Have to disagree with the statement that new hires have lots of choices. Their choices are limited to the company's needs at the time. When I got hired at "Brand X", as I recall the choices were DTW DC9, MEM DC9, and ANC 742. Now, assuming I went to work at "Brand X" because I live in MSP and want to work in MSP (neither of which are true, thank goodness.... ), I think it's a good thing that I was afforded the right to bid that ASAP.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for seat locks to reduce excessive bidding around the system and unnecessary training costs. But to lock a new-hire with a family and a house and the whole deal in, say, DTW, into flying out of NYC or LAX (yeah, yeah, I know we don't actually fly out of LAX anymore..) for a year just because those were the company's whimsical needs at the moment is a cruddy deal. Odds are that guy will have applied to Delta because he has an expectation to drive to work.
Not looking out for the "yet to be hired" will bite us in the butt in the near long term. Stuff like this will drive qualified applicants elsewhere.
And... selling the not-yet-hired out has a pretty poor history. See "B Scale"...
Then again, if this last AE is any indicator, most of us are going to end up commuting to a base/seat we don't really want eventually anyway, so...
I'd like to see the new recovery language as well before passing judgement on this issue. However, I don't think it's unreasonable for a new-hire to spend 12 months in his assigned equipment, provided they are allowed to bid in seniority order on available slots for their class.
It wouldn't be a financial setback for the first 12 months either as 1st year pays the same regardless of aircraft type.
I do take issue with the "it sucked for me, so screw them" mentality. We need to avoid using junior pilots as negotiating chips.
This would not exactly be pushing them under the bus though, and if we get some serious gains in recovery obligations it might be worth it. It appears that the process is working itself out in this instance, and our ELECTED reps will consider the pros and cons and make a decision.
So far I've liked what I've seen out of the last few LOA's wrt training and scheduling improvements mid-contract. Hopefully this constructive mentality on the company's part will continue on through Section 6. It's encouraging to me that they're interested in looking for mutual "wins."
Advertising above will not show if you are a registered user.
Yeah, even if true it's really throwing a guy new hire under the bus...a requirement to stay in the aircraft that he was hired to fly for 12 whole months but with the ability to move a base...and if we're training that much (remember, he's a new hire) he gets out of 23G recovery obligations.
Slow,
Assuming the speculation is true. (Talk about a "double negative".) You're in favor of subjecting a new hire in a January class awarded the 88 to less pay than a new hire in the March class awarded the ER, just because it's "our responsibility to save the company in their own training inefficiencies"?
(I know that first year, new hire pay is the same dollar/hour figure, but with "international override", the ER kids make more.)
Just asking because I want to be clear on everyone's position. How about establishing something to benefit both the company and ourselves at the same time? (Novel concept)Thinking outside the box here. Why not "save the company" some money & make a little for ourselves while offering a 12-month seat lock for the first aircraft trained, but guaranteeing a "pay differential" for that person, so that if they would've been able to bid the ER, and can't due to the lock, can still have an opportunity to take advantage of their being hired three months earlier (seniority based system) instead of being discriminated against, due to the company's inability to plan accordingly.
I see nothing wrong with the seatlock... and it's certainly not throwing them under the bus. They just got hired with a carrier with a HUGE amount of retirements coming.
Refer to the above post, commenting on Slow's idea. Why are we simply "shooting ourselves in the foot" with obstacles (seat locks) for new-hires, based solely on the fact that, "THIS IS DELTA AIR LINES, & THEY SHOULD JUST BE THANKFUL FOR AN INTERVIEW & AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH OUR HOLINESS."
If the company wants something, (i.e. seat lock for training costs) make them "PAY UP"!! Like Sinca's avatar, FUPM!! (Originally coined by the Continental guys, I know.) Again, I haven't seen what LOA 31 consists of, but each & every time the company wants something, they toss us a "carrot" and we sacrifice a "horse" for it.
I would have been perfectly happy with or without a seatlock on my initial NYC 88 award.
Good for you. Don't speak for the rest of the new-hires.
I thought it was horribly inefficient that I could bid out of a plane they spent thousands of dollars training me on... and I only got 115 hours in it.
Remember that quote when applying for a management position, you'll fit right in. It's not our job to correct (pay for) the inefficiencies of management.
Assuming the speculation is true. (Talk about a "double negative".) You're in favor of subjecting a new hire in a January class awarded the 88 to less pay than a new hire in the March class awarded the ER, just because it's "our responsibility to save the company in their own training inefficiencies"?
(I know that first year, new hire pay is the same dollar/hour figure, but with "international override", the ER kids make more.)
Just asking because I want to be clear on everyone's position. How about establishing something to benefit both the company and ourselves at the same time? (Novel concept)Thinking outside the box here. Why not "save the company" some money & make a little for ourselves while offering a 12-month seat lock for the first aircraft trained, but guaranteeing a "pay differential" for that person, so that if they would've been able to bid the ER, and can't due to the lock, can still have an opportunity to take advantage of their being hired three months earlier (seniority based system) instead of being discriminated against, due to the company's inability to plan accordingly.
Thanks again, fly safe,
GJ
The key is in the details, and we are all just speculating at this point.
Consider it this way: one dropped trip with pay due to better recovery language is worth a whole lot of "protected" international override (at $4/hr). It all depends on how this is laid out. It could be a much larger gain for all pilots, including newhires.
It's an equipment freeze, not a base freeze.... new hires assigned NYC 88 would be free to bid any other 88 base on ensuing bids the first 12 months.
Like a previous poster said, 1st year pay is the same regardless of equipment.
I'm also going out on a limb here, but I don't think you'll see any new hire ER pilots again for awhile. With a few dozen MD90's on the way and 100 737-900's between 2013 and 2018 I'd say the junior equipment is fairly obvious (and both types of equipment where a new hire could probably get to most bases within a year)
The key is in the details, and we are all just speculating at this point.
Consider it this way: one dropped trip with pay due to better recovery language is worth a whole lot of "protected" international override (at $4/hr). It all depends on how this is laid out. It could be a much larger gain for all pilots, including newhires.[/QUOTE]
Agree. Devil is in the details. Just playing a little devil's advocate.
It's an equipment freeze, not a base freeze.... new hires assigned NYC 88 would be free to bid any other 88 base on ensuing bids the first 12 months.
Like a previous poster said, 1st year pay is the same regardless of equipment.
I'm also going out on a limb here, but I don't think you'll see any new hire ER pilots again for awhile. With a few dozen MD90's on the way and 100 737-900's between 2013 and 2018 I'd say the junior equipment is fairly obvious (and both types of equipment where a new hire could probably get to most bases within a year)
Similar Threads
), I think it's a good thing that I was afforded the right to bid that ASAP. 
You're in favor of subjecting a new hire in a January class awarded the 88 to less pay than a new hire in the March class awarded the ER, just because it's "our responsibility to save the company in their own training inefficiencies"?
)Thinking outside the box here. Why not "save the company" some money & make a little for ourselves while offering a 12-month seat lock for the first aircraft trained, but guaranteeing a "pay differential" for that person, so that if they would've been able to bid the ER, and can't due to the lock, can still have an opportunity to take advantage of their being hired three months earlier (seniority based system) instead of being discriminated against, due to the company's inability to plan accordingly.
Dang iPhone.
Linear Mode
