Port Push Out, Split Crews In

[Rotten Apple #1]

Talked briefly tonight to the guy who runs our Commercial Ops. Port Push as originally planned didn't pan out. Not putting any further resources into DH'ing Capts or F/Os around to make up crews at ports.

Instead, going with splitting back end versus front end in some form, starting with Vancouver. Accordingly they're adjusting their risk tolerance in terms of flight completion rates (but still a comfortable risk), and apparently the initial results are good. Stay tuned for more roll outs at other ports.

They might be on to something.

[KAG]

I don't think it will work unless they split pilots up and DH in the CPTS (in the case of YYZ). For the ports to work, they need even numbers, which they do not have. So easy solution is to DH in the most required position(s). IMHO anyway.

[SMP]

JD,

I find this very interesting, considering both SH and LW said on Tuesday at our CCM that this was not on the table.

Crew splitting was not going to be looked at because it is a shift away from the "1CC " and something that is consider integral to WJ culture.

Interesting to see how this pans out, as I believe that crew splitting is the most effective way to improve the port effectiveness.

Cheers,

SMP

[Rotten Apple #1]

SMP I have to admit that initial reports of Port Push abandonment had me concerned. SH seemed confident of improved efficiencies to come with no slight to Calgary-residing pilots and was very forthright. When I look at YLW with too many Capts, and YYZ with not enough (The only two real facts I have in evidence), I'd be willing to take my dance partner on the direct flight to YYZ (DH or not, perhaps with a YYJ back end) and build something out of there to make YYZ work. Maybe then we'd pick up a YUL backend. If I had the other numbers, perhaps they'd reveal even easier and more natural combinations. (And give a math geek a wet dream: Spreen, are you there? )

At least the will to explore options and try out new shit continues to thrive. A good thing (well, except for the cockpit).

[Rotten Apple #1]

I just reread your words apropos LW and SH at crew chat. Perhaps things just developed rapidly.

I must say, the rest of the company doesn't have this 1CC noose. Not sure why anyone thinks my performance or committment to doing my job would suffer if I had a new set of names to announce over the PA each morning. Perhaps they feel that the back end needs the supervision from the pilots.

Unfortunately, I don't accept much of the mantle of supervising the back end, other than obvious SOP violations. I show up in their chain of command in a very pragmatic, if ephemeral fashion; that said, I recognize the safety authority I have while "they are on duty" (to paraphrase the COM). I personally don't open that FD door much (per the SOPs), and I don't do dinner with the crew often as I'm a committment-phobe...I still maintain a cordial, friendly, relaxed, and humorous relationship with my colleagues, despite my lack of knowledge of the personal details of their life I could have gleaned at Milestones the night before.

The culture is what it is.

The bottom line is the professionalism however, and I would think that would be inviolate regardless.

And another bottom line is the friendliness of the F/A's WRT the guests. That's not likely to change as it has precious little to do with me anyway.

Here's to the situation revealing itself with time.

[Smitty]

I have to say I'm still a fan of the 1CC. My last days at Jazz were filled with new FA's nearly every leg and man, was it a PITA.

A few years back, while yuckin' it up with the crew in YOW, a few AC pilots ID'd us quickly as a Westjet crew (I couldn't imagine how ) and joined us for a few drinks. They both commented on the great interaction of the crew and repeated more than a few times "Make sure you don't lose that".

I, for one, sure hope we don't.

[twinpratts]

1CC?

[Clint23]

1CC?

One Crew Concept

[Four1oh]

I too am a fan of the 1CC, but I also see that it can't work, and isn't working anymore. Simply put, we're now too big for that to be cost effective. If we want to continue to be the competitive and efficient airline we are now, I don't see how we can do that and keep the 1 crew. We already have a dynamic crew environment what with the 800 floater, and the seemingly constant shuffle of FA's in the course of a pairing where there's the inevitable IROP in the system. We also have pilots getting on and off the plane to go to LAS or PHX or LAX while the FA's stay on board... and I say again, so what? WJ Culture is not hinged on a 4, 5 or 6 person crew flying around for 3, 4 or 5 days straight.

IMO, the port system could be kick-ass, if only we allow a dynamic crew. Yes, you could gain or lose a crew member every leg... so what? What's more important to you, having a static crew for 4 days, or having a better monthly schedule? How about better pairings, instead of all these 3 day 10 hour YQR overnights(for example)? The fastest way to strain the culture is to not be profitable, which I lived through a couple years ago. It wasn't a fun time for any of us 1CC'ers.

