Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
ACDC8
Posts: 7874
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:56 pm

Re: Air Canada to layoff 20K workers effective 7 June '20

Sat May 16, 2020 9:21 pm

longhauler wrote:
ACDC8 wrote:
I don't know how their CA is worded, but if its like the one where I work, if you take a leave of absence vs a lay off, you are still "employed" by the company for that term, your seniority stays the same but you are free to work elsewhere if choose to. If there is a recall during the time of your leave of absence, you do not get called back but after your leave of absence is over, you have the right to come back and bumping rights come into effect.

That is basically how it works.

One can also “negotiate” extras like benefits, pass travel, pension payments, etc.

On top of that, I'm assuming that the 2 year LoA offer is a longer term than a normal LoA clause in the CA?
A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
 
myki
Posts: 213
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:43 am

Re: Aviation sector unpaid leaves and layoffs thread

Sat May 16, 2020 9:25 pm

Seniority can also be the worst way to do it, depending on the end goal. Do you want to cut numbers of staff, or do you want to save the most money?

A 20-year employee in a role will cost more than a 1-year employee in a role purely due to pay rises over time. You would lose the experience, but experience doesn't pay the bills. Cash does. So if you can pay someone with less experience less cash, then you would get rid of the newbies.

I believe QR did a mix of both when it was cabin crew specific (apologies if incorrect) - newbies (due to lack of experience), oldies (due to cost), leaving the middle-ground. How they have tackled other roles, not sure.
 
mattyfitzg
Posts: 263
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 4:50 pm

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 9:35 pm

DalDC9Bos wrote:
mattyfitzg wrote:
FlyingElvii wrote:
Only US Citizens or Green Card holders are allowed to operate as crew on US Aircraft, making them subject to US labor laws, wherever they may be based.
The Place of Employment is “ Headquarters, USA”


United has a crew base in London which has British citizens operating out of it, in fact the majority of the London base are European nationals, likewise with FRA and formerly CDG


Ya, I don’t believe this is correct. I don’t know what UA is doing since the merger, but before that London was a regular United base staffed with US citizens. I met the LHR FA base supervisor in Chicago and she described that she transferred from the IAD base and that transfers are always shocked by the cost of living. It was not very senior at the time to transfer to and any crew could put in a bid for it. I don’t know about the past FRA or CDG bases.



Having flown United a mere few weeks ago, I can guarantee that the LHR crew base is still staffed with British crews.
 
Turnhouse1
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 9:59 pm

OB1504 wrote:
Turnhouse1 wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
U.S./Canadian carriers, Western European carriers, will do inverse seniority layoffs - the least senior get bumped first. This will be seniority within craft -- pilots, mechanics, FAs... for every craft that is unionized, or prospectively unionized (like Delta). It has nothing to do with fairness - it's specified by contract.

In the U.S., the management/professional/technical/admin staff are employed at-will by law in most states. A carrier can use whatever lawful filtering criteria it wants (so not age, gender, religion, marriage status or disability).


In the UK, seniority or Last In First Out is generally illegal as it is indirect age discrimination, i.e inevitably age and length of service correlate. There will be more nuanced criteria such as performance reviews and attendance records used. I don't know, but suspect many EU countries have similar discrimination rules, they will prohibit discrimination on Sex, Ethnicity etc, again newer staff are potentially more Female, non-white etc so LIFO is on dodgy ground.


Is it still considered age discrimination if it favors older employees? The US also has age discrimination laws but they only apply to people over 40.


In general all UK discrimination rules work both ways, the idea is equality. With age there is often as much discrimination against the young as the old anyway. It does almost certainly also prohibit firing everyone at the top of the payscale as they are likely to be older, so again indirect age discrimination.

The only places I've seen deviation from that is where it's allowed to run a scheme to encourage and support members of an underrepresented group to apply for a job or university place, but once the application is in, the selection criteria should be equal for all.
 
77H
Posts: 1570
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

Sat May 16, 2020 10:41 pm

COSPN wrote:
Those who complain about seniority don’t have any....

The 3 most important things in the airline business ; seniority, seniority, seniority

If someone can make it 30 years without getting fired he or she can’t be destroying too much of company property.


If only the key to career longevity, and primary indicator of work performance was one’s ability to avoid damaging company property...

I think the point that posters are trying to make about seniority not being as sound (fair) a system as others are making it out to be is that career longevity and employee performance are far from explicitly correlated.
If I’m not mistaken, I believe the implication being made by posters calling into question the efficacy and equitability of seniority based systems is this. During periods of financial difficulty, such as the industry is currently facing, a company’s continued solvency can very much depend on the remaining workforce’s ability to “fire on all cylinders”. Reductions in staffing almost always translates to increased workload for remaining employees in one form or another.
Realizing this, deciding who those remaining employees are based solely on when they first joined the company is hardly the most effective way to ensure the best outcome for the company and by extension, it’s remaining workforce.
If the remaining employees, whose continued tenure is based solely on hire date should fail to perform as needed, those who survived the initial cuts will inevitably find themselves on the street when the company folds due to the retention of lower performance employees.
This is not to assert or imply that employees at any point on the seniority scale are better or worse performers than at any other, nor is it asserted or implied that employees at any given point share similar traits, which is ultimately the point.

Bottom line, if the company’s solvency, and it’s employees’ livelihoods depend on high performance through the tough times, it is everyone’s best interest as a collective to ensure the retention of those employees.

77H
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4993
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

Sat May 16, 2020 10:46 pm

Max Q wrote:
Bit puzzled as to why United seems to be an outlier here, planning significant Pilot lay-offs and numerous other cuts in all ranks throughout the company



Yet AA, DL and others are not taking the same action or don’t appear to be


So is UA being smart and proactive here or overreacting and risking being left behind when travel picks up ?

