Colgan shrinking..the official word.

wick81

Well-Known Member
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."

:(:(
 

v1valarob

Well-Known Member
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

Well-Known Member
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

Well-Known Member
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

Well-Known Member
Bummer...did you guys have gate space there?

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

Airdale

Well-Known Member
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

Well-Known Member
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

Well-Known Member
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

Well-Known Member
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

Island Bus Driver
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.
 

Seggy

Well-Known Member
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

Well-Known Member
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

Well-Known Member
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

Well-Known Member
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

Well-Known Member
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:

[FONT=Arial,Bold]For Duty Period[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Bold]Starting Trip Preparation[/FONT]
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

Well-Known Member
Paul it looks like we are saying the same thing 5 crews = 10 pilots per an airplane.:panic:

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

BobDDuck

Island Bus Driver
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

Well-Known Member
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.
 
Top