1 piece of the puzzle is working... we're flying our planes on average over 12 hours a day. It's easy to see where the efficiency lies. All we have to do now is reduce our hotel stays, and improve our pairings( read schedules). Said another way, we need to improve the crew efficiency, which, IMO won't happen until we evolve to the next type of crewing style.

[WJ700]

So here is the skinny from the man... who JD spoke to...

The split crews is only in the preliminary stages of investigation. They are only looking at it as a concept, and need to do a cost analysis. Determine factors like if it would work all year long (think IROP. WX), and how it would affect the 1CC. The changes with the port system have to go with baby steps. This may or may not work, and its a long way off from being implemented.

That's fresh info, from the same source, at 8 am Pacific Standard Time September 18th.

[Four1oh]

there ya go making stuff up again!!!

[CCR]

I asked SH at the CC on the 12th. In his words, and he refused to tell me who, there is someone who is stopping the concept of Split Crews because the concern on culture. Asked him four times who it was and he continued to refuse. Split Crews is the only way to make this Port Push be successful.

[Four1oh]

Then you had better pull the 800 chaser. And, god forbid, if a crewmember gets sick on a pairing and has to be pulled, better disolve the entire crew and send them home. Better not pull the 4th to help out another crew on an IROP.

Split crews are a current reality. Some people just need to wrap their little heads around it, accept it, and make it work even better than it already does.

[twinpratts]

Dude.
On Christmas day, the only one out of the original 6 was the Captain! (and by the end of the night, 2 more of the F/As had booked off! It happens, and when it does, the culture doesn't get hurt (IMHO).

[Smitty]

Ever ask the -800 chaser how much fun it is working as the split crewmember? For the most part the answer is like being a displaced child since the rest of the crew has been gelling together for four days. My "little head" has been through this before at Jazz and it wasn't a pleasant experience so I'm not just talking out of fear.

Maybe i'm wrong, but if the Big Wigs are concerned about the culture than maybe we should too.

Be careful what we wish for.

JMHO.

[Four1oh]

so what's the solution, Smitty? YYZ Base? Talk about flushing the culture down the toilet in no time.

[Biff]

You guys are right, split crews are the reality already, however they are not that pervasive. Maybe one pairing out of 20(??). What is being proposed here is to make it the norm and I think that is where the threat to the culture lies.

Sure, everyone has a story about a pairing once when.....(fill in the space, kind of like band camp), however the norm is still a one crew concept for the pairing.

[Rotten Apple #1]

While we're hangin' our hat on the 1 Crew Concept, anyone care to list the attributes of the 1 Crew Concept? Or perhaps direct me to the publication or company document that lays out the tenets of the 1 Crew Concept? Maybe it's in some mission statement somewhere.

Not tryin' to be a dick here. Is the 1CC something that Clive or Don or Tim give credit for WJ's growth? Perhaps there'll be something on WestNet.

Funny how the topic never came up in my Command Course this past spring. Perhaps we were too busy beefin' about the designated lead idea.

I must really be acting against orthodoxy when I tell the crew I'm taking the morning shuttle a half hour earlier so I can get a bite to eat at YVR's A&W (Deluxe breakfast which includes five strips of bacon and three eggs, all at YVR's pricing guarantee).

"Meet ya at the gate 50 minutes prior to. Everybody know how to read a schedule?"

And then there's that YYZ manoeuvre I pull, you know, meet up with one of my buddies in the Beaches for supper, forgoing dinner with the crew. What a Jackass!

[Four1oh]

OMG! SHOOT THE CULTURE KILLA!

[CanadaEH]

Are you against the 1CC because you stand to get better pairings, or? Without being a pilot or FA (but engaged to one who may have interest in the concept), what's the beef with the way things are now? Just curious..

[Smitty]

Four1oh.

All I am saying is that I've been there before. Working for a company with a one crew concept (Air Ontario) and moving to a split crew concept (Jazz).

It was much easier to gel when you knew back end crew and created a great working relationship over the period of a pairing. It made quite a difference when you didn't know the back end. The 800 chaser or replacing sick crew members is not the same as having Pilots and FAs with different schedules.

Besides, the splitting of crews is more typical of the way other airlines operate and if that is the case, then maybe we should be considering bases as well.

Our culture is strong, but no culture is bulletproof. One bad decision could do irreparable harm and I'm guessing that's why our chiefs in the puzzle palace are treading carefully around these types of decisions.

