For a little while the probie ride consisted of just a PV/SV at the school house. No idea if that is still going on.

-Keep the dirty side down

So I’ve spoken to upper level management and they have confirmed that the RSV negotiations are dead in the water. The union is saying it’s still in the works..... it’s sad but I believe management at this point since the union has been saying the same exact thing since August! Smh the union is disappointing

I believe all fleets. It is going to be called R12 2019. It will be 2 days of ground and 3 days of Sims. Day 1 will be the same with no change as it is now. Day 2 will have your systems test (Now a 100 question test covering all systems.) The systems missed the most on the test as a whole class are the systems that will be covered during 2nd half of day 2.

Sim will cover MV day 1 followed by LOE and RAD day 2 and the new extended envelope training day 3. The oral won't have any systems on it since that is all covered in ground now. The oral will cover more performance, FM1, operational and aircraft specific questions.

I believe you, why would the company give us anything that benefits us if they are still getting people in the door? Management has no incentive to give us anything unless they need something in return.

Our union has given away any leverage we ever had when they keep giving into the company and offering band aids to help them.

I believe a few of us here said this when the last LOA came out. This company NEVER gives the pilots anything out of the goodness of their hearts. If we get anything it is because it BENEFITS THEM in some way. (Just look at the last LOA and the December AA class size etc.)

Honest question. The settlement pushed most protected pilots flow date up a couple months with the guys at the end probably improving their slot by five or six months. With the way AA has started to hire that might mean anywhere from 200-600 numbers in seniority. We've been here long enough to know that the full grievance process could have extended well into 2019, then even longer to get an award for harm caused IF we win that grievance.

Since the grievance only covered the protected pilots and any award for damages could have happened after they all left property what outcome were you hoping for? If we pushed hard for the 50% of all classes or even a meter much larger than 30/month the company would have taken their chances with arbitration and it's still possible we would have lost. Even if we won it's incredibly unlikely APA or AA would be forced to rearrange their master seniority list to reflect the 50% number retroactively. What would you have been happy with?

Somewhat true, but this is changing.

The past classes have only had a couple of cadets, so the "175 pool" hasn't really been exhausted by cadets.
There was one OFE-only class a month or so ago, all the others had 10+ OFL/DFL seats.

Being a cadet isn't as important as it was maybe 6+ months ago.
Age still has something to do with it. Our class was 100% 175, previous class, youngest guy who got the 175 was 30. A few classes prior, it was all OFE.

It's mostly luck. I'm counting my blessings that I live in base and got the 175 straight out of training.

How do you know about the oral. I can’t find anything on what’s in it ?

Straight from the people writing the AQP curriculum.

I agree with all that you are saying. The company never was going to give us 50%. All I am saying is that the LOA benefits the company more then it does the pilots.

The company saved face, Got their flow to continue with the union and pilots stopping most of their complaints so the company can continue selling it. Plus the union gave the company more to help out their staffing problem etc.

They definitely got a lot out of the Standing Vacancy LOA. Not having to train DECs as FOs then wait until a vacancy to displace them into a CA seat probably outweighed the immediate CA pay at vacancy award. A full additional training cycle with hotel, sim and instructor costs had to be a far greater expense plus whatever other pay withholding expenses if they tried to fast track them out of training seniority order.

I don't think the company would have played ball to settle the flow though grievance without it but I also don't think they wanted that training headache indefinitely. I don't know how much more they could have extracted before the company walked to arbitration and adapted to the training headache but that's always the second guessing that comes with reaching a settlement instead.