1 in the morning on the 5th day So there!

 

[IFLYASA]

At XJ we have 4 days that are low value AND get you back in base at 1 in the morning on the 5th day So there!

Hmm, after a scheduled 12am arrival that's 3.75 hours more credit at ASA. It's still sucks regardless. Once the FAA mandates the 1500 hour ATP rule, regionals will be struggling for pilots. They will be forced to pay respectable wages and give better quality.

 

[COOPERVANE]

we'll see

 

[Tarzan]

Hmm, after a scheduled 12am arrival that's 3.75 hours more credit at ASA. It's still sucks regardless. Once the FAA mandates the 1500 hour ATP rule, regionals will be struggling for pilots. They will be forced to pay respectable wages and give better quality.

I believe it will drive some regionals out of business as the rule stands now. As wages come up to attract pilots, the incentive for Legacy carriers to contract out out flying decreases. Give it ten years and I believe you'll see a great deal of this flying returning to mainline if the rule passes as is. There are multiple groups lobbying for caveats to this rule such as structured programs.

 

[ASA_Aviator]

There are multiple groups lobbying for caveats to this rule such as structured programs.

The data is pretty clear that quality outweighs quantity. Structured program people do better than those with a lot of hours who didn't attend some sort of structured program.

That doesn't mean that there are some who do well who didn't come from a structured environment, but on average, structured low-time pilots are better at getting through training and IOE than non-structured high-time pilots.

This makes sense, since the part 121 world is so structure-heavy.

Quality over quantity, every time.

 

[Mookie]

nope...I'll take quantity over your supposed "quality" every time, and twice on Tuesday. how many of these pilot farm guys driving perfectly good planes into the ground does it take for Senator DBag to realize what the real problem is. i think that time is now...

Mookie

 

[Tarzan]

I tend to agree. The guys with the structured programs may do better in the sim but they don't have time watching people make mistakes over and over again. Hence, they may be somewhat more inclined to have the attitude of, "It can't happen to me." Right after the Comair accident, I listened to some young pilots saying they would never make the same mistake. I could see it happening to me simply because if someone else did it. Simply fact of life. I think we lose that with the sort low time folks from structured programs.

 

[Abernathy]

The data is pretty clear that quality outweighs quantity. Structured program people do better than those with a lot of hours who didn't attend some sort of structured program.

That doesn't mean that there are some who do well who didn't come from a structured environment, but on average, structured low-time pilots are better at getting through training and IOE than non-structured high-time pilots.

This makes sense, since the part 121 world is so structure-heavy.

Quality over quantity, every time.

What data? Do you have any references to empirical studies that show that "Johnny Wunderkid" from embry riddle and his 250hrs does better than the other guy who went to mom and pop flight schools, instructed for a few years and worked odd right seat jobs till he could get on at a regional?

I'm the other guy, and I don't think the 250hr guy who took "how to fly 101" at embry riddle has any edge over me or any other CFI airport rat that instructed for a few years in beat up 1960s cherokees and 152s, and spent countless hours fixing problem students. I think it's the opposite.

The only time I ever heard of such study was from an embry riddle-hired attorney during the Congressional hearings of recent past, who Jeff Skiles determined was citing an INTERNAL study performed by Embry Riddle Inc.

When you say "on average, structured low-time pilots are better at getting through training and IOE than non-structured high-time pilots," you need to support that highly subjective opinion with actual independent studies, none of which really exist. When this topic comes up with Instructor Pilots at the 121 level, the polar opposite tends to be their response.

So much for your theory.

 

[SLUF4]

what if you have both a structured background and then flew a crapload of hours instructing and flying charter-you must be a super pilot!

 

[LazyLightnin']

What a horrible debate topic.

 

[Tarzan]

What data? Do you have any references to empirical studies that show that "Johnny Wunderkid" from embry riddle and his 250hrs does better than the other guy who went to mom and pop flight schools, instructed for a few years and worked odd right seat jobs till he could get on at a regional?

Your life must be miserable. So angry at the world. At my company, the instructors will tell you that Embry Diddle guys do well in the sim and IOE. The numbers back them up. More of the guys released from training come from outside and not Diddle programs. Why, because they do alright in situations that are controlled. Fly the heck out of the sim but not fly a visual worth a flip. Talk on the radio? Not a chance. However, I've also had an instructor tell me that a 1500 captain equals a 10000 hour captain due to the fact that training is the same.

