Colgan shrinking..the official word.

[wick81]

Memo out today from Buddy

"accordingly, effective september 3rd, we will pull down the LGA operation to coincide with our partners capacity reductions. Our presence in LGA will shrink greatly and we will endeavor to minimize the impact on our fellow Colgan Air Family Members."

[SIUAv8r]

Good luck guys/gals.

[v1valarob]

Can you post the whole memo?

Wonder what this means for those of us in class. Everytime Eds cell phone rings during ground school, we all wonder if that will be the call telling them to stop teaching and have us go home to pack our bags.

-Rob

[Airdale]

Originally Posted by wick81

Memo out today from Buddy

"accordingly, effective september 3rd, we will pull down the LGA operation to coincide with our partners capacity reductions. Our presence in LGA will shrink greatly and we will endeavor to minimize the impact on our fellow Colgan Air Family Members."

Wow, LGA didn't last long as a base. But I remember people saying that LGA didn't last long as a base before.

[wick81]

Originally Posted by Airdale

Wow, LGA didn't last long as a base. But I remember people saying that LGA didn't last long as a base before.

I don't think it has anything to do with LGA as a base, it means that our routes to LGA are being cut dramatically. This is going to affect several bases.

[surreal1221]

Bummer...did you guys have gate space there?

(Never been up to LGA yet. . .so really not too sure about the parking situation)

[Airdale]

Originally Posted by wick81

I don't think it has anything to do with LGA as a base, it means that our routes to LGA are being cut dramatically. This is going to affect several bases.

Hmm...that surprises me with the cost of fuel and all. What does the Saab burn fuel wise? Then again, I remember when I was flyin with Corey and Mark, we would frequently deadhead to LGA from Albany. Never once was that Saab even a 1/4 of the way full. Maybe people are just driving because the ticket prices are more expensive than the car fuel bill now.

[dingo222]

I agree, it has nothing to do with LGA as a base. IT means our airways flying in and out of lga. PCL wants out of airways, and airways can do the flying cheaper with PDT which is wholly owned. I think Seggy hit it earlier saying that the shoty staffed thing may help in the future. Maybe it will rightsize everything and keep ppl from gettng furloughed. I also agree with them pursuing the EAS flying. At least that flying in written in stone for a few years.

[SmitteyB]

Originally Posted by dingo222

I agree, it has nothing to do with LGA as a base. IT means our airways flying in and out of lga. PCL wants out of airways, and airways can do the flying cheaper with PDT which is wholly owned. I think Seggy hit it earlier saying that the shoty staffed thing may help in the future. Maybe it will rightsize everything and keep ppl from gettng furloughed. I also agree with them pursuing the EAS flying. At least that flying in written in stone for a few years.

I'm not sure about that.

Because the old Colgan would do the flying at-risk, CJC would be the cheapest. Think about it- Airways has to pay for PDTs Crews, Airplanes, MX and Fuel.

The only have to give Colgan a percentage of the connecting passengers fares. Colgan burdens the rest of the cost, themselves.

We will all see what happens. Colgan needs to bid on some EAS stuff that no one bid on. For instance- Hagerstown, MD, DuBois, PA. We should be going after those routes, tooth and nail.

[Seggy]

I do have some good news here. First off, the company, was thinking ahead and kept us slimly staffed on the Saab and Beech to prevent furloughs. Good job to management.

Secondly, in my opinion, the current Q staffing model does NOT work. We need about 7 or 8 crews per airplane dealing with EWR. Our block times are not that accurate. I almost hit a 30/7 issue flying IOE working three days if they did not drop a roundtrip. I think they are going to need more guys to transition down the road.

I think/hope those here are going to be ok.

[BobDDuck]

Originally Posted by Seggy

We need about 7 or 8 crews per airplane dealing with EWR.

That's crazy. We've never run more then 4.4 in the entire time I've been here, and in fact, have mostly run less then 4. Even with EWR's craziness (and keep in mind we deal with both LGA and PHL) I can't see the need for 7 crews per plane.

