Let's Start an Airline-Hypothetically

[Astra Guy]

On the dual captain and who is the PIC question I think that can be resolved. Coming from a military flying background there was no doubt that some pilots had more experience than others. However, once the newcomers rise to a certain level then there was no reason to hold them back. The new PICs might fly with more experienced PICs for a while to help provide pointers in refining their skills or flows or mission completion, etc. I was an IP/SIP in aircraft that I flew but would function as an SIC allowing a PIC(Captain) to build their experience in the position. Nothing like experience in each seat to help develop a better CRM situation and an accelerated increase in performance regardless of cockpit seating. Whoever is the PIC is just that. Whoever is the SIC is just that as well.

As for the flows situation there is no doubt about it that flows are based on PIC/SIC assignment. The best idea might not be to alternate legs but with a two captain cockpit there should be the capability to adapt their flows based on seat position. We are smart guys, right? Of course before we hired the first pilot we would have testing performed to determine how well one would fit into the CRM mold. We don't want folks that are not team players, particularly in the cockpit. I agree with what Bobbysamd said about having two IPs in the cockpit. That could be less than desirable...But the ego deal has no place in the pilot mix here. Remember we are not only offering the public special treatment in other areas. I don't understand why with the right people this concept couldn't be a way to, in fact raise the safety bar. And this would help set us apart from the mainstream...think about bringing the public's attention to this.

More and more 91 operations are being required to have two type rated pilots in the cockpit...underwriter driven. The cost of this is more than the standard old method. The fact is that many training facilities don't even offer SIC only training. I realize that airline training is costly. Training and qualifying a PIC is only incrementally more costly than SIC training only.

Folks in the back of the airplane would prefer to have two gray haired guys in the front simply because they would have the impression that the crews are seasoned and have more experience than a couple of young pups up front. The young pups may in fact be better pilots but statistically that may not hold true across the board.

I am sure that there are conflicting views to mine. I am simply trying to get away from the old system and therefore not have to rely strictly on a seniority based system before getting the chance to do the job. I have read several times that a fellow with 10K of 121 jet experience does not have even 1K of jet PIC experience. Something wrong with that, in my mind.

With high standards and quality people, the system should work. Once you minimize the ego situation you have a better working team in the front. And if most everyone is on an even keel then they know that they will probably reap what they sew in the cockpit.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

I forgot to mention something else. Make sure an employee is hired to hedge fuel costs. May not sound like it's important to some but there have been quarters in the past where the only profitable airlines were the ones with hedging programs. I.e. Southwest, Continental, Northwest and Delta. Probably have to pay this person in excess of 100k a year but the savings could be far more than 100k if handled correctly.


Mr. I.

 

[B1900DFO]

If you want to be sure of making money just don't pay your pilots. Very simple. If you are operating coast to coast in something like a 757 there are more than enough pilots that would be willing to work for nothing. Offer a minimum of 15 days off per month, a company compound where everybody can leave their sleeping bag while on overnights, a company cafeteria, and a per-diem of $35/day.

Tell future pilots that you are working on a flow-through to JetBlue, Airtran, and ATA following four years of service with Brand X. You can also stress that by the time they have finished their 4 year/zero compensation contract there is a good chance Ual, Amr, Dal will be hiring again and they will be the first to get in line for a multi-million dollar career. Have Cheryll Cage endorse it as a great way to build widebody/international/pic turbine time and make sure you go to Kit Darby's career forums. If you still aren't making money just charge future applicants $100 to file their resume.

Of course Ornstein will be furious when half his workforce quits, but life's tough...

 

[Publishers]

fuel buyer

In the airline world, you are not talking about savings of $100,000, you are talking millions. Furthermore, an incorrect hedge can cost you millions.

I love the way Bobby says he reluctantly agrees with me on the profit issue. The base philosophy of any corporate entity is that it was born and nutured to make a profit. If it fails to succeed in that mission, it has no reason to be.

Enigma, my supposed unfriendliness on pilot issues is that there is so little recognizing by that group of the others that are key elements in the program. As a group, they make the most, whine the most, and tend to cause problems the most. Individually they are great people.

The fact is that from a business perspective, they are drivers of the bus. Yes, that is a critical function in producing the product, but in the bigger scheme of things, not very critical to the corporate success that defines our airline. That is not to demean them or say they do not play a part. In that great scheme of things, there are a bunch of critical decisions, all key to our success. Fuel hedging, aircraft selection, insurance pools, lease or buy decisions, training packages, reservations systems, security issues, accounting issues, etc, etc, etc.
If I do not get these decisions correct, the people flying the plane are not going to matter much, let alone whether they get 5 or 10 days of sick pay.