 

[JettBoii]

Back to 4 days. They would be ok if they were worth something (22 hrs and up) but 16 hour 3 days suck. 5-2-2-4. What a waste of time

 

[ASA_Aviator]

What data? Do you have any references to empirical studies that show that "Johnny Wunderkid" from embry riddle and his 250hrs does better than the other guy who went to mom and pop flight schools, instructed for a few years and worked odd right seat jobs till he could get on at a regional?

I'm the other guy, and I don't think the 250hr guy who took "how to fly 101" at embry riddle has any edge over me or any other CFI airport rat that instructed for a few years in beat up 1960s cherokees and 152s, and spent countless hours fixing problem students. I think it's the opposite.

The only time I ever heard of such study was from an embry riddle-hired attorney during the Congressional hearings of recent past, who Jeff Skiles determined was citing an INTERNAL study performed by Embry Riddle Inc.

When you say "on average, structured low-time pilots are better at getting through training and IOE than non-structured high-time pilots," you need to support that highly subjective opinion with actual independent studies, none of which really exist. When this topic comes up with Instructor Pilots at the 121 level, the polar opposite tends to be their response.

So much for your theory.

The data supports it. It also makes sense intuitively. If you fly circles around in the sky for 1500 hours, you aren't getting the same quality experience as a person who is getting structured training. It is the same reason you couldn't compete with a military fighter pilot. They are training in the specific set of skills necessary to accomplish that mission. Structured programs train the pilots for the specific skills necessary to accomplish the airline mission.

After 3 months of "line" experience, a structured training pilot has just as much to offer as any other line pilot, and likely is better than a 1500 hour pilot from part 91 land with no adult supervision for 1300 of his 1500 hours.

It doesn't mean that there aren't quality pilots out there who didn't go to a structured school. It means that the quality of their education is highly dependent upon 1, their instructor, and 2, their personal work ethic. Those values are unknowns, and the airline gets a more reliable, predictable product from the structured schools. Like it or not, that is the way of the industry, and the way hiring is heading, and for good reason. Again, the industry data supports it.


BTW, there is no need to be a jerk. Of course, you probably can't help it.

 

[ASA_Aviator]

Your life must be miserable. So angry at the world. At my company, the instructors will tell you that Embry Diddle guys do well in the sim and IOE. The numbers back them up. More of the guys released from training come from outside and not Diddle programs. Why, because they do alright in situations that are controlled. Fly the heck out of the sim but not fly a visual worth a flip. Talk on the radio? Not a chance. However, I've also had an instructor tell me that a 1500 captain equals a 10000 hour captain due to the fact that training is the same.

No question, the low time guys require more OE, and require more mentoring from line captains. (There is a reason that the ATP is a de facto instructor license for 121 ops.) In 3 months, however, you cannot tell the difference between a low time guy, and a high time guy.

BTW, I know a couple pilots with over 3,000 hours who couldn't talk on the radio or operate in the IFR environment. They didn't make it through training. QUALITY over QUANTITY. Every time. 10,000 hours of VFR flying never talking to anyone is not going to make you a better pilot than a 400 hour guy flying out of ATL every day.

Anyway, the data supports my position.

 

[Tarzan]

BTW, I know a couple pilots with over 3,000 hours who couldn't talk on the radio or operate in the IFR environment. They didn't make it through training. QUALITY over QUANTITY. Every time. 10,000 hours of VFR flying never talking to anyone is not going to make you a better pilot than a 400 hour guy flying out of ATL every day.

Anyway, the data supports my position.

I am not arguing the data. I believe anything can be skewed. If they hire guys that have been flying checks in all sorts weather, single pilot and guys that have been real instructors, I.E. lots of IFR and not just circling the patch, these guys will blow by low time guys everytime. Mainly this is because they've have experienced more and can contribute more to whatever scenario they find themselves in. Additionally, they don't seem quite as arrogant since they have watched students make the EXACT SAME mistakes over and over.

BTW, this idea that instructors just circle the patch have not had any real time teaching. When I taught and the clouds rolled in, good time to go fly. I even took my PPL students up in it because it was a heck of alot better than foggle flying. If a guy reaches 1500 hours and has a bunch of time teaching, he/ she likely has done quite a bit more than just "circle the field."