Pinnacle?

wheelsup said:
AWAC hired about 20 I think.

It's so competitive out there right now it's like they're hiring for the majors. There was a guy who posted that he worked @ AWAC and applied just for fun and immediately got rejected.

Not like when I was hired, they were taking anyone (example: me)!! I think it was like 10 days from me applying to SITTING in class. Crazy times.
Click to expand...


One of our guys is leaving for AWAC. He most likely have well over 2000hrs and 2 type ratings. I know it sounds strange, but he had to make the switch to live where he wants to live and family reasons.
 
I think competetive mins to get an interview at Colgan are 2000/500? Can anyone attest to that? Its just what I've heard on the line.
 
kellwolf said:
That's sorta like how our "unplanned absences" are "returning to normal levels." Um....if it's unplanned, how can it have ANY level, much less a normal one?
Click to expand...

For most of the time while I was at Mesa the "minimum reserve" number (where you couldn't do swaps or trades unless the reserves were greater or equal to this.) wasn't published. One day it was accidently published on FLiCA and the minimum reserve they wanted was MORE than the number of total reserve pilots in our base.

No wonder I could never do trades!!
 
kellwolf said:
That's sorta like how our "unplanned absences" are "returning to normal levels." Um....if it's unplanned, how can it have ANY level, much less a normal one?
Click to expand...

Exactly!

I can understand having some number that represents the average number of sick calls per day during a certain part of the year, using past numbers to "forecast" that particular unplanned absence event.

HOWEVER, there is no way they can "plan" for, or have any "normal level" for fatigue, call in honest events, OJIs, etc, etc, so for and so on...
 
Sure you can still forecast fatigue calls and stuff.

There's most likely a baseline, and a primary factor or 2. For fatigue its probably average hours per month and average layover length. So you make a formula:

# of calls = A + B* total hours/# of pilots + C* avg layover length.

Where A, B, and C are coefficients that can be modeled using historical data.
 
OldTownPilot said:
Sure you can still forecast fatigue calls and stuff.

There's most likely a baseline, and a primary factor or 2. For fatigue its probably average hours per month and average layover length. So you make a formula:

# of calls = A + B* total hours/# of pilots + C* avg layover length.

Where A, B, and C are coefficients that can be modeled using historical data.
Click to expand...


If companies are indeed forecasting fatigue calls, then they are admiting that fatigue is a big enough issue to have to predict it...


And yet, we STILL can't get the FAA to do anything about implementing new rest and duty time rules to reduce the amount of fatigue.
 
Trust me, companies forecast EVERYTHING.

Thats probably a bit more involved than what would be normally done in normal operations, but they would certainly forecast total absences. As for fatigue, they probably just use a constant number all the time. Ie. just A, and B and C = 0. But if there was an issue and they really wanted to delve into the situation, what I described would certainly be done.
 
SpiraMirabilis said:
For most of the time while I was at Mesa the "minimum reserve" number (where you couldn't do swaps or trades unless the reserves were greater or equal to this.) wasn't published. One day it was accidently published on FLiCA and the minimum reserve they wanted was MORE than the number of total reserve pilots in our base.

No wonder I could never do trades!!
Click to expand...

That's about what our's is. A couple of days this month, MEM had a TOTAL of 7 CAs on RSV. That includes RRs and home reserves for the whole day.
 
OldTownPilot said:
Sure you can still forecast fatigue calls and stuff.

There's most likely a baseline, and a primary factor or 2. For fatigue its probably average hours per month and average layover length. So you make a formula:

# of calls = A + B* total hours/# of pilots + C* avg layover length.

Where A, B, and C are coefficients that can be modeled using historical data.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem, though. They're forecasting, but they're not forecasting ENOUGH. Like I said, if you forecast 8 "unplanned absences" system wide per day, it's too low. You're gonna have at LEAST one person per seat call in sick, maybe someone else out on OJI/medical, two or three fatigues a day at the rate they're scheduling right now and then you have to factor in missed commutes and crews out of position for MX reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top