[v1valarob]

What time is the conference call tomorrow?

-Rob

[Seggy]

We need 7 or 8 crews per airplane is because we JUST deal with EWR. Your company can cycle the crews in and out of CLT/DCA to make up time, we don't have that option. EWR is far worse than PHL or LGA.

On IOE we did 10:04 on day one, 7:48 on day two, and 3:15 on day three. The only reason we did 3:15 on day three is they dropped a turn which would have been an 8+ hour block.

[Gonzo]

I hear Comair has 5 crews per an airplane and they deal with JFK/ We have 4-4.5 crews an airplane and we deal with JFK, ORD, LGA.

[PaulR]

Originally Posted by Gonzo

I hear Comair has 5 crews per an airplane and they deal with JFK/ We have 4-4.5 crews an airplane and we deal with JFK, ORD, LGA.

Not sure where those numbers are comming from but Comair has much more than 5, almost every larger Part 121 carrier has close to 10 pilots per airframe even though thats not realy how airlines staff the operation. We, pilots, just use that formula as an easy answer/comparison.

for EWR crews need to be heavier because of regular -Irregular ops, if that makes sense. Slim staffing can lead to pushing the 30/7 and 8 hours in a day safety regulations as well as rest issues from tight scheduling. Most pilots already feel as if the rest and duty issues are pushing the boudry of safety (hense the FAA and NTSB meetings over the past weeks).

[Gonzo]

Originally Posted by PaulR

Not sure where those numbers are comming from but Comair has much more than 5, almost every larger Part 121 carrier has close to 10 crews per airframe even though thats not realy how airlines staff the operation. We, pilots, just use that formula as an easy answer/comparison.

for EWR crews need to be heavier because of regular -Irregular ops, if that makes sense. Slim staffing can lead to pushing the 30/7 and 8 hours in a day safety regulations as well as rest issues from tight scheduling. Most pilots already feel as if the rest and duty issues are pushing the boudry of safety (hense the FAA and NTSB meetings over the past weeks).

You guys are only at 5 crews per an airplane and all I keep hearing is how fat you guys are on pilots.

FYI: Using APC numbers no one is at 10 crews per an airplane UA is at 9 and DL is at 8.

[PaulR]

Originally Posted by Gonzo

You guys are only at 5 crews per an airplane and all I keep hearing is how fat you guys are on pilots.

FYI: Using APC numbers no one is at 10 crews per an airplane UA is at 9 and DL is at 8.

APC is a nice site but it is not always correct since it is a pilot fed site. And if you do use APC numbers then Comair is based on slightly over 9 pilots per plane.

Airline staffing is based (generally speaking) to accomodate the work rules for a given pilot group as agreed by the CBA. At UAL this is an example of some things that have been agreed to buy UAL and the United Pilots represented by ALPA:

For Duty Period
Starting Trip Preparation
0600-1329 13 hours
1330-2359 13 hours, reduced 1 min. for each 3 min.
beyond 1330
2400-0414 9 1/2 hours
0415-0559 9 1/2 hours, increased 2 min. for each 1

min. beyond 0415

What it comes down to is ALL airlines are going to understaff and push crews to fly the current minimum FAA safety standards for flight time/duty time because the competition is so feirce for all carriers due to several factors....

[Gonzo]

Paul it looks like we are saying the same thing 5 crews = 10 pilots per an airplane.

Seggy wants 7-8 crews = 14-16 pilots per an airplane.

[BobDDuck]

Originally Posted by PaulR

Not sure where those numbers are comming from but Comair has much more than 5, almost every larger Part 121 carrier has close to 10 pilots per airframe even though thats not realy how airlines staff the operation.

10 pilots = 5 crews so he's not too far off with CMR being at 5.

