Let's Start an Airline-Hypothetically

[Astra Guy]

Hey Guys,

I haven't had enough time today to read through all of the posts. Been doing my regular job, you know. The thing to remember is we will not be able to put all of this together overnight. I think I posted some domiciles. as a starting point. Those can be modified. If we want to do this right then we will need some input on aircraft choices, operating costs, seat-mile costs, maintenance considerations, etc before we can even chose an aircraft. Next we will need some scheduling support from someone who is in the business to give us an idea of crews/airplane and of course that has to take into consideration the route structure, legs, duty hours, etc.

While some have expressed how ludicrous this exercise is I think that there might be something to gain by going through the process. There will be others that drop by and give us there nickels worth and some of it will be credible and some, as you have seen will not be.

End game plan is to cover as many aspects as we can and then come up with possibly a viable solution to answer each question as they come along. This is not designed to create and ideal airline strictly from the least amount of effort for the most amount of money thing for crews. Those days are heading south fast.

And to answer someone's question I am not going to create a model for anyone. It is a learning exercise only. It might actually be able to open some eyes on some management problems that have to be dealt with to get something like this off of the ground and make it a lasting enterprise.

Thanks for all that have provided meaningful input so far.

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

Customer base

Bart and Shadow have alluded to it, but what kind of customer are you going after? Business, leisure, or all things to all people?
If you're going after the biz traveler might consider what JB does with the entertainment stuff and/or computer.
One thing that is for sure there should be a policy of no facial hair or tattoos allowed on female pilots or female flight attendants. Might not be PC though. Sorry couldn't resist.

 

[enigma]

Enigma,

I (we) appreciate your input. We will surely take what you say and weigh it appropriately.

..........

I know you said you weren't interested in being involved but we would like to have your input as we go along...much as you have given so far.

Ron

Ron,

I'm obviously ok with spouting off my opinions. What I don't want to do is become a "board member" and be obligated to continue when I run out of interest.


regards,
enigma

 

[Dragonbravo]

Whatever aircraft we go with, then we go with that one aircraft. 757's then we fly only 57's. Save huge on having a common fleet. Looking for diversity in the fleet then 737-300/500/800, whatever works for our needs. Keep as much the same as possible. We need to get other things set up before we worry about pilot schedules and quality of life issues. There will be a time for that later. I mean we don't even have an airplane or city pair yet and we're already discussing hats. (Personaly, keep the hats, lose the blazers. I hate wearing those things)

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Some funny stuff, but what I like of the original suggestions was only two years on the board. I think three years would be better as there should be some continuity. Also, capping at three years might keep the board members in the game so to speak. COPORATE GOVERNANCE is such a DISGRACE in America that something like that should be done. Too many board members just sign off on whatever the CEO tells them.

Publishers and Bart have it right about concentrating on profitability. If you want all of these great QOL issues for pilots, get profitable first.

I'd pay less than average with incentive pay for a profitable company. Same for every position at the company. This would require people that share the same vision for the company. There's no I in team, right??? Plus, no sick days. If you get sick and call in, you're paid for it. Abusers of excessive sick days get fired over time. That's just a pet peeve of mine.

I'd look for something less than a 200 person airplane as well. SWA has pretty much already covered these issues with JBLU attempting to do the same with a few additional angles thrown in. The street would let you know in far less than five years what your chances would be.


Mr. I.

 

[enigma]

Re: Geez

Geez guys, I want to be pilot friendly too.

After all of the arguments you make against pilots, I somehow have a hard time accepting that statement.

Enigma wants his time off and good for him. As an airline executive, my hours were at the 60 plus a week level and I traveled about 250,000 miles a year. My wife divorced me because she never saw me. I* would have loved one of these 5 on 5 off deals.

You worked 60 hours a week. As a pilot working a normal four day, morning shift, I will work 72 hours. If I work a five day shift, I will work ninety-six hours. As you know, I can only fly one thousand hours per year, a figure that works out to eighty-three and a third hours per month. If you divide eighty-three by eight hours, you get ten point four. If you divide eighty-three by six you get thirteen point eight. What this means is that an efficiently scheduled airline can only use a pilot for fourteen days at most.