Lastly, I have been around in close proximity to lots of commercial pilots for twenty five years. What gets me is that away from these boards, many of them laugh about how little they do. Oh sure, there is that night approach to BOS in snow and wind when they felt their buttocks pucker, but most of them think they have it made.

 

[enigma]

Re: fuel buyer

Enigma, my supposed unfriendliness on pilot issues is that there is so little recognizing by that group of the others that are key elements in the program. As a group, they make the most, whine the most, and tend to cause problems the most. Individually they are great people.

The fact is that from a business perspective, they are drivers of the bus. Yes, that is a critical function in producing the product, but in the bigger scheme of things, not very critical to the corporate success that defines our airline. That is not to demean them or say they do not play a part. In that great scheme of things, there are a bunch of critical decisions, all key to our success. Fuel hedging, aircraft selection, insurance pools, lease or buy decisions, training packages, reservations systems, security issues, accounting issues, etc, etc, etc.
If I do not get these decisions correct, the people flying the plane are not going to matter much, let alone whether they get 5 or 10 days of sick pay.

Publisher, I agree with you on lots of stuff, probably more than you imagine. I also agree with the last sentence in the above quote. I never said that pilots are the most critical element to the success of an airline. I say, have always said, and will always say, that management is the determiner of success. Well managed enterprises do better than poorly managed enterprises. Where we seem to part company is in how a good manager treats his people. Neelman and Kelleher have built fairly successful organizations with the philosophy that puts their people first. Borman, Lorenzo, et al, ultimately failed because they treated their people like a resource.

I asked this earlier in different words, so indulge me and let me try to ask it again. My productivity is limited by governmentally imposed safety standards (flight/duty regulations), Why do you think that I am being lazy (my words) if I want to work those hours in the least amount of days?

regards,
enigma

 

[Speedtree]

1. If the airline doesn't make money nobody gets paid. At least not in the long term.

2. Your 2 Captain idea would indeed cost much more because I think it was suggested they get paid the same. Therefore the incremental wage scales would start out much higher. PCs and training costs would be higher. You would have to offset this by lower insurance costs (which I think are probably already about as low as they can be because of the airlines good safety record) and public response (more ticket sales) based on the perceived increase in safety. I don't think most of the public today buys their ticket from ABC airline because they are safer than the next guy. The cockpit issues could be handled by hiring pilots with the correct attitudes and proper training and procedures. (like one of my captains told me... The only reason I'm over here and you're over there is because I was hired first)

3. Enigma is right, QOL is everything. Treat the employees fair but also expect a lot out of them. A profit sharing program would be the best. If the investors of our company would take out a reasonable return and split the rest with the employee group I think you would have some hardworking employees.


4. Hubs and routes would be based on cost. You can't just start flying into an airport. You must have gate space, landing slots, meet all local laws etc. If you could get the slots it might be cost beneficial to fly into ORD or it might be more cost effective to use another airport like SW does. It might not. You would have to look at each proposed destination individually.


This is fun. Thanks for the exercise.

 

[enigma]

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'm really not trying to be obstructionist, but I have to ask this: why do airlines not advertise their safety advantage? When Alaska augered and MD80 into the water because of pisspoor m/x, did their competitors advertise a safety advantage? They certainly could have, because Alaska had a systemic m/x problem. When Cactus was fined mega-bucks because of m/x problems, did SWA run a big campaign touting SWAs safety advantage?

If I knew definitely, I'd speak up. I don't, although I have some pretty good ideas about the lack of safety advange advertising. What I do know, is that airlines just don't do it.

I would imagine that the FAA wouldn't look upon that kind of advertising in a positive light.

enigma

 

[Astra Guy]

Enigma,

I respect your posts. I know where you are coming from. I would say that no airline shold advertise using the unfortunate circumstances surrounding an accident or incident. There should not be an active ad campaign against some competitior that has had mx related problems. That would be unsound, unprofessional and below the belt.

What I am saying is this. There is statistical data that can support an argument that fatigue has been a factor in X% of accidents. NTSB has brought this to the FAA's attention a number of times. The fact that the FAA is not required to act upon NTSB findings is apparent. In fact there are many examples of because the FAA was not willing to change the rules based on NTSB's findings there continue to be incidents and accidents for the very same reasons, obviously not all fatigue related. You probably know this and I surely do.