For a period of time we had 50 airplanes and 480 pilots. Of course that 480 number included instructors, management and long term medical/military leave guys too so we were pushing 4 crews per plane. Now we are up around 560 total (still including the non flying guys on the list) and the company has decided we are overstaffed and dumped almost 30 guys off the bottom.

Plenty of places run with way less then 5 crew per airframe.

[Nick]

Originally Posted by Seggy

EWR is far worse than PHL or LGA.

Alright, I'm glad I read someone saying this. I only have experience as a passenger into LGA and JFK but I thought all along that EWR is worse than PHL and EWR. Ground congestion is not even the issue, it is the incredible effort it takes to get each flight into EWR in the afternoon. I don't know if I've ever seen such a potent example of a failed system of transportation. ORD-EWR should not need to be blocked at 3+10.

[Great Cornholio]

Originally Posted by v1valarob

Can you post the whole memo?

Wonder what this means for those of us in class. Everytime Eds cell phone rings during ground school, we all wonder if that will be the call telling them to stop teaching and have us go home to pack our bags.

-Rob

Ed as in Ed Y??? Is he still teaching indoc for you guys or is this a different Ed?

[USMC-SGT]

The Q is staffed (if you count the few guys about to finish training) at 5.5 crews per plane and that is counting 15 planes when in actuality we run 14 planes with 1 spare.

The issues are with colgans poor scheduling at times. They dont keep enough on reserve or on hot reserve or who knows what they are doing. My last 3 days of standup overnights I was extended on day 1 to fly a IAD out and back and then the next day my CA was extended to fly a RIC out and back and then the day after we both were extented to fly a RIC out and back. The problem is outstation basing. I have no idea why they think we need bases in PIT, BWI, ORF and I suppose I can understand ALB being that it is THE mx base.

Another issue with staffing that we run into alot is FA's. I have no idea why they have completely different schedules then we do. We have many days when we may be running 30 minutes ahead of schedule and be looking at an hour to launch the next flight when our FAs will leave because they are doing a plane swap and then we will be delayed an hour plus because our new FAs are coming in from who knows where. System wide it would not surprise me to see that cjc takes 5 delays per day because of this. We got an email from BM saying that they want our numbers up to equal or better our express counterparts and they are looking for suggestions how. How about lose the oustations or at the very least have the FAs bid the exact same schedules as the pilots.

[L-16B]

Originally Posted by USMC-SGT

The Q is staffed (if you count the few guys about to finish training) at 5.5 crews per plane and that is counting 15 planes when in actuality we run 14 planes with 1 spare.

The issues are with colgans poor scheduling at times. They dont keep enough on reserve or on hot reserve or who knows what they are doing. My last 3 days of standup overnights I was extended on day 1 to fly a IAD out and back and then the next day my CA was extended to fly a RIC out and back and then the day after we both were extented to fly a RIC out and back. The problem is outstation basing. I have no idea why they think we need bases in PIT, BWI, ORF and I suppose I can understand ALB being that it is THE mx base.

Another issue with staffing that we run into alot is FA's. I have no idea why they have completely different schedules then we do. We have many days when we may be running 30 minutes ahead of schedule and be looking at an hour to launch the next flight when our FAs will leave because they are doing a plane swap and then we will be delayed an hour plus because our new FAs are coming in from who knows where. System wide it would not surprise me to see that cjc takes 5 delays per day because of this. We got an email from BM saying that they want our numbers up to equal or better our express counterparts and they are looking for suggestions how. How about lose the oustations or at the very least have the FAs bid the exact same schedules as the pilots.

USMC your the man - I've never understood this either. Makes absolutely no sense.

[SmitteyB]

Originally Posted by L-16B

USMC your the man - I've never understood this either. Makes absolutely no sense.

They do on the SAAB.

We keep the same flight attendants daily, on trips, and all month.

[Rocketman99]

Not in all bases. LGA FAs have random lines most of the time. Probably a hub vs outstation base thing.

Interesting conference call so far...50-60 pilots furloughed...pulling 4 Saabs