So, I have to ask, If you can only use me 1000/1, 30/7, or 8 between rest periods, and I can perform those hours in fourteen days a month, what reason do you have for wanting me to put in more than fourteen days? You stated that you were an airline executive, so I have to assume that you were a scheduled carrier, not charter. If you were scheduled, what could you gain by keeping a pilot on duty for more than fourteen days a month? Even if you only had five hours of flying for me to do, you would still only need me seventeen days, so why the attitude towards pilots that want to maximize their days off? Does making your pilots fly more days a month make you feel more like you're getting your moneys worth?

I'll bet that you spent most work nights in your own bed. As an airline executive, you most likely moved to the town your line was based in and stayed there. I spend work nights on the road, as a pilot, I may not be able to live in base. My base may have changed due to managements continual indecision to do with efficient base staffing. I realize that my story is atypical, but at my first airline, I was based in four domiciles in two years. Only one of those moves could be even remotely my choice. My current line has moved me six times in four and a half years, only one was my choice(upgrade). I just have a hard time feeling sorry for long management hours.

One of the things that gets me in these boards is all the griping about duty time and workload.

I've flown twelve hundred hours a year back when commuters were 135. I've flown well over nine hundred hours in 121. I have SWA friends who manage to fly over 990 and still have seventeen days a month off. Heck, I've got one buddy who gets almost one month vacation and still flys almost one thousand hours on a four day a week schedule.

In conclusion, I consider it management job to run an efficient schedule. If they can't do so, I do NOT consider myself a lazy slacker just because I prefer to work an efficient schedule.

Why do managers consider me a lazy slacker for only wanting to work fourteen days?

I don't have any complaints about workload, and that's as it should be. I personally don't want to load my wife and kids on an airplane flown by a pilot who is stressed. Pilots MUST normally run at some level below 100% in order to allow them the mental processes necessary to deal with their world turning to worms. A situation that inevitably happens at the worst possible time.

enigma

PS, sorry about your wife.

 

[Astra Guy]

I think in deciding on an airplane that we should think about 757s and compare those from a performance, cost/mile/cost/seat-mile, maintainability...ultimately dispatchability against another airframe. I don't have the specifics on any of these airplanes but that should be accessible.

I do have a couple of ideas about what might seperate us from the others. The seating situation should not be setup like they were made for Asians. There needs to be leg room. A 757 might be comfortable in coach with a 3-2 setup. Not sure. I believe it has the capability to carry many more than the 200 threshold but if seating was arranged proplerly we could tone it down to a 200 seat airplane and possibly be cost effective.

Fare structure should not be setup as the legacy's have theirs. Simple and fair structure where we could charge a rate that with a 60% seat fill would break even. Walkup fares should not be more than 25% above 30 day out ticket prices. Upgrades to business class could be a $50 hit or some price that helps fill those seats.

As Enigma has brought up and from my own knowledge I know the airlines drive their folks into the ground on duty time on the days they work. Another way to help the airline market themselves as being ahead of the pack as well as keeping crews working a more normal work day is to limit their duty days to 10 hours. Can you imagine the ads that could be run that not only directly educate the flying public on tv and other medias about the 14 to 16 hour days that other carriers require? Do you think the flying public really wants to be in the back of an airplane late at night knowing that the crew is probably on the last leg of a 12+ hour duty day of that crew? I don't think so. I think a 10 hour day is enough...base the compensation around that model, 5 on and 5 off seems fair to me.

A combination of SWA, JetBlue, Airtran and other airlines might fit our model. What we have to think about is what is good and bad about each and take the best of all and apply those into our operation.

With the pricing structure I mentioned above I don't think we need to target a business type vs any other type of passenger. There would surely be a mix but I think basing airplanes at and setting up bases where there is a concentration of business traveling does make sense. One other base I didn't mention that could be added is Denver...primarily for the ski crowd in season and there is enough business there to keep things afloat in between.

Let's get some data on airplanes...keeping the fleet all of the same type and choosing that airplane first. We can work from there.

Thanks for all of the input.

 

[Astra Guy]

A couple of things here. Enigma brought up that management sets the schedules. Let's think about the empowerment concept that Shadow brought up.