UAL is just being up front about it's business. Whatever American and Delta do? It's up to them. United is saying how it is and How they see things. American Delta and Southwest can see things case by case. It really makes no difference. But? I don't doubt we'll see changes at all the US Major Carriers. Just what? Remains to be seen.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4993
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

Sat May 16, 2020 10:53 pm

Blerg wrote:
I read online that UA is firing middle management, what kind of positions are those?

they're getting rid of the layers above supervisors and Below Senior VP level. the last time united did this they fired 700 Directors and VP's and None of us saw any difference suffice to say? We saw SVP's in a lot of meetings and on the morning Conference calls. Sometines? if there was a fleet problem? We saw them in the middle of the night as well. Those that couldn't handle Business? We didn't see then very long.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4993
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

Sat May 16, 2020 11:08 pm

WayexTDI wrote:
DiamondFlyer wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Except that still doesn't make it right or logical; and would actually be the proof (if we ever needed more of them) that CBAs and unions are protecting (some, a lot of maybe?) lazy workers and not the work force in general.

Again, when you need to go through an RIF, you keep your best and brightest employees, not the most senior ones "just because of CBA".


So do tell, how do you figure out who is the "best and brightest" when it comes to a safety related position? What makes a pilot or FA more valuable to keep?

Well, just like pretty every company that doesn't have unions on-site does. This is nothing new, employees are rated in their jobs every single day.

What makes a pilot more valuable to keep than another one? I dunno, for example: the one that doesn't break airplanes left and right, the one who can land a plane properly without trashing tires every time, etc.
There are plenty of matrix available to rate an employee, irregardless whether that employee is in a safety-related position or not.

Just one question: it would appear, according to you, that pilots are never fired for safety-related issues. If true, that's scary.

Are these NON ALPA carriers? Because United IS all ALPA and the stuff you'rev talking about? Isn't even Union! Seniority is the real Deal and the ONLY Deal!
nothing Else? Much Matters. I heard the same thing back in the 80's when a lot of TWA and PAN AM mechanics came to United after their Carriers Failed. They thought they should come in an exercise their seniority at United when I started AT United the same tine they did. Some of them were Good. REAL Good! But they ldidn't work any harder than I did so they had to deal with what they had to deal with. I made it 33+ years and never saw a layoff as the seniority gap hit was 1976-1984. I worked with guys who had more seniority at United? Than I had years LIVING. I was lucky to be taught well by guys who knew they were leaving .
This is but another chapter in "Airline Living". What happens in an upturn? Bites you in the downturn!
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 884
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: Airlines Job Cuts

Sat May 16, 2020 11:42 pm

DalDC9Bos wrote:
mattyfitzg wrote:
FlyingElvii wrote:
Only US Citizens or Green Card holders are allowed to operate as crew on US Aircraft, making them subject to US labor laws, wherever they may be based.
The Place of Employment is “ Headquarters, USA”


United has a crew base in London which has British citizens operating out of it, in fact the majority of the London base are European nationals, likewise with FRA and formerly CDG


Ya, I don’t believe this is correct. I don’t know what UA is doing since the merger, but before that London was a regular United base staffed with US citizens. I met the LHR FA base supervisor in Chicago and she described that she transferred from the IAD base and that transfers are always shocked by the cost of living. It was not very senior at the time to transfer to and any crew could put in a bid for it. I don’t know about the past FRA or CDG bases.


It has been a while, but I seem to Remember that for pilots, the citizenship/ green card authorization is under Part 61????
 
77H
Posts: 1570
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

Sun May 17, 2020 12:09 am

bigb wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
bigb wrote:

Again, you missed his point, pilots who bend metal or damage airplanes already do not last long with their carriers.

Then a "performance" rating already exist to weed out the bad performers; and that should be enforced first during lay-off. If all who stay after that have the same performance rating, then go with seniority; but that should be the last thing to consider, not the first.


That again would be against the collective bargaining agreement in its entirety. Furloughing in Seniority order is the fairest system that is in place. Pilots who enter into the industry understand that the system is in place and have accepted it. You toss that Seniority out for furloughs, you have to toss seniority out for everything else in its place.


I think the difference between one’s view point on the merits of a seniority based system vs a performance based system is in part, dependent on how one views the applied definition of fair and equitable, and the value they place on one or the other as well as the value you place in particular work related traits for yourself and your colleagues. Remembering that what is fair is not always equitable.

For example:
In Workgroup X (WGX) you have 2 equally senior employees and 2 equally junior employees and all 4 work together.

Senior Employee A (SEA) has a stronger work ethic, than Senior Employee B (SEB). Where as Junior Employee A (JEA) has a weaker work ethic than Junior Employee B (JEB).

But, not only does JEB a stronger work ethic than JEA but also SEB

Involuntary Layoffs under a seniority based system sees the Junior Employees cut straight away. If we only consider time worked, seniority is fair and equitable. What if we consider effort? Can the same be said ?

With manpower in WGX reduced by half, is it fair or equitable to SEA that they will have to work even harder than before because their only remaining colleague is SEB who has weaker work ethic? Is it fair or equitable that JEB, who worked harder than SEB every day but for a shorter duration, lost their job while SEB retained theirs? Of the two employees laid off, the only employee who’s separation can be considered fair and equitable is JEA.

Moreover, is it fair to the company and the other workgroups depending on WGX that SEB, a lower performing employee was retained at a time when the level of performance from each employee has an outsized impact on the health of the company and thus its collective employees livelihoods?

Let’s say the work group in question are ramp service employees. Let’s also say the company dictates that handling 50 bags a day meets the requirements for continued employment so no employee in WGX can be considered a bad employee.

SEA handled 100 bags/day for 10 years
SEB handled 50 bags/day for 10 years
JEA handled 50 bags/day for 5 years
JEB handled 100 bags/day for 5 years

Is a seniority based system still the most fair and equitable ? How about the most effective ?