The FAA is, to a certain degree, in bed with the carriers' management. The workrules and duty day lengths have been addressed before and the carriers respond to the FAA saying if we reduce the duty days it will put us out of business. Well we all know that in general, pilots are highly skilled, knowledgeable of their circumstances for each and every flight and motivated to arrive alive each and every time. I am not questioning that. I am saying that someone who is not subjected to these lengthy duty days will be sharper and more able to handle whatever problems develop along the way. It does not take many individual carrier accidents to lose consumers faith in their safety. I personally think that as an industry, it is surprising there are not more fatigue related accidents, but they still happen. As in many other situations mx related accidents are preventable. Even when the FAA has been given data to support problems in a particular airframe's design or inspection sequences the FAA has been slow to respond. It is, in many cases reactive rather than proactive.

We all have heard that "the regs are written in blood." No doubt about that. It is like waiting until there are 10 deaths at a particular intersection before a stop sign is erected. Why wait for 10 deaths? Safety is about being proactive and prevention as much as possible.

As for educating the public without pointing fingers at a particular competitor I think it is in everyone best interests to change the rules, with the exception of pilots who have been operating under these rules for years or decades. The flying public deserves the best we can offer, particularly in terms of safety. Holding to the 14-16 hour rule or nap lines is not in the flying public's best interests, IMHO.

I do appreciate your input and the banter. I think whether one is right or wrong that everyone can put more of their gray matter to the topic at hand and come to their own conclusions. And as we all know our conclusion today may change when proven innaccurate. It is similar to zeroing in on the target.

 

[Astra Guy]

B1900,

I feel for you, my comrade. I know where the cynicism is coming from. Fight the good fight and if it is in the cards you will be where you want to be...Good luck to you. Fly Safely, Always.

Speedtree,

No doubt about point 1.

Point 2. Well, that may not be altogether true. I would say that the pay would be commensurate with experience, testing and weighing all of that would determine how one would be reimbursed. Their would be a range that would be created that might compensate those with lesser experience or poorer test results with a lesser starting amount. For those who were at the top of the experience curve and also reaped the highest scores on the tests would be offered the highest possible salary. This system would not allow each to know exactly what the other was making. Bottom line is that no one would be bottom feeding. The best performers would reap the highest annual increases. It is a one on one thing.

3. A profit sharing program would be in place. After all no realistic management team should expect to reap all of the rewards for their associates' efforts. There would be a much better division of the spoils, as it were, than has existed in many of the legacy carriers' managements' teams in the past.

4. Point taken and already thought of. Part of the non employees' portion of the board would be directly involved in determining the system, negotiating gate fees, which I know can be huge. They would also be involved in having someone specifically assigned to fuel hedging. Tens of millions of savings can be reaped or lost with the fluctuations of fuel in today's environment.

There have been many good points brought out so far. We have just scratched the surface. This venture, like any good business that has been developed does not happen with "Hey, I've got some money..I think I will start a business!" There are lots and lots of factors to consider. But you know I think we have the expertise, the talent and the out of the box type of thinking to put something viable together....as a model. And again, I am not doing this for my own benefit. I just like exercising the brain sometimes. All thinkers do.

I have noted Bart and Publishers' posts. I wish they would join and see if they can't provide input from their perspectives. We still have three open vacancies. The folks that want to provide their input regardless of the board commitment are encouraged to provide their input. Heck, one of the board members might not get paid on time and bail, anyway! LOL

 

[bobbysamd]

Treat your employees right

I love the way Bobby says he reluctantly agrees with me on the profit issue. The base philosophy of any corporate entity is that it was born and nutured to make a profit . . . .

Of course. And you need executives who know how to make a profit. But not using payroll, or lack thereof, as the profit center.

You have to treat people right. When I say "right" I mean fairly. People will want to work for you if you pay them decently and treat them fairly. If you treat people fairly, there is no need for unions. We had that discussion about two years ago; here's a link to that discussion (which, curiously, involves some of the same participants in this discussion). Unfortunately, not all businesses and managers treat employees fairly.

[M]y supposed unfriendliness on pilot issues is that there is so little recognizing by that group of the others that are key elements in the program. As a group, they make the most, whine the most, and tend to cause problems the most. Individually they are great people. The fact is that from a business perspective, they are drivers of the bus. Yes, that is a critical function in producing the product, but in the bigger scheme of things, not very critical to the corporate success that defines our airline. That is not to demean them or say they do not play a part.

(emphasis added)

I would take partial exception. Was it not the mechanics whose caterwauling in large part led to Eastern's demise? Of course, Uncle Frank had a lot to do with that.

It isn't only the pilots who complain. But they seem to be the ones who receive the most publicity.

I haven't read everything in detail yet, but this is an excellent discussion.