On the long run - review personnel needs

[Tha_Ape]

Personnel requirements are often a bit off and that's not much of a problem, we can't ask everything to be extremely precise. Indeed, I usually petition against absolute accuracy.

However, sometimes it really doesn't make any sense.

I just added 7 A321-F on 7-day schedule, flying 6 routes (tech-stops).
And, just as an example, the system asks me to add... 400 guys in the Flight Operation Division !!! 
If they work 40hrs / week, that's 95 people constantly working on 7 planes / 6 routes.
That's 13,5 people per plane, working 24hrs a day.
Even if we have 1 person constantly (24hrs) working on each separate route on each separate plane, that's 176 people (and a few more for the holidays).

Well, that's more than a bit off, I think.

So, someday, when you'll have time for something not vital, it would be nice to rework the figures. Either increase the salaries, or something like equivalent.

Thanks!

[DanDan]

i will quote Sami, out of context, regarding an HR issue: "Not a bug. Works as intended and this ... number is based on actual data." 

on a less humourous note: i do agree with you, the whole HR thing should be revised. retirement numbers, wages, and most of all, HR demand.