77H
 
sierrakilo44
Posts: 404
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:38 am

Re: Aviation sector unpaid leaves and layoffs thread

Sun May 17, 2020 12:23 am

MSJYOP28Apilot wrote:
Seniority based furloughs are easier and better for management.


There’s one way in which they definitely aren’t. If you are management of a big airline with many aircraft types, ranging from large widebodies to narrow bodies and maybe even a few RJs it is much cheaper to ignore seniority and furlough based on fleet requirements. In most airlines around the world, where there is a mixed fleet, the more senior pilots will gravitate to the larger widebody types. But with the current market long haul travel is the most effected and will take the longest to return back to normality, and the passenger loads for the next few years will probably necessitate only smaller aircraft.

So if seniority is strictly followed the pilots of the smaller aircraft would be furloughed and pilots of the larger aircraft would have to be all retrained to the smaller aircraft which is a huge expense and one most airlines in this time of huge losses can hardly afford. And then in a couple of years when demand returns and those larger aircraft are needed again they will be crewed again on seniority, which means all the senior pilots would request to return to their original roles and then you get to go through the process of retraining all of them back again an enormous cost.

Far far easier and cheaper to furlough those pilots who aren’t needed at the moment and bring them back when required, regardless of seniority.

Seniority makes employees feel that the system overall is fair. Determining which fleet displaced pilots would go to would become political and take even more time to figure out. A seniority system is clear and straightforward. It allows management to more easily plan and analyze the costs of doing certain reductions.


Outside of airline pilot flying seniority is barely used in any employment system. You basically get made surplus solely dependent on whether for not your particular role is needed at the time.

Furloughing and job losses outside of overall time in the company never seems to be a major issue in any other industry. And to be frank in a lot of places outside of the US airline industry it’s not really an issue either.

If you have the seniority and choose to go fly a larger widebody aircraft, have more time off and make more money that is your choice and good for you, but you are taking a risk. Don’t cry poor and demand to return to smaller more cost efficient aircraft that have a higher chance of remaining operational in an economic downturn.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20085
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

Sun May 17, 2020 12:23 am

77H wrote:
bigb wrote:
WayexTDI wrote:
Then a "performance" rating already exist to weed out the bad performers; and that should be enforced first during lay-off. If all who stay after that have the same performance rating, then go with seniority; but that should be the last thing to consider, not the first.


That again would be against the collective bargaining agreement in its entirety. Furloughing in Seniority order is the fairest system that is in place. Pilots who enter into the industry understand that the system is in place and have accepted it. You toss that Seniority out for furloughs, you have to toss seniority out for everything else in its place.


I think the difference between one’s view point on the merits of a seniority based system vs a performance based system is in part, dependent on how one views the applied definition of fair and equitable, and the value they place on one or the other as well as the value you place in particular work related traits for yourself and your colleagues. Remembering that what is fair is not always equitable.

For example:
In Workgroup X (WGX) you have 2 equally senior employees and 2 equally junior employees and all 4 work together.

Senior Employee A (SEA) has a stronger work ethic, than Senior Employee B (SEB). Where as Junior Employee A (JEA) has a weaker work ethic than Junior Employee B (JEB).

But, not only does JEB a stronger work ethic than JEA but also SEB

Involuntary Layoffs under a seniority based system sees the Junior Employees cut straight away. If we only consider time worked, seniority is fair and equitable. What if we consider effort? Can the same be said ?

With manpower in WGX reduced by half, is it fair or equitable to SEA that they will have to work even harder than before because their only remaining colleague is SEB who has weaker work ethic? Is it fair or equitable that JEB, who worked harder than SEB every day but for a shorter duration, lost their job while SEB retained theirs? Of the two employees laid off, the only employee who’s separation can be considered fair and equitable is JEA.

Moreover, is it fair to the company and the other workgroups depending on WGX that SEB, a lower performing employee was retained at a time when the level of performance from each employee has an outsized impact on the health of the company and thus its collective employees livelihoods?

Let’s say the work group in question are ramp service employees. Let’s also say the company dictates that handling 50 bags a day meets the requirements for continued employment so no employee in WGX can be considered a bad employee.

SEA handled 100 bags/day for 10 years
SEB handled 50 bags/day for 10 years
JEA handled 50 bags/day for 5 years
JEB handled 100 bags/day for 5 years

Is a seniority based system still the most fair and equitable ? How about the most effective ?

77H

There is a contract. If you change the contract now, you have told employees there is no real value to a contract except for wages. Be careful. After the last downturn when pensions were moved up in priority versus the prior legal contract, all unionized firms were treated as if their pensions were high priority. What happened to pensions? They became 401Ks and no looking back as no unionized business could retain.

Now take it that seniority doesn't matter for job security. When a new airline wants to hire a training Captain, that pilot will go and not look back.

I'm now saying this fair. One of the best mechanics I've ever worked with was laid off from United because he had no seniority. We promoted him out of the technician/mechanic/machinist ranks.

You need an incentive (promotions). My employer basically stopped promoting senior engineers who weren't in the protected groups. Guess what, over the last six years we lost them to companies who would. Some just jumped company to company for promotion to promotion. If you don't have 'sticky benefits', which includes seniority, than your senior staff leave. While some aren't as productive, most are the mentors.

I know engineering companies are hurting as they had a surplus of senior engineers 7 years ago. Now, few have a surplus of engineers who can mentor because the seniors either retired early (my career isn't worth missing out on time with grandkids) or they jumped ship. The same will happen with pilots. I used to work with an awesome group of aerospace engineers who were all laid off commercial pilots. They never went back as for too many years the pay drop to return (bottom of seniority) wasn't worth it. So it does go two ways.

