KiddDynomite
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Posts
- 81
It's absolutely realistic when you see the efficiencies of a single schedule. This company has never truly tried to maximize efficiency. How many times does a 7/7 guy go out with a 18-day or 15-day guy and mid tour there's an airline and a plane ends up sitting because of lack of crew. Start and stop together. The airline savings alone would be enormours because the company could better predict our travel patterns and work better deals with the airlines. Crew scheduling would be vastly improved because then you can actually have a realisitic fatigue program and have morning, afternoon, night crews and fewer backup crews needed. As G4dude said we're in the pay range now it's time to shuffle the shells. One other thing, 7/7 for all would mean better vacation scheduling. I personally want to see quarterly bidding with concurrent vacation bidding. I'm tired of trying to plan a year out. I think it's all reasonable and affordable. It's about effiency.
jtf, I forgot to mention and really answer your question. Back in '05 there was talk of a single schedule and the 18 pay figure being the number. The company pushed for 3 different schedules hoping that they can get more guys on the 18 day and maximize crew days. Their hope was more guys on the 18 day meant fewer pilots to hire. Even though it was 20% more pay the cost saving between health benefits and 401K with fewer pilots are enormous. The problem is the operational ineffieciences actually wipe them out, that's why I think it's completely reasonable.
jtf, I forgot to mention and really answer your question. Back in '05 there was talk of a single schedule and the 18 pay figure being the number. The company pushed for 3 different schedules hoping that they can get more guys on the 18 day and maximize crew days. Their hope was more guys on the 18 day meant fewer pilots to hire. Even though it was 20% more pay the cost saving between health benefits and 401K with fewer pilots are enormous. The problem is the operational ineffieciences actually wipe them out, that's why I think it's completely reasonable.
Last edited: