New CS Rumors

[flagshipper]

The latest I have heard on the road is that not only are they only hiring into 8 "super" bases but effective June 1st all current employees will be locked into their current base and can only move into one of these 8 bases.

Also a new duty day policy limiting the planned duty day to 12.5 hours and 14 hours as an absolute max will supposedly be instituted soon.

One Step Forward.. 3 Steps Back....

You pick a hooker based on her zip code but not a pilot.......

 

[dime line]

The latest I have heard on the road is that not only are they only hiring into 8 "super" bases but effective June 1st all current employees will be locked into their current base and can only move into one of these 8 bases.

Also a new duty day policy limiting the planned duty day to 12.5 hours and 14 hours as an absolute max will supposedly be instituted soon.

One Step Forward.. 3 Steps Back....

You pick a hooker based on her zip code but not a pilot.......

That sux......But its comming! This is just the beginning. Ask yourself, better yet ask management, what sense a basing system really has?

 

[jonjuan]

That sux......But its comming! This is just the beginning. Ask yourself, better yet ask management, what sense a basing system really has?

It's cheaper.

 

[On Your Six]

The latest I have heard on the road is that not only are they only hiring into 8 "super" bases but effective June 1st all current employees will be locked into their current base and can only move into one of these 8 bases.

Also a new duty day policy limiting the planned duty day to 12.5 hours and 14 hours as an absolute max will supposedly be instituted soon.

One Step Forward.. 3 Steps Back....

You pick a hooker based on her zip code but not a pilot.......

Just makes Netjets look that much more appealing with its 100 domiciles. People on the fence between the two operators will now have an easier choice to make unless they plan to live in a CS superbase for the rest of their lives. You can't be the flexibility of 100 pilot domiciles at Netjets - that's unbelievable compared to others in the industry....

 

[fischman]

It's cheaper.

How is it cheaper?

 

[jonjuan]

How is it cheaper?

Why else would they be reducing bases? What about Flex or Flops apparently reducing bases. It's cheaper. I don't agree, but it is what it is.

 

[CA1900]

Keep in mind, though, that NetJets tried that. Not only did it not make any difference (since they were airlining people to their planes in any case), but the tickets I flew on from PBI were double the price of the ones out of MCO, TPA, or any number of other cities that later became crew bases. Just seemed like a dumb idea when Netjets tried it; not sure why it'd work any better for you guys, unless they're planning on ferrying the planes to these cities empty on a regular basis.

 

[shanes123]

its not cheaper..Baboo at flops had alot of pretty colored charts and graphs all drawn up (bet he was the smartest kid in kindergarten) when they started eliminating bases at FLOPS..well after a year the million dollars on airline tickets they were gonna save never jived with his color coded graph and once again FLOPS management idiots had to back peddle a explanation for there stupidity. no one ever got there bases back either though..

 

[DO-82 driver]

Now that the threat of Unionizing under Teamsters is all but gone I guessing management teams at various places are thinking there is no real reason to be the pilots' best friend anymore.

Let's see what management thinks of their pilot forces now.

 

[Chewbacca]

By not having crews airline to an aircraft, they have increased the productivity of the airplane signifigantly and have also cut the charter costs signifigantly.

So by increasing the pilots at "super bases" they will have more and more crews and airplanes swapping at those domiciles. This in turn will save mucho $$.

I tell ya, I have not airlined much in the last year, and its AWESOME.

But hey, you guys have the big picture though, right? If companies listend to pilots, we would all make 1000000 a year, and never work.

 

[flagshipper]

By not having crews airline to an aircraft, they have increased the productivity of the airplane signifigantly and have also cut the charter costs signifigantly.

So by increasing the pilots at "super bases" they will have more and more crews and airplanes swapping at those domiciles. This in turn will save mucho $$.

I tell ya, I have not airlined much in the last year, and its AWESOME.

But hey, you guys have the big picture though, right? If companies listend to pilots, we would all make 1000000 a year, and never work.

There are several flaws I see with this concept, besides severely limiting our candidate pool and lowering pilot morale overall and adding wind to the union sail.:

1. Positioning always cost more than airline tickets. With an XL costing about 2k an hour just in gas you do the math.

2. We are in a seniority system now. Before the company could pick and choose who upgraded to what fleet and even out the bases sort of but now they have little to no control over this. There are some very large bases with some huge differences in CA/FO ratios and dispersion across the fleets. SAT is a decent size base but is 80 percent FOs.

3. By placing FOs in the 8 super bases it will be years or even decades before you would really realize any benefits of 8 bases with upgrades taking longer and longer.

4. Until recently, we were all hired with an understanding we could change between the 25 bases as desired. That is a huge QOL issue being stripped away without even a formal notice as of yet. Just because you raise the pay a little doesn't mean you can butt rape everyone.

I have found what commonly occurs on off tour day is that the crew (capt hpn based, fo gso based) fly the plane empty from mdw to hpn then the FO has to get on an airline anyway. or maybe vice versa but you are dropping 3k (plus operating cost)to get one guy home then still having to buy an airline ticket.

 

[Coool Hand Luke]

By not having crews airline to an aircraft, they have increased the productivity of the airplane signifigantly and have also cut the charter costs signifigantly.

So by increasing the pilots at "super bases" they will have more and more crews and airplanes swapping at those domiciles. This in turn will save mucho $$.

I tell ya, I have not airlined much in the last year, and its AWESOME.

But hey, you guys have the big picture though, right? If companies listend to pilots, we would all make 1000000 a year, and never work.

Yea Richard, whatever you say.

 

[Diesel]

By not having crews airline to an aircraft, they have increased the productivity of the airplane signifigantly and have also cut the charter costs signifigantly.

So by increasing the pilots at "super bases" they will have more and more crews and airplanes swapping at those domiciles. This in turn will save mucho $$.

I tell ya, I have not airlined much in the last year, and its AWESOME.

But hey, you guys have the big picture though, right? If companies listend to pilots, we would all make 1000000 a year, and never work.

We might not have the big picture but we've seen this before and every time its been quickly backed out of by managment.

Lets ask ourselves which is cheaper. Airlining a crew from both sides of the country to an airplane, or moving said airplane back to a "super base".

Hmmmmmmm.

While you airlining might be inconvenient for you it really saves the company a bunch of money.

But hey I'm sure CS can do it better than everyone else.

 

[RCR5]

That sux......But its comming! This is just the beginning. Ask yourself, better yet ask management, what sense a basing system really has?

Would you please elaborate on this comment? I realize it is just an opinion, but I am curious. Thank you.

 

[RNObased]

Why else would they be reducing bases? What about Flex or Flops apparently reducing bases. It's cheaper. I don't agree, but it is what it is.

Jonjuan,
This opionion comes from what?? Lost of research or something you heard in a bar??

The facts are that it isn't cheaper, but you run with your half baked opionion.