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

Ugly and Unexpected Attrition at Horizon

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
Wouldn't that meaning using the airplanes less efficiently? i.e. more cost? The UAW has a long history in the auto industry of using asets less efficiently. How has it worked out for them? Members 1979 750K, members 2007 400K

I am not sure why that would lead to using the aircraft more efficiently. If you worked here you would have a better understanding. Maybe somebody else here could explain it better. I wouldn't compare us to the auto industry since its not the union holding us back.
 
The RJ trips have some 5/6 days away fro base. Two 3 day trips back to back is way to much. There is a bunch more SEA flying for the RJ on the next bid, there are even some SEA overnights. Maybe they should just put a base there. 6 planes should be back from DEN by the end of Nov.
 
Maybe they should just put a [jet] base there.

I'd be all for that. I'd love to see more than one jet base option. I think it'd be good for the company and good for the pilot group.

But then I've just discovered the flaw in the plan, as far as the company is concerned: it would be good for the pilot group.

Doh!
 

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top