A call form crew scheduling...

[Gonzo]

Even the union has been on to us about using the fatigue ace-in-the-hole with caution. It is also hard to use if you have no real reason for fatigue, i.e. you have done one or two short flights and you are only 6-7 hours into your day.

Had it happen to me last month. I probably could have called in fatigue, but I knew I would have gotten a ton of • over it.

I don't know who you are talking to at the union that is saying that but they are wrong. The number of legs or how long of a day I am having has nothing to do with if I am fatigued or not. I have been fatigued after one leg, if you are fatigued you are fatigued. The IMSAFE check list is not a joke and if the company or union have a problem with you using it, tell them to talk to the FAA about it.

 

[X-Forces]

Is this a typo?

Nope.

Lots of people in the wrong places, but still overstaffed.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Nope.

Lots of people in the wrong places, but still overstaffed.

Yuuuuup...hello NYC...

 

[X-Forces]

I don't know who you are talking to at the union that is saying that but they are wrong. The number of legs or how long of a day I am having has nothing to do with if I am fatigued or not. I have been fatigued after one leg, if you are fatigued you are fatigued. The IMSAFE check list is not a joke and if the company or union have a problem with you using it, tell them to talk to the FAA about it.

Well, I took it up with PV not too long ago, as he kept posting mails about not divulging any additional information regarding the fatigue call when you submit the form. Then the form was modified so that you could not skip answers or enter "N/A" in required fields.

There are still uncertainties about how the information submitted can/will be used against the employee, and until all was sorted the LEC was advising everyone to use fatigue call with caution.

Maybe things are different in the midwest, I don't know.

 

[BrewMaster]

Nope.

Lots of people in the wrong places, but still overstaffed.

Poorly managed? Definitely. Overstaffed? There's really no way to say if it is or isn't. So many factors to just come up with a straight answer. I would argue that we are not overstaffed.

 

[Gonzo]

Well, I took it up with PV not too long ago, as he kept posting mails about not divulging any additional information regarding the fatigue call when you submit the form. Then the form was modified so that you could not skip answers or enter "N/A" in required fields.

There are still uncertainties about how the information submitted can/will be used against the employee, and until all was sorted the LEC was advising everyone to use fatigue call with caution.

Maybe things are different in the midwest, I don't know.

There is your problem, PV is a idiot. Talk to Deion H or Victor C they are two of the smartest people we have at Eagle and you are lucky to have both at your base.

 

[X-Forces]

Poorly managed? Definitely. Overstaffed? There's really no way to say if it is or isn't. So many factors to just come up with a straight answer. I would argue that we are not overstaffed.

You could argue it, sure. I am not up for arguing one way or another.

When you have better then double the number of pilots then you have lines, across more then one airframe and more then one base, you are pretty fat on staff.

 

[X-Forces]

There is your problem, PV is a idiot. Talk to Deion H or Victor C they are two of the smartest people we have at Eagle and you are lucky to have both at your base.

Not even going to get into that pissing contest. I just don't care enough.

 

[BrewMaster]

You could argue it, sure. I am not up for arguing one way or another.

When you have better then double the number of pilots then you have lines, across more then one airframe and more then one base, you are pretty fat on staff.

My experience is burning through reserves before noon on a daily basis (ORD/EMJ/FO). Watching other bases and lists, I see a lot of the same.

Oh well, lots of factors....

 

[Tram]

OK, we're making progress. I still don't see where one has anything to do with the other. If the premium flying was reliable enough to require additional pilots, why wouldn't management simply hire them (or re-hire them) to do it? After all, wouldn't it be cheaper to do that than pay senior pilots a premium rate?

You've never worked in the airlines have you?

 

[X-Forces]

My experience is burning through reserves before noon on a daily basis (ORD/EMJ/FO). Watching other bases and lists, I see a lot of the same.

Oh well, lots of factors....

Exactly.

Other side of the coin would be reserves that have flown no more then 20 hours for month for the whole year. We have a lot of that. Like I said, lots of people in the wrong places, but still plenty fat.

With all the ATRs coming offline, even fatter.

 

[X-Forces]

OK, we're making progress. I still don't see where one has anything to do with the other. If the premium flying was reliable enough to require additional pilots, why wouldn't management simply hire them (or re-hire them) to do it? After all, wouldn't it be cheaper to do that than pay senior pilots a premium rate?

Nope

 

[derg]

I can appreciate your point, but I'm not sure it answers my question.

I really do want to understand this

Use them college math skills, homie!

