They are off the street positions. In our current negotiations one of our main points is we want solid training, and the best people to know what we face are guys and gals who have flown the line. That said, pros make anywhere from 60-100k per year, without the same benefits, etc so its obviously a less costly way for the company to add training staff. How many can they add? What events can a pro teach? Well--that will be a function of negotiations...and the FAA approval process.

FYI...other airlines are doing the same thing. Many folks may know this but the former chief of hiring for UAL (CV) is now back on the line and HR is doing the same job. Why? Probably cheaper to get an HR person than pay a line captain to run the program? Who is BEST at knowing the right candidate for the job? I think many of us would agree a pilot, but pilots cost more than other labor, so there is always a push to downsize labor costs.

I am not on the negotiating team, but I was a block rep for a while. I am not sure how much negotiating capital I would burn for a guy who'd been hired off to be a pro to have a guaranteed line job. It seems to me the COMPANY would want to do this for the obvious reason of creating a highly capable and motivated training force. If they want to bring people in to work the sims, then tell them they are good enough for that job but not good enough for the line, I'll let THEM deal with the consequences. In the past, the interview process was a flow-through, and I think you had a lot of good pilots go to the school house as a way in the door. Now? I dunno. I think it would be very, very difficult to go back to my cubicle for 60k a year teaching systems after being told I wasn't welcome on the varsity. Then again, I don't expect our current management to have much of a "feel" for what pilots think, so I'm not sure they care one way or the other.

If a pilot did down an event, with a pro as the IP that was rejected from the line, I think they could easily make a case the instructor was either A) substandard (since he wasn't line material) or B) did a poor job briefing or executing the event (based on the lack of motivation after the rejection). A simple way to prevent all of that is have the pro interview once, and demand line-level performance in all facets of the interview. When and if the time commitment was met and if line pilots were needed, that pilot could then flow on to the line. Not sure why we drifted from that, but its a new thing. Having an instructor sitting around with hurt feelings is a new phenomenon, and I am wondering how its going to play out...