Don't force a change in the contract just when it matters. Employees would never trust that airline again. UA, AA, DL, B6, and every other unionized pilot airline either respects the seniority now or ALPA changes the rules on pilfering pilots. :devil:

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
AAIRLINERS
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2015 8:44 am

Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

Sun May 17, 2020 12:39 am

If we could go back to the topic at hand the key word in the OP's question is planning. From the inside it is well known through the years that management will state one thing only to be doing something completely opposite at the same time. Image is everything here and they will spin it anyway they can to keep things looking OK. Perhaps a move to keep investors happy I really don't know. Rest assured that come Oct 1 AA's actions will be inline with the other majors. Different management, same outcome.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6113
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: UA planning layoffs but not AA, DL etc..?

Sun May 17, 2020 2:34 am

32andBelow wrote:
It was really hard to get enough pilots right before this. I think some major airlines are going to be very cautious releasing pilots until they absolutely have to.

The cargo guys are gonna snap a lot of these guys up and it could be hard to get them back.


FDX hired quite a few furloughed pilots, post 9/11, when recalled they went back. In fact, FDX tried to enforce resignation letters, but they still got recall letters.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13169
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Aviation sector unpaid leaves and layoffs thread

Sun May 17, 2020 2:38 am

In normal times training a pilot means removing him/her from the roster so there is a cost there, but since we're talking about people mostly sitting on their asses right now, what is the cost exactly ? Especially for airlines owning simulators, training material etc. ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
flyiguy
Posts: 998
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:21 pm

UA will give 1K status and 250,000 miles to employees who quit!

Sun May 17, 2020 3:06 am

Take an early out at the end of June, get 1/3 pay until November 30

Continue to receive health care through November 30

Receive Mileage Plus 1K status and 250,000 miles

Plus 5 years of active employee travel benefits, and then retiree travel benefits

Plus ‘priority access’ to future job openings

https://viewfromthewing.com/united-will ... OFu3fCUHKI

FLY
The opinions I post are of mine and mine alone, not of the airline I work for.
 
Cactusjuba
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:06 am

Re: DL Will Have 7,000 Extra Pilots in Fall

Sun May 17, 2020 3:40 am

Junior pilots by-and-large have listened to the village elders who have seen furloughs multiple times over the years. In fact, many of these junior pilots spent over a decade flying for other airlines, and have endured furloughs themselves.

The consensus seems to be this: voluntarily taking cuts to the contract won't stave off furloughs, they'll just pocket the savings and furlough based off staffing minimums anyways. Better to take a furlough and someday have a worthy career to return to, than fight for decades to restore what once had. History has precedent.
 
sierrakilo44
Posts: 404
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:38 am

Re: Aviation sector unpaid leaves and layoffs thread

Sun May 17, 2020 3:51 am

Aesma wrote:
In normal times training a pilot means removing him/her from the roster so there is a cost there, but since we're talking about people mostly sitting on their asses right now, what is the cost exactly ? Especially for airlines owning simulators, training material etc. ?


Quite a few costs.

One, if you are going to retrain a substantial number of pilots all at once you need an substantial number of extra instructors and training staff. It takes months to qualify extra instructors and they are usually paid additional wages for the instructor qualifications.

Two, airlines only have a limited number of simulators and aren't really prepared for mass retraining so they may have to hire out simulators from third party providers at a premium.

Three, not just simulator training is conducted but also training in the actual aircraft in flight (line training). You can do this via base training (with no revenue passengers onboard) which is an additional cost.

Four, it's almost impossible to do line training at the moment because barely any flights are running.

Five, instead of being furloughed you'll have to keep all these additional pilots and instructors on a salary for months (probably years) whilst they are being trained,

Six, it's not just from one fleet to another. So for example you have an airline with 777, 787, 767 and 320 and you were just getting rid of the 777,if the contract allows for it those moves may be made downwards from the 777 to the 787, then the excess 787 pilots to 767, then excess 767 pilots to 320 etc, which will just cascade the effect down and blow out the cost exponentially.

Six, when the passenger loads pick up in a few years time you get to go through the entire process again in reverse.

Trust me, additional pilot training is a huge cost to airlines and they do their upmost to prevent it from happening. Airlines usually "freeze" their pilots to one type for several years to prevent to much retraining, but if the market picks up quicker then those training freezes will have to be ignored.

There's other negatives to a retraining process like this in terms of operational experience, knowledge, team togetherness, morale, etc but cost is the main detracting point for airlines.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13169
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Airlines unpaid leaves and layoffs thread

Sun May 17, 2020 4:13 am

SR380 wrote:
Air France will introduce part time unemployment:

https://www.lefigaro.fr/societes/air-fr ... e-20200316


This is a bit of a misnomer (in French too), for most people (across all industries, more than 12 million people in April) it simply means you stay home, and you get 80% of your salary, up to about 5000€/month. The government gives money to companies for that. If the company wants to complete the salary up to 100%, it can.

Part time is possible, like working every other week, then you get paid as usual for that week, and 80% for the week at home.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
dm22
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 3:39 am

Re: UA will give 1K status and 250,000 miles to employees who quit!

Sun May 17, 2020 4:16 am

flyiguy wrote:
Take an early out at the end of June, get 1/3 pay until November 30

Continue to receive health care through November 30

Receive Mileage Plus 1K status and 250,000 miles

Plus 5 years of active employee travel benefits, and then retiree travel benefits

Plus ‘priority access’ to future job openings

https://viewfromthewing.com/united-will ... OFu3fCUHKI

FLY


The article is inaccurate. Read the comments below it. Offer is only for certain mgmt levels and premier platinum, not 1K.
 
airhansa
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 3:18 pm

Re: Air Canada to layoff 20K workers effective 7 June '20

Sun May 17, 2020 4:26 am

The deep problem for countries reliant on Asian tourism and Asian students, which is Canada and Australia, is whether Chinese tourists and students will return.

Chinese tourists are very fickle and tend to "recoil" at any sort of negativity. Since the West has handled the pandemic worse than the East, from the viewpoint of Asians, it's likely that the majority of Chinese tourists will avoid going to the West anytime soon. Of course it will be cheaper to fly domestically for the price sensitive Chinese as well.

