Defopax

[Numero Crunchero]

cpdude,
you got me. There is no slipping anything past you.
Here are the numbers of pilots reaching 55 from 2005 to 2012 based on a 2001 seniority list.
2005 39, 2006 43, 2007 40, 2008 34, 2009 61, 2010 68, 2011 51, 2012 54.

That gives us 82 retirements over the last 2 years. That gives us 260 over the next five years. Over the period 2009-2013(incl) retirements peak at 295(ie 295 guys who are still working due to RA60 vs RA55). Forgive my memory...it has been a few years since I looked at this data but i thought it was 300. By the way, a few of those retirees will be FOs.

So CX has money....why then can it not just EXTEND these C+Ts, thus ensuring that the pilots whose commands are delayed by this act, will not be penalised financially since they will get bypass pay! I know many of the C+Ts are in their early 40s or even younger in some cases. So I think the C+T wastage rate is going to be lower than you have suggested.

More planes flying with more captains senior to you does not mean you get your command earlier! It just means there are more captains in the airline who are senior to you. I dont think a guy whose command is delayed will take any consolation from the fact that there are more aircraft flying.

I agree with you on the training issue. They should have been upgrading C+Ts years ago. If they had done so, we would have not the situation where CX either needs to extend lots of guys or somehow get age 60. But from an FOs point of view, CX created the problem, so why should FOs wear the burden of the solution?

Based on our average cost of employment it is cheaper to work everyone up to around 93-96 credit hours a month than it is to employ more pilots. Maybe this is how the company will manage some of the expansion?

cpdude,thank you for the compliment. You are the first person in about a decade that has accused me of using 'too simplistic' mathematics;-)


I need you to explain to me that example you gave of an FO being 150 away from command. You said with RA 60 he will get his command in 2 years instead of 3-4 if we keep RA55. Did I get that right?


cpdude, I think what you are alluding to is that without those C+T replacements there would be more upgrades as there are more courses, right? OK, an example. On average, there will be 50retirees per year for the next few years(increasing to closer to 60). So, we need 50line captain upgrades, 50SO-FO, 50recruits and up to 50courses for CN upgrade to TC/STC/BTC. If we were expanding we would need around 150courses for the 50captains and a few more to keep the proportion of C+T constant. So say around 160-170 courses in total. If they are upgraded to replace retirees we need 200 courses(assuming all the retirees were C+T). So at best I can see that RA60 would accelerate command by about 10more captains considering we would need 10 more FOs and 10 more SOs(30courses). So RA60 accelerates command by about 10 due to more courses available, but delayed by about 50 due to 55year olds remaining...net effect, command is delayed by 40 per year. This is only true in a training limited scenario. If we are not training limited, commands are delayed in direct proportion to the number of retirees.

For simplicity I have ignored transfers across fleets but I concede that this will have a major effect as the older guys tend to be on the 400. It would probably cost up to an extra 50courses, or less than 17captains.

The smart thing to do for CX is to extend C+Ts, recruit more DEFOs and maybe pick a few guys under 50 for C+T!

RA60 helps the airline, it does not help FOs and SOs. An FO wants to get into the left seat. I dont think he really cares whether that left seat is one of 100 or 240. According to NPR, as long as it is shiny and new he is happy!