LJ Driver

No dog is this current thread fight as I’m not hired, but if there is a ‘known’ recency standard I’m curious to know it as well. I’ve always been told the 100/12 is a good benchmark across the industry.

The Walrus

About 250k per year.

FXLAX

Management can hire whoever they want. Minimum requirements and recency of experience are not contractual. They can literally change those one second, hire who they want, and then change them back...or not.

At some point, the pilot shortage will hit Fedex and they will lower the requirements indefinitely.

HIFLYR

My understanding is he didn’t do any of the above, buds in the different shops say they never saw him. Interesting the new improved progress had to blind and pass legal test for fairness bla bla bla now this. Hope some of the internals denied a number because of recenecy etc. sue the company. I am pretty sure in all my years here and I asked a former Chief Pilot also, no one was hired to the line without at least going through the process except possibly in the very beginning. Nothing personal but I think this is a issue is because the way internal employees and external applicants have been treated by the new sheriff over recruitment.

TonyC

For something as serious as calling someone a liar, I think you should bother to reference facts. You would have saved yourself the embarrassment of being wrong, again. More important, you would have spared yourself the agony of owing me an apology. (Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.)


I was on vacation when I posted. I wasn't in Indy, and I hadn't rated, nor had I been denied a sleep room or a hotel room.

I posted conversations about the TA (at the time) verbiage, the concession we considered and ultimately ratified, which increases the layover requirement for (and therefore reduces the number of) HOTEL rooms on longer hub turns.

I then posted a paraphrase of the FCIF issued by the Company which acknowledged the real-world need for rest, and therefore HOTEL rooms during hub turns.

Finally, I injected one comment. I said, "Wow. Who would have seen that coming?"

I did not whine. I did not claim a lack of a sleep room or hotel room for myself. I could not have blamed anyone or anything for such a lack, since it did not happen.

Like I said, you should have bothered to look it up, because you didn't even come close to the facts.



Nothing requires more sleep rooms. Since more crews who previously were entitled to HOTEL rooms are now relegated to sleep rooms, fewer sleep rooms are available for pilots transiting the hub in a status other than hub turning. If you commuted to the hub and will be operating out, don't count on a sleep room -- they're full. If you operated in and you'll be commuting, perhaps jumpseating out, don't count on a sleep room -- they're full. The HOTEL room concession has put more pressure on sleep room availability, and not just in Indy.

The CONCESSION, if you'll BOTHER to read the language, is HOTEL rooms. We gave them up for shorter layovers, provided there are sleep rooms available. And to make more sleep rooms available, commuters lose the convenience they had before of using excess sleep rooms for rest on either end of their trips.

Again, the CONCESSION is HOTEL rooms, not SLEEP rooms and there is no requirement to build more sleep rooms.


SO, why did The Company suddenly see a need to provide more hotel rooms during peak? Were they overcome with a sense of generosity and wanted to be nice to us? Ha. Did they get a sudden urge to put safety over cost? Yeahrite. Why do they do anything? Profit, which depends on reliability, is the driving force. With the increased and persistent focus we've been putting on fatigue, pilots are more likely to admit they're tired and set the parking brake. When we raise the fatigue flag, reliability suffers. In order to keep us flying, they actually did something to address fatigue.

And now that peak is over, they can unilaterally go back to the pre-FCIF parameters if and when they want. At the same time, they'll be able to claim a savings in hotel costs and earn somebody an MBO bonus.

WIN-WIN-WIN






.

TonyC

Did you even read my post that you quoted? I think I know why you're having trouble understanding the hub turn HOTEL room concession if you're having this much trouble with reading comprehension. Let me repeat my post with the answer to your question highlighted. It's not like it's buried in the bowels of a lengthy, rambling post (which I confess I have been guilty of at times). It's the only topic of the post, and after asking the question, the answer is explicitly stated in the first 2 sentences consisting of only 7 words. Short words, even. Look:



.

TonyC

I agree. The only thing holding my friend back right now is the recency of experience requirement. The Pilot Recruitment boss said he'd have to have hours in the same type of airplane required to meet the PIC/SIC requirements. In other words, MTOGW of 12,500#, turboprop or jet. When I pointed out those things aren't usually available for weekend rentals, she recommended he get a job with a regional. She explained that will help him with the testing and the SBI.


He's got a great sim instructor job for the Navy, where he teaches stuff like the SBI. I think he'd do just fine with the testing. But what do I know, I was never a paralegal.


I highly doubt our VP of Flight Ops met any recency requirement.


Discrimination?






.

TonyC

It is my understanding that one of them (the latter) is mandated by the FAA, and the other (the former) was created to allow an aging VP to remain employed after reaching the regulated age.






.

Fdxlag2

My question remains valid. Go read your post. You said someone ignored you. You never said you got to ask your question. So apparently now you are claiming you did, what is the recency of experience minimum for say a 757 Pro?

TonyC

Do you have an alternate definition for the words, "I know"?






.