Furthermore, the educational institutions of the West don't offer any advantages over Chinese institutions nowadays, except for a handful of Ivy League universities. There isn't even any sort of high quality jobs market left in the West, the tuition fees are higher, and in many cases western degrees are useless in modern-day China.
 
airhansa
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 3:18 pm

Re: Air Canada to layoff 20K workers effective 7 June '20

Sun May 17, 2020 4:44 am

jfklganyc wrote:
BAorAB wrote:
It'll be no difference in the US come September 30th! Canadians are managing it better, facing the realities early, as is BA. It'll be interested to see what the pilot resolution will be, that's undoubtedly the cash drainer from the salary pool. Tough times. A reality check for the Industry. Goodbye to $100K senior cabin crew at places like UA, AA, BA and QF!


I don’t know how in the world you can say that.

The United States government stepped in and provided a much needed bailout to avoid losing hundreds of thousands of employees.

Britain let them twist in the wind

This will allow US companies to let things settle down and formulate a go-forward plan.

Specifically to Britain and Europe, This will particularly hurt them because the countries are too small.

In a time of uncertainty when countries are making visitors quarantine, and every nation has their own set of rules for visitors to jump through, The US carriers have a 330 million person nation and domestic travel to fall back on. And those numbers are already climbing. I really feel for British Airways and virgin Atlantic… There is nowhere for them to fly.


Europe and Asia has faced strong rail competition for years to the point that most airlines probably won't see an "exodus" on short-haul travel, except for low cost airlines who have historically fought against air travel more successfully. In the US, there is likely to be an exodus from short-haul air travel to cars for example.

Due to the combination of coronavirus fears (more pronounced among the western flyer) and economic downturn (more pronounced among the west, though I expect that Asian consumers will do less leisure traveling, though this may also be offset by "intra-Asia" travel), I don't except holiday destinations to pick-up anytime soon.

I expect Chinese tourism to pick up quicker, but only for travel within Asia due to both coronavirus and economic concerns, so the impact on mid haul Asian travel will be limited.
 
ACDC8
Posts: 7874
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:56 pm

Re: Air Canada to layoff 20K workers effective 7 June '20

Sun May 17, 2020 8:43 am

airhansa wrote:
Chinese tourists are very fickle and tend to "recoil" at any sort of negativity. Since the West has handled the pandemic worse than the East, from the viewpoint of Asians, it's likely that the majority of Chinese tourists will avoid going to the West anytime soon. Of course it will be cheaper to fly domestically for the price sensitive Chinese as well.

The Chinese and other Asian tourists/students will be back here quicker than others.
A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
 
airhansa
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 3:18 pm

Re: Air Canada to layoff 20K workers effective 7 June '20

Sun May 17, 2020 9:35 am

ACDC8 wrote:
airhansa wrote:
Chinese tourists are very fickle and tend to "recoil" at any sort of negativity. Since the West has handled the pandemic worse than the East, from the viewpoint of Asians, it's likely that the majority of Chinese tourists will avoid going to the West anytime soon. Of course it will be cheaper to fly domestically for the price sensitive Chinese as well.

The Chinese and other Asian tourists/students will be back here quicker than others.


Why?

There was already widespread discussion about the quality of education in the West vs China at least a couple of years before the pandemic hit. The problem is that most Chinese employers nowadays prefer to hire those educated at Chinese institutions and consequently western university education can be a liability, especially considering how much they cost. One of the biggest reasons that students went to the West was to secure a job there, but now that's less likely since the West has been worse hit by the pandemic recession than the East. It was already very precarious as to whether Chinese students would continue to come to Australia/Canada before the pandemic hit, and now it's almost certain that they won't come.

Tourism is rebounding (or rebounded) in China, but it's highly likely to be domestic-only and/or to trusted countries in Asia with similar healthcare philosophies. Thanks to the history of SARS, Asians will be more likely to leave their houses quicker, but they are more likely to avoid western countries who failed to control the pandemic. The western response to the coronavirus has been seen as tarnishing/harming the view among East Asians about the quality of western healthcare and institutions. Asians will likely stick to countries that have proven to fight the coronavirus successful y - and Chinese tourist are notoriously very fickle when it comes to health scares so it's very unlikely that they'll start visiting the West any time soon.
 
CX Flyboy
Posts: 6146
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 1999 6:10 pm

Re: DL Will Have 7,000 Extra Pilots in Fall

Sun May 17, 2020 2:45 pm

KMCOFlyer wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Made to stay at quarantine hotel till covid-19 tests results were in. If the test indicated he had it, straight to the hospital via ambulance. If it did not, fourteen day self quarantine with wrist bracelet and monitoring app running on his phone, with stiff penalties for violating quarantine.


Why would they be immediately sent to the hospital just because of a positive test result for COVID-19 (especially if they have mild or no symptoms)? Shouldn’t they be saving the hospitals capacity for those who have severe symptoms instead of putting people with no symptoms into the hospital?


Getting off topic but this is done in Hong Kong because this is the best way to monitor affected people and to ensure that they do not mix with the general public and thus spread it to others (because people cannot be trusted unfortunately). The hospitals can handle the extra capacity as we have a pretty good health system here. This is why Hong Kong has ended up as one of the shining examples of how to handle this pandemic, with only 4 deaths and under 1100 total people infected, even though we are a crowded city of almost 8 million people, where any infectious disease would very easily spread if not handled properly.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2153
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: DL Will Have 7,000 Extra Pilots in Fall

Sun May 17, 2020 2:51 pm

32andBelow wrote:
catiii wrote:
bigb wrote:


TSA numbers, and I'll try and figure out a way to post them, have been consistently in the -90% YOY since April over the national system. There is no steady increase WOW.

