Originally Posted by BeatNavy

Are other ALPA airlines saying that those pilots who are not yet complete with IOE, but who are on the seniority list, are not even considered probationary pilots until completion of IOE as appears to be the case here, despite being on the seniority list, being employed as a pilot, etc.?

Regarding spending capital...no capital would or should be required to clearly define a new hire’s employment status, ie elimination of a “gray area,” one way or another. Either they are jetblue “pilots” covered under the CBA (in a probationary status) or they are not, and that needs to be in black and white...not a “gray area” as ALPA is saying. If that’s how the company and ALPA want to roll, they need to change the definition of pilot and/or first officer in the CBA to clearly indicate completion of training/IOE is a requirement to gain such status. Or, do the right thing and clarify it to include every person in this situation (who are not yet done with training/IOE but on the seniority list) as probationary pilots.

Probationary period, as defined in the CBA, already begins at date of hire and lasts 365 days. So it’s already in conflict with the notion that they are not covered under the CBA until complete with IOE, as that definition indicates the CBA defined probationary period begins day 1...if the CBA didn’t apply til IOE was complete, then that line can’t really apply to a pilot trainee. See what I’m getting at?

Originally Posted by Shako68

So a friend of mine got the email yesterday inviting him to do the virtual phone screening and begin phase 1. Are we still interviewing or was this sent out in error possibly??? Anyone with actual knowledge of this??? Thanks

Originally Posted by BeatNavy

I’ve heard this as well, which is also why we have a newhire who got hurt at the lodge in initial playing volleyball, is out for several months, and was told to reapply. His case is still pending.

I don't understand how pre-IOE complete guys are in a gray area, other than maybe the way the definition of first officer reads in the CBA (ie meeting the regulatory and contractual criteria to hold such status). But I contend that if anyone accepts a position as a first officer and begins training, they are added to the PILOT seniority list on day 1, and therefore should be covered as a probationary pilot. Furthermore, the probationary period in the CBA is defined as 365 days from date of employment. If they aren’t a “probationary pilot” for the first month or two while in training, then what are they? Because there is no other definition, title, or position that I can see that would fit.

Hopefully this “gray area” is resolved in CBA 2.0. It’s ridiculous and petty that JB would try to pull this. And B6ALPA sounds like they are just as much to blame. There should be no “gray area” as to employment status, and they should be fighting tooth and nail to protect EVERY pilot here, even if probationary. They should be publicly denouncing JB’s treatment of newhires and this now disputed “gray area.”

Originally Posted by Liketoflyjets

If people in training are being treated as if they doun't exist, how in the world are people in the "pool" supposed to have faith in the system.....i'm about to join the guard or something at this rate.

Originally Posted by Liketoflyjets

If people in training are being treated as if they don't exist, how in the world are people in the "pool" supposed to have faith in the system.....i'm about to join the guard or something at this rate.

Originally Posted by Liketoflyjets

..i'm about to join the guard or something at this rate.

Originally Posted by PotatoChip

You say that as if it were beneath you, or not worth considering otherwise.
If this is your feeling, please don’t.

Originally Posted by aldonite7667

No he didn’t. He’s concerned for his future.

Originally Posted by CaptCoolHand

theyre also not being treated as the don’t exist. They’re still getting paid. That’s a luxury most of us were not afforded in the past.