First, I believe that the "management" will utlimately be coming from the workforce. The function of the founders' board members would be to focus on market analysis...providing statistical input to determine bases, expansion, etc. The function of the employees board members would be to run the operation. I like the term associates rather than employees since it employees does not connotate empowerment. Basically the founders have determined that they will provide some input that will lead the airline in the direction that will result in profitability, but with less than a majority on the board they know that some of their ideas won't fly. The founders are smart enough to realize that associates with line experience in the industry should be the best at running the day to day operations. In fact there will be a structure that leads to that very concept being put into place. There will be a CP, of course. There will also be Senior Pilots at each base. The Senior Pilots will report to the CP. The pilots will report to the Senior Pilot at each base location. The same concept applies to FAs, CSRs, Gate Agents, Ramp workers, etc. Initially these positions will be appointed based on interest and merit. However, there has to be a people management structure to cap that. A position that evaluates the evaluators and can make adjustments for non performers. Work objectives and target success criteria can be developed for each position.

The tenure of board members should be short enough to allow them to reap what they have sewn. In other words don't let anyone sit on a board so long that they lose perspective of what has happened to their associates and not feel the effects of that first hand.

 

[Astra Guy]

Let's talk about a compensation model. I mentioned a salaried structure.

Let's assume there is a way to establish work objectives, set a target success critiera for each work objective and then be able to measure that performance to determine how successful one has been in meeting that target success critieria.

Let's also assume that we can establish bonus objectives and a way to measure those from an individual standpoint. The bonus objectives would be established for each year's time table.

Now assuming we decided on a salaried structure then without getting into the actual numbers let's also assume that there is a way to pay the salary and measure performance above the median. That could reap a salary+ form of reimbursement. Annual reviews would create a way to measure the past year's performance and give the reviewer the chance to establish next year's rate based on last year's performance. Everything would be linked to the CPI. In addition to given of atleast a raise based on the CPI it would allow for annual increases up to 3% above CPI for the best performers.

There would be a Christmas bonus...one week's pay based on the current weekly rate of pay.

There would be an annual bonus. To keep it simple let's assume that 10% of the salary would be the normal amount for everyone, across the board. The makeup of this bonus would be dependent upon a 50% mix of company profitability and a 50% mix of individual performance. Bonus objectives would be established on the front end between the supervisor and the associate. There may be three or four objectives each weighted appropriately based on meeting those objectives and how they tie into profitability of the company. The result of a normal year would be a 10% of salary amounting to the annual bonus. There would be assigned a factor to determine how that % might change capping at 2. Let's assume that the company just met their profit goals in a year. The individual though met the criteria for a factor of 2 from his/her performance. The result is that the bonus now ends up being 15% of their salary. In the best years it could reap a 20% of salary being paid out as a bonus. In the worst years if profitability was way down the factor could be a .5 or less but if the individual kept exceeding his objectives at the rate of 2 then he could be assured of a 10% bonus. Make sense?

For those that will say that as a pilot you either do it right or you don't I can guarantee you there is a way to measure piloting performance. Has nothing to do with late departures, arrivals, etc. Has everything to do with semi-annual performance and line flights with a Check Airman aboard. There could also be a way to encourage ideas from them to help streamline the processes that have merit and are adopted. This same concept could be applied to all associate positions throughout the organization.

More on this later.

 

[bobbysamd]

Job openings?

We currently have reserve Captains that act a FO's if needed. I would recomend not starting out that way. You need an Capt and FO. not Capt and Capt. This way it is clear who is the PIC of the aircraft. Furthermore, each crew member has flows in acrodance with there duties. If you are a Capt. one day and an FO the next.

It's like the old story about how dangerous it is having two flight instructors on a flight with one training the other!

I haven't read each comment in detail, but you probably want to follow the model used by LCCs. Their employees have multiple duties, e.g., pilots who also work as dispatchers. Accordingly, any openings for someone who could instruct in the training department, assist in your legal department, and help in your public relations department? If so, then I'm your man. (Notice that I am not applying to be a pilot.) My mini-resume is to your left.

Finally, I, reluctantly, have to side with Pub only to the extent that you have to run your airline as a business. Of course, pilots love airplanes, and, to a great extent, management loves new whiz-bang equipment. History shows that, when, thirty years ago, so many companies jumped on the 747 bandwagon and lost their shirts. You have to select equipment that is proven, solid, and maintenance-friendly, and not necessarily cutting-edge.

Drop me a PM if you can use me!