If there is 400 hours of flying in your seat and category and 5 guys are flying 80 hr months, then the company furloughs one, but offers those remaining 20 hrs of premium flying, you've just done away with the need to recall that furloughed pilot.

I'm not trying to be a smartass, i just naturally sound like a smartass.

Sent from my TRS-80

 

[Gonzo]

My experience is burning through reserves before noon on a daily basis (ORD/EMJ/FO). Watching other bases and lists, I see a lot of the same.

Oh well, lots of factors....

Just by the numbers we are overstaffed. Eagle has always tried to staff 4.5(9 pilots) crews a plane. So if you go just by the numbers we are overstaffed.

 

[hook_dupin]

Use them college math skills, homie!

If there is 400 hours of flying in your seat and category and 5 guys are flying 80 hr months, then the company furloughs one, but offers those remaining 20 hrs of premium flying, you've just done away with the need to recall that furloughed

Sent from my TRS-80

I don't think it's that simple. In general, an employee costs a company about 150% of his salary once you factor in benefits, payroll taxes, disability, etc. If the four remaining pilots accepted the extra flying at 100% or even 120% pay, then making those guys fly extra is clearly better for the company. However, if they all accepted it at 200%, the company would be better off bringing the guy on the street back. At the 300+% rate mentioned earlier in the thread, there's no way the company is better off agreeing to that continually vice bringing back a furloughed guy. Seems to me that the most nuanced approach would be to never accept anything less than 150-200% and then give some of that back to what ever furlough fund exists. That way, the company gets the message through their personnel expenditures, you earn some extra lettuce, and your bros on the street get a little help.

For the record, I'm not an airline guy. I am an occasional part-time math teacher at the local community college.

 

[jtrain609]

Furlough fund? What furlough fund? My furlough fund was finding a job working at a golf course and hustling as many hours as I could.

 

[O&M]

Got a call that went to VM tonight from crew scheduling. They asked if I would like to pickup some flying tomorrow. Mind you I have almost 80 guys beneath me in base. Our company also has 70 guys on the street.

Needless to say, I didn't call them back

Well, you really showed them didn't you? I bet they were upset about if for all of 4 seconds before they moved on to the next guy.

 

[X-Forces]

Use them college math skills, homie!

If there is 400 hours of flying in your seat and category and 5 guys are flying 80 hr months, then the company furloughs one, but offers those remaining 20 hrs of premium flying, you've just done away with the need to recall that furloughed pilot.

I'm not trying to be a smartass, i just naturally sound like a smartass.

I don't think it's that simple. In general, an employee costs a company about 150% of his salary once you factor in benefits, payroll taxes, disability, etc. If the four remaining pilots accepted the extra flying at 100% or even 120% pay, then making those guys fly extra is clearly better for the company. However, if they all accepted it at 200%, the company would be better off bringing the guy on the street back. At the 300+% rate mentioned earlier in the thread, there's no way the company is better off agreeing to that continually vice bringing back a furloughed guy. Seems to me that the most nuanced approach would be to never accept anything less than 150-200% and then give some of that back to what ever furlough fund exists. That way, the company gets the message through their personnel expenditures, you earn some extra lettuce, and your bros on the street get a little help.

For the record, I'm not an airline guy. I am an occasional part-time math teacher at the local community college.

It is actually that simple. The flaw in your evaluation is frequency.

Your comparisons assume that the company will use a pilot on premium pay on a regular basis (i.e. up to a line value worth of flying per month). This is never the case.

Remember, when a pilot is on staff he is costing every day, 365/year, whether he is flying or not. Take that guy out of the equation and substitute him with some premium pay flying every once and a while from someone already on staff anyway and the company is going out make out big, even if they payed 300% pay

 

[ctab5060X]

I got a call a few months ago from scheduling and I hadn't worked for the company for almost a month. I was very tempted to call and accept.

You should have. I was hoping they would call while I was in training. I was going to answer the phone

 

[Mike H]

Use them college math skills, homie!

If there is 400 hours of flying in your seat and category and 5 guys are flying 80 hr months, then the company furloughs one, but offers those remaining 20 hrs of premium flying, you've just done away with the need to recall that furloughed pilot.

I'm not trying to be a smartass, i just naturally sound like a smartass.

Sent from my TRS-80

so... paying, 4 $80/hour pilots for 80 hours each plus $160/hr for another 20 hours each is cheaper than paying 5 $80/hr pilots for 80 hours each? still doesn't add up.

If management thinks they're lowering costs that way, they need to be fired for blatantly squandering company & stockholder money. If that's the way they do things in the airline industry, it's no wonder airlines go broke right & left.