This is totally false. There’s been large tsa increases week over week for the last 2 weeks.

https://www.tsa.gov/coronavirus/passenger-throughput


When you have this many aircraft parked and EWR/JFK and LGA have about 100 flights per day combined, and your baseline is a few thousand pax for the same airports, calling it a “large increase” is a joke.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2153
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: DL Will Have 7,000 Extra Pilots in Fall

Sun May 17, 2020 2:54 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
catiii wrote:

TSA numbers, and I'll try and figure out a way to post them, have been consistently in the -90% YOY since April over the national system. There is no steady increase WOW.



That is not true

They has been a noticeable jump over the last few weeks in their numbers


Dead cat bounce.


About a foot off the ground from a normal bounce of 50-feet.

Folks, this is just getting started, and we haven’t even hit the recession/depression.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
LNCS0930
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2020 9:17 pm

Re: DL Will Have 7,000 Extra Pilots in Fall

Sun May 17, 2020 3:04 pm

DL717 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:


That is not true

They has been a noticeable jump over the last few weeks in their numbers


Dead cat bounce.


About a foot off the ground from a normal bounce of 50-feet.

Folks, this is just getting started, and we haven’t even hit the recession/depression.


I believe things will bounce back for 2-3 months but then everyone will panic and think that it’s going to come back in the fall and there will be like no bookings at all for Oct/Nov/Dec.
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4975
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: DL Will Have 7,000 Extra Pilots in Fall

Sun May 17, 2020 4:27 pm

DL717 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:


That is not true

They has been a noticeable jump over the last few weeks in their numbers


Dead cat bounce.


About a foot off the ground from a normal bounce of 50-feet.

Folks, this is just getting started, and we haven’t even hit the recession/depression.

No one is saying it’s going to be normal. But it’s going to keep increasing through the summer. It can’t go from 0 to 100 in 5 minutes. Check back after Memorial Day.
 
multimark
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 1:53 pm

Re: Air Canada to layoff 20K workers effective 7 June '20

Sun May 17, 2020 5:10 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
BAorAB wrote:
It'll be no difference in the US come September 30th! Canadians are managing it better, facing the realities early, as is BA. It'll be interested to see what the pilot resolution will be, that's undoubtedly the cash drainer from the salary pool. Tough times. A reality check for the Industry. Goodbye to $100K senior cabin crew at places like UA, AA, BA and QF!


I don’t know how in the world you can say that.

The United States government stepped in and provided a much needed bailout to avoid losing hundreds of thousands of employees.

Britain let them twist in the wind

This will allow US companies to let things settle down and formulate a go-forward plan.

Specifically to Britain and Europe, This will particularly hurt them because the countries are too small.

In a time of uncertainty when countries are making visitors quarantine, and every nation has their own set of rules for visitors to jump through, The US carriers have a 330 million person nation and domestic travel to fall back on. And those numbers are already climbing. I really feel for British Airways and virgin Atlantic… There is nowhere for them to fly.


Canada offers employers who have lost more than 30% of their income the Canada Emergency Wage Supplement (CEWS) that will cover 75% of employees wages through August. AC had used this to keep their employees on the payroll so far. However AC is still liable for their pension contribution, extended health benefits (dental, prescriptions etc) and still has to remit payroll taxes. Obviously with 95% of their business gone this is untenable.

A huge amount of AC's business is transborder to the USA and international. While Canada is a huge country, it's domestic market is about the size of California. While I hope US carriers are spared this kind of layoff due to the size of their domestic market, I can't see airlines like QF or VS escaping the same cuts.
 
ACDC8
Posts: 7874
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:56 pm

Re: Air Canada to layoff 20K workers effective 7 June '20

Sun May 17, 2020 8:18 pm

airhansa wrote:
Why?

Because Canada is and always will be a very lucrative education and holiday destination for the Chinese market and with Trump creating polices making it harder for International Students, you can expect even more students to consider Canada as a top contender.
A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
 
hondah35
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 1:55 pm

Re: Air Canada to layoff 20K workers effective 7 June '20

Sun May 17, 2020 8:35 pm

exFWAOONW wrote:
Things will bounce back eventually. I know they want to stop the bleeding, but this seems like overkill for a short term issue. Were they bloated and needed to shrink before and the downturn is a convenient excuse?


Short term issue? The summer travel season is effectively dead...no one is going to travel if they have to quarantine at the destination or are unsure if there will be another outbreak. This will affect leisure travel for a long time. Not to mention convention and event travel, as well as sports teams. And in my opinion, business travel is going to be permanently reduced.
 
User avatar
FiscAutTecGarte
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2019 6:40 pm

Re: Air Canada to layoff 20K workers effective 7 June '20

Sun May 17, 2020 8:47 pm

All of these numbers are amazing to me, as my wife and I have flown a bit more since Feb 2020 compared to previous years...We have a trip coming up in June too... and then another in July..
I'm just shocked at how EVERYONE ELSE has stopped flying. WOW.
learning never stops...

FischAutoTechGarten is the full handle and it reflects my interest. It's abbreviated to fit A.net short usernames.
 
multimark
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 1:53 pm

Re: Air Canada to layoff 20K workers effective 7 June '20

Sun May 17, 2020 8:59 pm

ACDC8 wrote:
airhansa wrote:
Why?

Because Canada is and always will be a very lucrative education and holiday destination for the Chinese market and with Trump creating polices making it harder for International Students, you can expect even more students to consider Canada as a top contender.


You assume Chinese tourists and students will be welcomed back with open arms, which not guaranteed post-Covid. Canadian public opinion of China has followed a similar to trajectory to the American outlook with a recent poll indicating only 14% of Canadians viewed China favourably:
http://angusreid.org/covid19-china/

Be that as it may, AC had not put in as many resources to China as you might think. It's a low yield market and they have to compete with state-aided carriers effectively dumping seats. The lack of tourists from the USA, UK and Germany will be felt more keenly.
 
