Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
HAL hiring
- Thread starter mkingmei
- Start date
- Watchers 31
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
waveflyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2005
- Posts
- 10,005
110% agree- well said
I would fly the hell out of a Q400
I don't know when legacies understood their history of dc-3's to now being too good or experienced to fly a Q or a Brasilia, but it shouldn't be that way
waveflyer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2005
- Posts
- 10,005
That's how it starts Dan.
And usually with the support of some well meaning but out of touch senior wide body pilots
Microclimates
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2006
- Posts
- 143
not YET it doesn't. just give it a few years when the 717's start being due for retirement!
Jim
Fly Navy!
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 720
And our current scope covers that. We would have to give it away and I don't see that happening.
Also during the 321NEO presentations it was projected that it would be at least another 15 years until they started looking for a 717 replacement. While something to think about long term, this is not an immediate concern.
I'm the sterotypical "the company's going to screw us" guy and have a rep of being vocal about it. But in this case I'm not worried.
Its not taking our jobs away (yet) but it DID stop the "need" for hiring on the HAL seniority list for more interisland pilots. Turboprop flying makes more sense on the routes published and the loads on those routes now- that's a given. But it is weakening our ability to stand as a group when a majority of the group doesn't know what the minority is losing- to the benefit of an outside entity.
I'm not even going to get into the 7 more "N" numbers registered for Ohana flying....
I'm not even going to get into the 7 more "N" numbers registered for Ohana flying....
The fact is the pilot group gave up scope on the last contract. It was sold hard by the MEC and really nothing was gained by doing so. Hopefully the leadership and entire group will put a little more thought before agreeing to the next contract. We should have already learned the lesson about scope from the other legacies.
Our scope is laughable at best and really only protects HNL to the 4 big neighbor islands airports. The 29,000 block hour minimum provides for about 5 hours of flying per 717 (assuming the normal 16 aircraft schedule, way less if we fly all 18) per day. Currently they are doing considerably more than 5 hours of flying each day.
I would fully expect the company to dangle some nice carrot (commuter clause?) to entice the widebody guys (who way out number the 717 guys) to vote on relaxing scope to allow "off peak" flights out of HNL on the ATRs. Also, I would expect the OGG-KOA and OGG-ITO flights to go almost exclusively to ATRs in the future. Additionally, with the 321s doing west coast to neighbor island flights, the need to shuttle some visitor traffic around (LAX-HNL-LIH) will go away, further reducing the need for 717 flying.
I'm far, far from paranoid, but it ain't looking good for us inter island guys long term.
Jim
Fly Navy!
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 720
When we allowed Hawaiian to own a subsidiary, we did not give up scope we actually tightened it.
Prior to the last contract, the only protection we had was any code share had to fly turboprops less than 69 seats and 69,000 lbs, and no code share flying between the four pairs (HNL-LIH, HNL-OGG, HNL-KOA, HNL-ITO).
The only thing contract 2010 changed was instead of this type of flying having to be done by a code share partner, Hawaiian could have a subsidiary do it. In exchange for this, we gained a minimum interisland block hour requirement of 29,000 hours/year where if pilots on the HAL seniority list did not fly this minimum hours, any code share or subsidiary flying had to cease.
At the time of the contract, we were flying approximately 29,000 hours a year interisland or an average of 2416 hours/month. For July 2014 we have 3283 hours of interisland flying but if you talk to the crew planning people, you will find that the 3 summer months and Christmas have approx. 15% more flying then the other 8 months of the year. So we now fly (3283 x 4 months = 13,132 hour) + (2791 x 8 months = 23,328 hours) or 35,460 hour/year interisland. Which is about 6500 hours above the minimum. But some points to consider:
- The 29,000 are hard interisland hours flown by HAL pilots. When the 321 NEOs start flying mainland to outer islands, some of the current 35,460 hours will go away due to less need. But the 29,000 is still a hard requirement.
- If we had not agreed to the change, the flying Ohana is now doing /will do in the future would have been done by a code share partner anyway and we would have no hours protection.
- Interisland is a fixed market, there is no real growth other than by gaining more market share. We own 90+% of the market and Ohana is filling in the gaps we otherwise would never be servicing. By doing so, we also discourage someone such as Alaska/Horizon from entering the market which would only reduce our market share/interisland flying. We would quickly be back to the 2010 29,000 hour level or lower. If this happened, the Ohana flying would have to be done by HA pilots and since we own the planes, this would not be a hard change to accomplish.
- Anything the 321NEOs fly other than strictly interisland pairs do not count as part of the 29,000 hours. So even if the 321NEOs replace the 717, they would still have to fly 29,000 hours of strict interisland pairings for Ohana to continue.
Like you, I wish the flying were done by pilots on our seniority list but this is not/was not going to happen. HAL ALPA realized this, tightened our scope and provided more job protection in contract 2010 by allowing a subsidiary versus only code sharing. Not the ideal solution but better than we had before.
