airtran furloughs

[maxblast72]

Per SEC 8-K for June 19 2008 airtran has 143 aircraft. 87 717s and 56 737s. However, I have not seen any 737s with ship numbers above 354.

I believe 354 would be number #55 since they started with 300. Good luck trying to find sneaky #56. Maybe it is roaming the great north central part of the country.

 

[Lowrider717]

I talked to a friend at UsAirways, trying to get vol.furlough. Said he keeps IDS and pass priveledges.

 

[RIDETHELIGHTING]

I believe 354 would be number #55 since they started with 300. Good luck trying to find sneaky #56. Maybe it is roaming the great north central part of the country.

I did see 354 on tuesday, but not #55.

 

[CitationLover]

MEH gave 2 yrs flying privileges to LOA's and furloughees.

 

[maxblast72]

I did see 354 on tuesday, but not #55.

Unless we skipped some numbers when we sold two 737's last year to Arik Air (in Nigeria), then aircraft 354 would actually be the 55th 737 on the property.

 

[RIDETHELIGHTING]

Well just telling you what I saw last week

 

[Ty Webb]

Anybody have a handle on the expense side of furloughing?

Seems like replacing first year FO's with third/fourth year FO's would carry some expenses of its own, not to mention training costs.

It would seem to be more efficient to reduce the LVI and improve the scheduling inefficiencies, at least up to a certain point.

 

[scarlet]

The Sch. dept. at Airtran cost the airline alot of money.

 

[twepilot]

buckets full....

RV

 

[Max Powers]

I've heard all sorts of people throw around numbers. For instance it only make sense when they are going to furlough 200-250 any less wouldn't make sense.

I don't think this to be the case. Furloughing is a function of time. For example if you need 10 pilots less than you actually do, then you must ask yourself how long do you think that you will not need them, if the answer to that question is over a year then do the math - if the training cost associated are less than the salaries then it make sense to kick people to the curb.......

 

[Ty Webb]

I don't think this to be the case. Furloughing is a function of time. For example if you need 10 pilots less than you actually do, then you must ask yourself how long do you think that you will not need them, if the answer to that question is over a year then do the math - if the training cost associated are less than the salaries then it make sense to kick people to the curb.......

That's an oversimplification of the issue. First off, you're replacing $40./hr pilots with $72./hr pilots in the right seat, so the savings you're realizing are offset to that degree, plus there are bidding/training issues other than just returning guys to the line later. What about displacement bids? Some pilots may choose to switch airplanes if they are going back to the right seat. Others may take the opportunity to get a 737 type. You also have to figure that many of the dsiplaced FO's would not come back, meaning their traning costs would have to be converted to newhire training costs . . . which would pretty much decimiate any short-term savings.

There is an equation there that would include the number of positions reduced, offset by the increased hourly costs of having senior guys flying as FO's, and associated training costs.

Anyone have a formula to determine savings gained from furlough

 

[27 driver]

As of right now furloughs are only a rumor. Lets hope they are not necessary. Being one of the guys on the chopping block I am hoping for the best. Until the official word comes out it is just rumor.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

That's an oversimplification of the issue. First off, you're replacing $40./hr pilots with $72./hr pilots in the right seat, so the savings you're realizing are offset to that degree, plus there are bidding/training issues other than just returning guys to the line later. What about displacement bids? Some pilots may choose to switch airplanes if they are going back to the right seat. Others may take the opportunity to get a 737 type. You also have to figure that many of the dsiplaced FO's would not come back, meaning their traning costs would have to be converted to newhire training costs . . . which would pretty much decimiate any short-term savings.

There is an equation there that would include the number of positions reduced, offset by the increased hourly costs of having senior guys flying as FO's, and associated training costs.

Anyone have a formula to determine savings gained from furlough

Don't forget goodwill. The threat of furloughs might actually get some people to think about concessions during negotiations. Actual furloughs piss off a lot of people.

 

[Ty Webb]

Don't forget goodwill. The threat of furloughs might actually get some people to think about concessions during negotiations. Actual furloughs piss off a lot of people.

Bingo!

Historically, though, this company has not realized the value of that goodwill. Can't see it on the Balance Sheet, or on the Income Statement, then it doesn't exist.

Funny example of this phenomenon was when we got ACARS activated. The Company was surprised to find that their on-time performance went down with the automatic reporting. They were shocked to find that when the pilots called the times in themselves, they were giving up a few bucks in favor of "on-time".

A whole 'nother great topic would be the "Law of Unintended Consequences", but that would be thread drift, 'fo sho'.

 

[Max Powers]

That's an oversimplification of the issue. First off, you're replacing $40./hr pilots with $72./hr pilots in the right seat, so the savings you're realizing are offset to that degree, plus there are bidding/training issues other than just returning guys to the line later. What about displacement bids? Some pilots may choose to switch airplanes if they are going back to the right seat. Others may take the opportunity to get a 737 type. You also have to figure that many of the dsiplaced FO's would not come back, meaning their traning costs would have to be converted to newhire training costs . . . which would pretty much decimiate any short-term savings.

There is an equation there that would include the number of positions reduced, offset by the increased hourly costs of having senior guys flying as FO's, and associated training costs.

Anyone have a formula to determine savings gained from furlough

Yes, there are a myriad issues but when it comes to straight up cost savings and not caring about individual pilots - that cost number can easily be determined. And it hasn't nothing to do with how many pilots. So my point is the chance of furlough is not weighed on the need to furlough more than X amount of pilots.