ACDC8
Posts: 7874
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:56 pm

Re: Air Canada to layoff 20K workers effective 7 June '20

Sun May 17, 2020 9:07 pm

multimark wrote:
You assume Chinese tourists and students will be welcomed back with open arms, which not guaranteed post-Covid.

Oh they will be, by those who's livelihood depend on it. Everyone else's opinion can take a back seat.
multimark wrote:
Canadian public opinion of China has followed a similar to trajectory to the American outlook with a recent poll indicating only 14% of Canadians viewed China favourably:
http://angusreid.org/covid19-china/

Public "opinion" means squat when schools and businesses are dependant on tourism dollars.
multimark wrote:
Be that as it may, AC had not put in as many resources to China as you might think. It's a low yield market and they have to compete with state-aided carriers effectively dumping seats. The lack of tourists from the USA, UK and Germany will be felt more keenly.

High yield, low yield, it's irrelevant. Tourism and education dollars pumped into the economy is what counts. China is third in tourism dollars coming to Canada after the US and the UK. As for education, international students account for a third of the respective enrolment at schools like UBC and Chinese students are number 2 after India.

Anyway, this is getting way off topic.
A Grumpy German Is A Sauerkraut
 
airhansa
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 3:18 pm

Re: Air Canada to layoff 20K workers effective 7 June '20

Mon May 18, 2020 8:22 am

ACDC8 wrote:
airhansa wrote:
Why?

Because Canada is and always will be a very lucrative education and holiday destination for the Chinese market and with Trump creating polices making it harder for International Students, you can expect even more students to consider Canada as a top contender.


It's not guaranteed that Canada/Australia will forever remain major destinations for Chinese students. As I said earlier, the majority of Chinese employers prefer to hire students who were educated in China nowadays, and furthermore one of the biggest reasons why Chinese students went to the West, employment, has now revered and job prospects are better in China than in the West.

Australia was already facing a decline in Chinese student arrivals due to high cost of living and perceived poorer quality of education. It's now very unlikely that Chinese students will return to Australia anywhere near the numbers that they originally had. It's only a few elite American universities that can compete for the students.
 
FlyingFanatic20
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu May 21, 2020 4:07 am

Re: DL Will Have 7,000 Extra Pilots in Fall

Thu May 21, 2020 4:19 am

LAXintl wrote:


Is it standard for it take a year to close down a base, or is Delta having a target date of Q2 in 2021 for places like CVG and the 7ER's in DTW/MSP/SLC in case traffic rebounds within that time and they can resume those operations again?
 
cbphoto
Posts: 1258
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 6:23 am

Re: DL Will Have 7,000 Extra Pilots in Fall

Thu May 21, 2020 7:26 am

FlyingFanatic20 wrote:
LAXintl wrote:


Is it standard for it take a year to close down a base, or is Delta having a target date of Q2 in 2021 for places like CVG and the 7ER's in DTW/MSP/SLC in case traffic rebounds within that time and they can resume those operations again?


It is going to take a long time train the massive amount of pilots being displaced at Delta. With two whole fleets being parked and a third (717s) being significantly reduced, the trickle down effect will be huge. I’m sure those base closure dates take into account the time it takes to retrain crews on the equipment that will replace the airplanes leaving those bases.
ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
 
catiii
Posts: 3591
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: DL Will Have 7,000 Extra Pilots in Fall

Sun May 24, 2020 3:11 am

Well there it is, note out from the MEC to pilots today that anyone hired in the last 3.5 years (around 2500 pilots) should anticipate being furloughed on Oct. 1 with this specific advice: “If there is an a opportunity to secure a job that will pay your bills for the next 12-24 months we advise you to take it.”
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4975
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: DL Will Have 7,000 Extra Pilots in Fall

Sun May 24, 2020 3:21 am

catiii wrote:
Well there it is, note out from the MEC to pilots today that anyone hired in the last 3.5 years (around 2500 pilots) should anticipate being furloughed on Oct. 1 with this specific advice: “If there is an a opportunity to secure a job that will pay your bills for the next 12-24 months we advise you to take it.”

Great news for the amazon contract holders
 
catiii
Posts: 3591
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: DL Will Have 7,000 Extra Pilots in Fall

Sun May 24, 2020 3:32 am

32andBelow wrote:
catiii wrote:
Well there it is, note out from the MEC to pilots today that anyone hired in the last 3.5 years (around 2500 pilots) should anticipate being furloughed on Oct. 1 with this specific advice: “If there is an a opportunity to secure a job that will pay your bills for the next 12-24 months we advise you to take it.”

Great news for the amazon contract holders


No kidding...
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4975
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: DL Will Have 7,000 Extra Pilots in Fall

Sun May 24, 2020 3:33 am

catiii wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
catiii wrote:
Well there it is, note out from the MEC to pilots today that anyone hired in the last 3.5 years (around 2500 pilots) should anticipate being furloughed on Oct. 1 with this specific advice: “If there is an a opportunity to secure a job that will pay your bills for the next 12-24 months we advise you to take it.”

Great news for the amazon contract holders


No kidding...

I’m really surprised the majors are going to furlough. It took them a while to get in this position the pilot shortage doesn’t go away once traffic gets back. If anything it gets worse since who is going to start a commercial now?
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13169
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: DL Will Have 7,000 Extra Pilots in Fall

Sun May 24, 2020 7:18 am

How many billions would it cost to keep pilots on payroll that aren't generating any revenue ?

If you go to an airline flying for Amazon, is that airline interested in taking you knowing you will go back to DL eventually ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
32andBelow
Posts: 4975
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 2:54 am

Re: DL Will Have 7,000 Extra Pilots in Fall

Sun May 24, 2020 7:20 am

Aesma wrote:
How many billions would it cost to keep pilots on payroll that aren't generating any revenue ?

If you go to an airline flying for Amazon, is that airline interested in taking you knowing you will go back to DL eventually ?