As far as the international majority hurting interisland minority, this is inevitable anyway. There is no growth interisland and HAL ALPA recognized this as far back as the 2000 contract. That is when they started building international work rules and increasing the pay differential between international and interisland. As Hawaiian continues to grow, interisland as a percentage of flying and pilots will only continue to shrink. Further it is not HAL ALPA's place to demand any type of flying (i.e. HA must have dedicated interisland), it's the company's. If the company wants to get rid of dedicated interisland planes/pilots with the 321NEO then they can. It's HAL ALPA's job to make sure the changes have appropriate pay, work rules and job protection. (This hearkens back to HAL ALPA's position in the early 2000s when the west coast bases were being closed.) I would hope everyone who wants the current interisland lifestyle would get to keep it, but that's the company's call.
If you are a Hawaiian pilot it's easy to figure out who I am. There are only a couple of 767 Captains named Jim. If you were here for the last contract you would know I don't trust management or their promises at all, and I have been vocal in my criticisms of both management and at times our union. I'm the guy that sent the mass e-mail out at the last contract calling for a NO vote. So me defending something like Ohana is a big difference from my normal "management's going to F' us mode". I really don't believe Ohana the threat people are thinking it is.
Prior to the last contract, the only protection we had was any code share had to fly turboprops less than 69 seats and 69,000 lbs, and no code share flying between the four pairs (HNL-LIH, HNL-OGG, HNL-KOA, HNL-ITO).
The only thing contract 2010 changed was instead of this type of flying having to be done by a code share partner, Hawaiian could have a subsidiary do it. In exchange for this, we gained a minimum interisland block hour requirement of 29,000 hours/year where if pilots on the HAL seniority list did not fly this minimum hours, any code share or subsidiary flying had to cease.
At the time of the contract, we were flying approximately 29,000 hours a year interisland or an average of 2416 hours/month. For July 2014 we have 3283 hours of interisland flying but if you talk to the crew planning people, you will find that the 3 summer months and Christmas have approx. 15% more flying then the other 8 months of the year. So we now fly (3283 x 4 months = 13,132 hour) + (2791 x 8 months = 23,328 hours) or 35,460 hour/year interisland. Which is about 6500 hours above the minimum. But some points to consider:
- The 29,000 are hard interisland hours flown by HAL pilots. When the 321 NEOs start flying mainland to outer islands, some of the current 35,460 hours will go away due to less need. But the 29,000 is still a hard requirement.
- If we had not agreed to the change, the flying Ohana is now doing /will do in the future would have been done by a code share partner anyway and we would have no hours protection.
- Interisland is a fixed market, there is no real growth other than by gaining more market share. We own 90+% of the market and Ohana is filling in the gaps we otherwise would never be servicing. By doing so, we also discourage someone such as Alaska/Horizon from entering the market which would only reduce our market share/interisland flying. We would quickly be back to the 2010 29,000 hour level or lower. If this happened, the Ohana flying would have to be done by HA pilots and since we own the planes, this would not be a hard change to accomplish.
- Anything the 321NEOs fly other than strictly interisland pairs do not count as part of the 29,000 hours. So even if the 321NEOs replace the 717, they would still have to fly 29,000 hours of strict interisland pairings for Ohana to continue.
Like you, I wish the flying were done by pilots on our seniority list but this is not/was not going to happen. HAL ALPA realized this, tightened our scope and provided more job protection in contract 2010 by allowing a subsidiary versus only code sharing. Not the ideal solution but better than we had before.
As far as the international majority hurting interisland minority, this is inevitable anyway. There is no growth interisland and HAL ALPA recognized this as far back as the 2000 contract. That is when they started building international work rules and increasing the pay differential between international and interisland. As Hawaiian continues to grow, interisland as a percentage of flying and pilots will only continue to shrink. Further it is not HAL ALPA's place to demand any type of flying (i.e. HA must have dedicated interisland), it's the company's. If the company wants to get rid of dedicated interisland planes/pilots with the 321NEO then they can. It's HAL ALPA's job to make sure the changes have appropriate pay, work rules and job protection. (This hearkens back to HAL ALPA's position in the early 2000s when the west coast bases were being closed.) I would hope everyone who wants the current interisland lifestyle would get to keep it, but that's the company's call.
If you are a Hawaiian pilot it's easy to figure out who I am. There are only a couple of 767 Captains named Jim. If you were here for the last contract you would know I don't trust management or their promises at all, and I have been vocal in my criticisms of both management and at times our union. I'm the guy that sent the mass e-mail out at the last contract calling for a NO vote. So me defending something like Ohana is a big difference from my normal "management's going to F' us mode". I really don't believe Ohana the threat people are thinking it is.
Last edited:
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