[Four1oh]

Hey Smitty, I agree that the issue should be carefully considered; absolutely. My argument is that something really must be changed. We have definitely outgrown our '1 base concept', and thanks to the YYC housing boom a few years back we now have a LOT of pilots AND FA's who commute, through no fault of their own other than trying to live within their means, or closer to their hometown.

As for 'gelling' on a pairing, I already find it extremely difficult to 'gel' with my crew on a typical pairing, either due to min rest, or close to min rest layovers, or just people bailing out to do their own thing(visit friends, family, sleep in their own bed, etc). Is that a culture killer? I doubt it. I hope not. I am finding that I have a great bonding experience with a crew(not including my port crews, the average is far higher then) only once every 4 months on my very scientific averaging(note the tongue in cheek!).

I like not having a base system, and I hope it stays that way. The second you establish another base, there will be people who want that base, and people who want to avoid that base. The traditional way to solve that issue is seniority and, traditionally, seniority leads to unions, which we need like we need $200 oil.

Here's why I think the port system will not only preserve the culture, it'll improve it.
- employees with less commuting, and better schedules are happier employees
- port crews know each other very well; hence better bonding with less hours on a layover.
- it's easier to keep a port crew together, less need for splitting a crew.
- the rotten apples become so painfully obvious, you have to deal with them lest they spoil the port. No more of this crap of people ignoring the problem because the problem will go away at the end of the pairing and be someone else's problem. I think you'd agree that it's pretty rare to fly with the same person more than once every year or two the way things are getting.
-better schedules for the YYC crews. I have no proof, yet I think that if the schedules improve for the port people, crew planning should be able to design more YYC-friendly pairings, shouldn't they? IE: less YQR overnights with 26 hour layovers... just give that schedule to a YQR commuter/porter, and they'd be ecstatic... low credit? Who gives a damn then?
-Less deadheads. This is a big one. Every seat that is filled by a dead-header is a seat we can't sell to a paying guest. Even if we don't significantly reduce the amount of hotel rooms/night in our system, this alone should increase revenue very significantly. I don't know if we still do it, but there was a time when every day there was a flight leaving YYC-YYZ with 3 crews aboard. 18 seats...


I'm sure there's more but it's late, and that's enough for now.

[Smitty]

Four1oh, you and I are on the same page when it comes to ports. As a commuter myself, I want nothing more than to see this idea come to bear full fruit. If we can become more efficient with a better lifestyle without the use of bases, count me in. It's just the split crew idea that scares me for reasons I already mentioned.

BTW, when I talk about a crew "gelling" I don't necessarily mean nightly crew cocktails (though it helps ). I have worked plenty of "high credit-OMG, no time to go out" pairings where you'd almost think it were the opposite and we had the time to really get to know each other (I'll leave how well to your imagination).

Social time is not a prerequisite for a great crew.

[Red1]

Just a thought...

The 1CC should be, we work together as one crew when operating, that doesn't mean I need to hold your hand to the hotel. It is nice to have a whole crew to go to dinner with etc.., but why would that have to change, just might mean a few different faces every night.

ultimately I think we should have no bases or ports. Just a certain number flying hours that needs to get done, allocating crew in the most efficient way possible regardless of where they live. That might mean you jump on the plane in YYC to start your four day with an Fo who is on Day 2 from YYZ , with the back end made up of crews scattered across the country all on different parings. I am sure it would take one hell of a computer program to figure all that out, and I am sure there are details that would mess it up a bit, but like I said it's just a thought .

[Four1oh]

Are you against the 1CC because you stand to get better pairings, or? Without being a pilot or FA (but engaged to one who may have interest in the concept), what's the beef with the way things are now? Just curious..

I don't think anyone's against it so much as it's becoming inefficient and expensive. 2 words we try to avoid at WJ(within reason). We spend, and it lose alot of money deadheading crews all over the country from YYC. Until the port system came along, people were starting to scream about it. There were flights where a significant percentage of the seats were non-rev, and I know for sure there were full flights that could have been more full of paying guests but we couldn't sell the seats due to the DH'ers. Making the ports work is great for everyone involved, the problem is that there are those based in YYC who seem to think that we(as a company) are catering to the commuters. Truth is, something had to give, and it just so happened we already had plenty of people in other bases who could make a crew and take some of the pressure off. YYC just can't be the hub we'd like it to be to keep it as a single-base airline. I think it's safe to say that no one want's a YYZ, YHZ base, YWG, or YVR base, for all the reasons already listed in this thread. We have an alternative that's in it's infancy stage, and needs to go to the next step, and I think it will, but there will be some noise made, no doubt. I don't know how else we can do it without bases.