Yah atlas or ati will take these guys without even blinking.
 
reltney
Posts: 638
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:34 am

Re: DL Will Have 7,000 Extra Pilots in Fall

Sun May 24, 2020 9:02 am

Revelation wrote:
Triple7Lr wrote:
Can some explain what happens to displaced pilots please?

Unionized airlines like DL have strict rules driven by seniority. When jobs are eliminated positions are rebid based on seniority in a pretty complicated scheme based on what remaining position each pilot bids on. Those with the least seniority end up losing their bids and end up being furloughed which means they have rights to be recalled if/when their airline needs to begin hiring again. Some pilots spent many years on furlough after 9/11 and the 2008 GFC waiting to get called back, since the major airline gigs have far better terms/conditions then they had at other outfits or other careers.

I was listening to biancolariao (sp?) channel and he said he survived a bunch of layoffs in his career. He said he would have to move to a smaller airplane type so he'd be retrained, but by the time he finished retraining, either he'd be bumped to a different smaller airplane or back up to a bigger airplane, so he'd go months at a time without flying. Some times he'd be trained for a plane he never flew in service since all the changes happened faster than the airline could retrain him. Yet since he had enough seniority, he'd still be getting paid while all this bumping was going on.

enilria wrote:
Triple7Lr wrote:
Can some explain what happens to displaced pilots please?

Not clear. I think Delta knows if they let them go they will not get them back easily. OTOH, they don't have the money to keep paying them.

Why? Where are they going to go with the rest of the industry doing so poorly?



Incorrect. Most of what you say is correct except the beginning. Delta is the most “un unionized” airline in America. Southwest for example is one of the most unionized airlines in America. Only the pilots and dispatchers are unionized at Delta. Less than 1/6th of Delta Employees has Representation . It comical how many blame the unions for cost then admire SW because they don’t know facts. Financial institutions report on the news all the time how the unions run costs up then praise SW not knowing the facts. It shows their accuracy as well as false info to the public to control Financial issues to their benefit. Facts are not important. Sad issue is Delta spends more money trying to keep out a flight attendant and mechanic union than what it would cost to have one .

Cheers
Knives don't kill people. People with knives kill people.
OUTLAW KNIVES.

I am a pilot, therefore I envy no one...
 
reltney
Posts: 638
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:34 am

Re: DL Will Have 7,000 Extra Pilots in Fall

Sun May 24, 2020 9:05 am

32andBelow wrote:
Aesma wrote:
How many billions would it cost to keep pilots on payroll that aren't generating any revenue ?

If you go to an airline flying for Amazon, is that airline interested in taking you knowing you will go back to DL eventually ?

Yah atlas or ati will take these guys without even blinking.



Yes they will. Those companies love airline /121 trained pilots with experience. Those air carriers pay less than 1/2 of what the majors pay on the same equipment. They will have to pay to keep them.

Cheers
Knives don't kill people. People with knives kill people.
OUTLAW KNIVES.

I am a pilot, therefore I envy no one...
 
SWALUV
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:43 pm

Re: DL Will Have 7,000 Extra Pilots in Fall

Sun May 24, 2020 1:39 pm

32andBelow wrote:
I’m really surprised the majors are going to furlough. It took them a while to get in this position the pilot shortage doesn’t go away once traffic gets back. If anything it gets worse since who is going to start a commercial now?


I hate to say it, the shortage is largely gone. Looking out based on the statement of ~2000 pilots getting furloughed come October, that will cause recalls to last until 2022-2023 time frame, if everything holds steady on the rebound and DL's fleet roughly comes out to the same size when deliveries are said in done.

When hiring eventually resumes in the future, it won't nearly be at the pace that we've been seeing. 2011-2012 hiring rates are far more likely for the future.
 
flflyer
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 2:29 am

Re: DL Will Have 7,000 Extra Pilots in Fall

Sun May 24, 2020 2:10 pm

What had been the impact on pilots of DL Connection carriers?
 
User avatar
Web500sjc
Posts: 859
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:23 am

Re: DL Will Have 7,000 Extra Pilots in Fall

Sun May 24, 2020 2:27 pm

flflyer wrote:
What had been the impact on pilots of DL Connection carriers?



CPZ and GoJet were operating for Delta Connection at the beginning of COVID, but we’re slated to end Delta Connection flying by the end of summer 2020. That change was accelerated, by the end of March 2020 both carriers had ended Delta Connection flying. GoJet continues to operate for United express. Compass also
had their other Capacity Purchase Agreement with AA end Prematurely, and ceased operation on April 5, 2020.


Additionally, OO announced in their Q1-2020 report that 55 CRJ200s are not expected to have their contract renewed, so will be removed from service by the end of Q4-2020. 19 of those 200s will be returned to their lessor, DL.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/delta-re ... 00521.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass ... th_America)

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 55161.html
Boiler Up!
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20085
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: DL Will Have 7,000 Extra Pilots in Fall

Sun May 24, 2020 2:46 pm

SWALUV wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
I’m really surprised the majors are going to furlough. It took them a while to get in this position the pilot shortage doesn’t go away once traffic gets back. If anything it gets worse since who is going to start a commercial now?


I hate to say it, the shortage is largely gone. Looking out based on the statement of ~2000 pilots getting furloughed come October, that will cause recalls to last until 2022-2023 time frame, if everything holds steady on the rebound and DL's fleet roughly comes out to the same size when deliveries are said in done.

When hiring eventually resumes in the future, it won't nearly be at the pace that we've been seeing. 2011-2012 hiring rates are far more likely for the future.

We should expand on this. The major US airlines never had trouble finding good candidates. It was the smaller aircraft that require an ATP that felt the brunt of the shortage.

There was still a surplus of commercial pilots. The shortages were in ATPs.

Private Jet pilots in the right seat will have it tough.

Delta cannot afford to keep the full roster paid. However, Delta must see the next 7 years have high mandatory pilot retirements.

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos