Southwest doesn't have a seat lock!

Oh wait...

Carl

It will be mostly MD's

I feel we just gave up a ton of future leverage. It doesn't seem like a big deal now because we have no new hires, but when we're hiring 500+ pilots per year, it is a huge give-back. I'm tired of ALPA changing our contract without our input.

"We asked the reps - no one said they didn't want a 12 month seat lock for new hires". :rolleyes:

How can we give input if we don't know what's up for discussion? (not directed at you Hockey, just a good post to quote)

The monthly update from crew resources says that among the legacy carriers, we have the highest pilot average age. This is news to me. I thought we were behind UAL and American. They still say no hiring for 2012 though. :(

Now that I think about it, what domestic, non-legacy carrier has an old pilot group. I wonder why they worded it like that? If we're old, as in the oldest, just say we are old. :D

Usair certainly has us beat. We're pretty much on par with AA and Continited.

Personally I don't think a 1 year seat lock for a new hire is that big of a deal. Anyone leaving an airline to start at another airline knows the gig - we all start at the bottom.

Hopefully all the new hires are coming to a much stronger and reliable company, partly based on sacrifices that we all made - albeit not always willingly.

First year pay is the same and they will also benefit from any change to the 23a,b,c,d,e,f,g. :D

If we want to take care of Pilots - how about taking care of our own? Hey here is an idea - how about we work on eliminating the current Alaska LAX and SEA carve outs? :eek:

One more thing to think about - What if this supposed 1 year lock was the deciding factor that prompts the company to start hiring 1 year earlier than without it? How do you think the new hires would feel about that? How would we all feel about that?


Scoop

While I would rather us not have "given this up," each carrier has it's own deal as far as newbs. At FDX you may end up in HKG for a while, for example.

IF... and a big IF this rumor is true, I certainly hope to see some serious gains in section 23 out of this.

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/188/fatmanf.jpg

First, do you understand the increases in manning for FO's that will result in no 23.G obligations. Look at the training that will be required going forward, think about the number of OE's that will have to be done. Every one of those FO's is off the hook, completely. That is worth 3-4% staffing in each seat alone. Suffice to say fixing this is huge.

Second, it is a TA it has not been ratified. Want MEMRAT? Call your reps. It will pass by over 90% easy. If you have been subjected to 23G you will know what a huge gain this is.

The quid:
Most new hires do two training events in their first year. It helps DAL stabilize training and increase the new hire training footprint going forward. That is good for them, and ultimately good for us.

DAL was one of the few airlines that did not have an initial training freeze. They used to btw.

23K and G would have cost us a ton of negotiation capital in Section 6, now that is done. It would cost less to get the 12 month lock taken off new hires.

Yes, there was a quid, but frankly for the increase in staffing and WS awards that this will generate, we as a pilot group will come out ahead.

As much as I hate to quote that picture, because nobody should have to see that twice.......

I guess I see the other side of the argument. Like 80 said, FDX has HKG, CAL has no health insurance for 6 months, etc, etc. Everyone has warts. Nonetheless, I hate to see us negotiating away stuff for people who aren't even here yet. Sets a dangerous precedent IMO.

However, if the company approached ALPA with this concession, they must see some monetary value in it. Might it mean they're planning on hiring sooner than they're planning on settling C2012 and they see new-hire movement across the system as being costlier than recovery flying???