10/250

[msculley6905]

I apologize if I said anything inflammatory, was not my intention, nor why I started posting. Just trying to gain a better understanding of things. When scheduling began being bashed, I felt the need to explain/defend how we do things and it spiraled off topic.

 

[-FlyAuburn-]

Deleted..

 

[CE750Driver]

I apologized to Sculley by message. I was taking his posts as antagonism, and went a bit off the deep end. I thank him for being more civilized than I was.

 

[Hogprint]

As a final thought, I know we all like to have a bit-o-sport with the management trolls on here (myself especially), but I think it's time we just ignore the Goose and his minions. I don't know if this dude is one of them (he sure fits the profile as evidenced by his predecessors) but you can believe they are lurking and he is doing their bidding whether he wants to believe it or not.

They haven't changed one play in the playbook and nothing good (on our side) can come from the banter here other than padding their intel.

 

[CA1900]

While keeping the body's clock on the same schedule can be imporant, the need to cover more flights with less assets prohibits that from being something we can do with any sort of regularity.

Sure you can. It'll just require more crews and more planes. I know Sokol thought we could all "give 125%," but that's not grounded in reality.

... but it's never questioned ...

The hell it isn't. I've repeatedly had it questioned. Why else do you think the policy was changed to require a call to the ACP for all fatigue calls?

This is one of many reasons for big gaps in time from show to go times, or staying onFBO duty after arriving...you know, anything that some of you deem as wasteful/punative scheduling/pilot hating/term of the week.

And now we come full circle to my first point. If you'd schedule safely and with circadian rhythms factored in, you wouldn't need so many crews rotting at the airport to cover the fatigue calls, because they'd drop dramatically.

 

[msculley6905]

Sure you can. It'll just require more crews and more planes. I know Sokol thought we could all "give 125%," but that's not grounded in reality.



The hell it isn't. I've repeatedly had it questioned. Why else do you think the policy was changed to require a call to the ACP for all fatigue calls?



And now we come full circle to my first point. If you'd schedule safely and with circadian rhythms factored in, you wouldn't need so many crews rotting at the airport to cover the fatigue calls, because they'd drop dramatically.

I seriously doubt you've ever been asked by someone in operations "are you sure you can't do that leg?" When you say the word, you're done flying...end of story...I think the ACPs getting involved has to do with placing structure behind the process, as their should be....having the final word coming from an official source, as opposed to someone in crew support who may misinterpret was you say.

sure, fatigues may go down, but remember, as I was attacked with earlier, 15 hrs off does not mean well rested. And it's not just fatigues, it's MX issues, new bookings, weather issues, travel delays, etc. The schedule MUST include buffer time all over the place for numerous reasons. Oh, and recovery time would also skyrocket if everyone's plan was just based on the briefed trips.

 

[CA1900]

I seriously doubt you've ever been asked by someone in operations "are you sure you can't do that leg?" When you say the word, you're done flying...end of story...

You clearly haven't talked to the ACPs in the Excel fleet, then. My personal favorite was when he said to my partner, "You're really putting us in a bind if you do that."

And it's not just fatigues, it's MX issues, new bookings, weather issues, travel delays, etc. The schedule MUST include buffer time all over the place for numerous reasons.

Of course. But proactively planning to prevent fatigue, instead of reacting to it, is a better and safer way to do business.

As for the issue of how someone can be fatigued after 15 hours off and a similar showtime, there are several big factors that do it for me:

• Circadian shifts, as I mentioned. Especially shifting earlier, which is more likely for a west coaster as he goes east. If I go from a 1pm show one day, to a 5am show the next, I'm going to be cooked on that third day no matter what time the show is.
• Long, busy workdays, which require more rest to recover. Only in aviation is a 12-hour workday considered "normal."
• Noisy or uncomfortable hotel, which is happening more as the quality goes down
• Having your 4am breakfast not show up, and being told it was pushed to your next stop in six hours. (At 4am, there are generally no options for food.)

I know the fatigue call is always our option as a safety valve. But it shouldn't be our only one, as it is now. The airplanes have many redundancies to keep us and our passengers safe -- the human side should be no different.

 

[imacdog]

That's not what I said. I said if you think you are not worth 10/$250 AS A MINIMUM, it's time to move on.

Bump.....

10yr 7/7 PIC 143K

 

[VGerect]

Fischman- you folded like a lawnchair.

Gut,

The answer is "B".

The company posted a $223 million profit for 2012 AND paid down $500 million in debt. These numbers aren't secret. They are in the SEC filing.

Oh yeah, the 95.6% owner approval rating for the pilots is THE LOWEST it has ever been.

In other words, we are awesome. The company has made a poop ton of money on operations alone, and we are selling the poop out of the Phenoms and Globals. Wait to see what happens when the Challengers show up. Mr. Buffet won't know what to do with all the money.

10/$250 is the bottom line, not the starting point. 10/$249,999 is a NO VOTE.

So, let's hear some of the common excuses...

"There's NO WAY you'll get paid $250,000 to fly a CE560. NBAA rates are $140,000 max."

OK. How much does a Part 91 CE560 driver fly a year? 200 hours? 250 hours? for $140,000? OK. I flew 630 hours last year for $120,000. So hour to hour, dollar to dollar, a 200 hour pilot at $140,00 would equate to $420,000 worth of flight. Even if the guy flew 300 hours a year, it would equate to more than $280,000 for the amount I have been flying.

"The owners will never support that kind of salary."

Really? Why would the owners even need to notice a difference? Why would the company even have to charge the owners more? Did you see the INSANE amount of money we made? Did you see the amount of debt we paid off? SWA guys make that kind of coin and the company still manged to post a $73 million profit. Oh yeah, they have a larger seniority list too. Berkshire will just have to get their money a little slower.

How many Travelodge's does the 91 guy stay in?

How many crappy D8b's does he eat?

How many times does he even GET A CHANCE to workout? Every day? The only way I can fit in a workout is if I call in fatigued.

I helped subsidize NetJets Europe with the crap salary we made before 2005. I am not going to subsidize China.

So yeah. I deserve the 10/$250. I work hard. I work safely. The owners LOVE me. The company can EASILY afford it (re: $223 million profit. $500 million in debt. Making that money on operations alone-new planes selling well).

The only reason we won't get that money is if we say we aren't worth it. I am.

 

[fischman]

Fischman- you folded like a lawnchair.

How so? I stand by that I believe that is what we are worth. And I haven't confirmed how I will vote one way or the other (and I never will. It's no one's business but my own). I still haven't seen the whole TA.

Does it look like we are going to get 10/250? Some of us will, and in a few years more of us will. I assume you are referring to the post I made on the union boards? If so, you completely missed the point of it. What I said was that it isn't as bad as guys are making it out to be and provided FACTUAL numbers to back up that statement. Because you don't like the FACTS doesn't mean they are incorrect.
Apparently, the pilots wanted mainline narrowbody pay. We got that. I wanted more too. It isn't 10/250, I agree.

Flame away.

 

[D_G]

Somebody got some money thats for sure.