UPS New Hire class
11-24-2007, 11:05 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: F/O
Posts: 328
Originally Posted by 767pilot
If the company decides to add a position, say put one more MD-11 captain up in ANC, that is an original vacancy. If an SDF Z captain takes it, that creates a recurring vacancy in the Z. If that is taken by a DC8 Fo, it creates another recurring vacancy which then gets filled automaticly. Say that person is an Airbus FO, that creates an airbus recurring vacancy. This could go on for a while but in many cases is limited by our contract. You can see why the company would want to do this. One of the ways that they limit it is to only allow a certain amount of these recurring vacancies before one has to be filled by someone upgrading, and not just bidding laterally.
11-25-2007, 10:11 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 767 captain
Posts: 2,696
Originally Posted by 31wins
It'd be kinda tough for the pax to look outside on a UPS 757, there aren't any windows. They were born freighters.
11-25-2007, 10:12 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 767 captain
Posts: 2,696
Originally Posted by Night_Hawk
767, I believe this was cleaned up a lot in the last contract. It will be easier than under the old contract to bid laterally as capt.
11-25-2007, 10:19 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 767 captain
Posts: 2,696
Did some quick research and here is what I found....
e. Movements
(1) For an original Captain vacancy, the following limited moves shall apply on a
seniority basis:
(a) A maximum of two (2) transition moves whether to an original or recurring
vacancy.
(b) A maximum of two (2) upgrade moves whether to an original or recurring
vacancy.
(2) For an original First Officer vacancy, the following limited moves shall apply on
a seniority basis:
(a) A maximum of two (2) transition moves whether to an original or recurring
vacancy.
(b) A maximum of one (1) upgrade move whether to an original or recurring
vacancy.
For an original Second Officer on a B-747 (i.e. vacancy created by B-747
Second Officer upgrading) there shall be allowed one (1) Second Officer
transition. The Second Officer shall not be entitled to transition unless he has,
at least, three (3) years seniority. The vacancy created by the transitioning
Second Officer or the original vacancy, if there is no effective bid, shall be filled
by a new hire. The Company shall have the right to fill all other Second Officer
positions with new hires.
Looks like only two moves before it has to go to a new guy unless I am misunderstanding something. We also used to have language allowing a few more moves in our favor in the event it was a wide body opening. I don't see that anymore either.
e. Movements
(1) For an original Captain vacancy, the following limited moves shall apply on a
seniority basis:
(a) A maximum of two (2) transition moves whether to an original or recurring
vacancy.
(b) A maximum of two (2) upgrade moves whether to an original or recurring
vacancy.
(2) For an original First Officer vacancy, the following limited moves shall apply on
a seniority basis:
(a) A maximum of two (2) transition moves whether to an original or recurring
vacancy.
(b) A maximum of one (1) upgrade move whether to an original or recurring
vacancy.
For an original Second Officer on a B-747 (i.e. vacancy created by B-747
Second Officer upgrading) there shall be allowed one (1) Second Officer
transition. The Second Officer shall not be entitled to transition unless he has,
at least, three (3) years seniority. The vacancy created by the transitioning
Second Officer or the original vacancy, if there is no effective bid, shall be filled
by a new hire. The Company shall have the right to fill all other Second Officer
positions with new hires.
Looks like only two moves before it has to go to a new guy unless I am misunderstanding something. We also used to have language allowing a few more moves in our favor in the event it was a wide body opening. I don't see that anymore either.
11-25-2007, 10:24 AM
#35
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: 747-400 FO at Big BROWN
Posts: 38
I am still relatively new at BROWN, but this whole recurrent and new vacancy stuff still baffles me. If you are senior enough and there is a vacancy that doesn't require training you should be able to fill it.
11-25-2007, 11:04 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 767 captain
Posts: 2,696
Originally Posted by Capt America
I am still relatively new at BROWN, but this whole recurrent and new vacancy stuff still baffles me. If you are senior enough and there is a vacancy that doesn't require training you should be able to fill it.
The backsory to all of this is that when they put this thing together in '88 the company wanted there to be no lateral movements or fleet changes ever. If you were hired as a DC-8 guy, you wold retire as one. This was the compromise.
This whole training conundrum has been a thorn in their sides forever. I had a guy tell me that they hired a consultant recently to look at the problem. He said that most airlines have about 5% of their pilot force in long term training at any given time, but here at UPS is was close to 25%. These displacements bids are horrible and I can't believe that it wouldn't be easier to just be a few seats heavy here and there rather than go through what we have seen here so many times in the past.
11-25-2007, 11:21 AM
#37
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: 747-400 FO at Big BROWN
Posts: 38
Thanks for the reply, I have heard that explanation before and I am sure at one time somebody thought that it made sense.
You are right though there are much easier ways to fix these problems than through this displacement nightmare.
Who knows I may be going "Into the Wild" before long.
You are right though there are much easier ways to fix these problems than through this displacement nightmare.
Who knows I may be going "Into the Wild" before long.
11-25-2007, 12:29 PM
#38
Tri-tanic operator
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Doggie
Posts: 2,382
Originally Posted by Capt America
Thanks for the reply, I have heard that explanation before and I am sure at one time somebody thought that it made sense.
You are right though there are much easier ways to fix these problems than through this displacement nightmare.
Who knows I may be going "Into the Wild" before long.
You are right though there are much easier ways to fix these problems than through this displacement nightmare.
Who knows I may be going "Into the Wild" before long.
11-25-2007, 12:38 PM
#39
Tri-tanic operator
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Doggie
Posts: 2,382
Just another opinion
Originally Posted by 767pilot
This whole training conundrum has been a thorn in their sides forever. I had a guy tell me that they hired a consultant recently to look at the problem. He said that most airlines have about 5% of their pilot force in long term training at any given time, but here at UPS is was close to 25%. These displacements bids are horrible and I can't believe that it wouldn't be easier to just be a few seats heavy here and there rather than go through what we have seen here so many times in the past.
If allowed to bid by seniority within your class, there could be less shuffling of bodies after the 1st year. It gets worse when a probie gets displaced out of seniority.
No kidding, some of the more senior guys from my March class will soon be in their SECOND long term training event in less than a year. Me thinks that doesn't help that 25% factor one bit ...
Then in 6 more months when I get bumped to ANC. I will probably meet the new hire that got placed in SDFZ while I am in the schoolhouse.
I'd be laughing harder if I didn't think it could happen !
Later, Brown CC
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
