Future of Aviate
05-23-2020 | 03:18 PM
#41
You look like a nail
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
05-23-2020 | 03:30 PM
#42
You look like a nail
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
I am a professional and I would expect to be treated as such. I also am a staunch union supporter and support enforcement of our CBA. I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. I’m not overlooking anything, but perhaps you are implying that Aviate is bad because it decreases opportunities for our furloughed pilots. We have some contractual provisions for that. More importantly, what makes you think that those UAX carriers owe you a job ahead of anyone else? On my last furlough, I didn’t expect UAL or UAX to find me another job. I did what I had to do. Perhaps I’ll have to do that again. I still don’t think that UAL should or shouldn’t terminate Aviate. It’s purely a business decision to them and it is not part of our CBA.
I agree that UAL is free to do (most) anything they want in good times. But when UAL pilots are on the street, the Aviate pipeline is 100% unnecessary.
For this claiming Aviate is zero cost, UAL bought a flight school. That’s not zero cost, nor is it critical to the core business.
05-23-2020 | 03:39 PM
#43
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Respect is earned, I respect those who know the CBA. Especially with respect to language dealing with furloughed UAL pilots filling vacancies at UAX. What you’re supporting is in conflict with your CBA.
I agree that UAL is free to do (most) anything they want in good times. But when UAL pilots are on the street, the Aviate pipeline is 100% unnecessary.
For this claiming Aviate is zero cost, UAL bought a flight school. That’s not zero cost, nor is it critical to the core business.
I agree that UAL is free to do (most) anything they want in good times. But when UAL pilots are on the street, the Aviate pipeline is 100% unnecessary.
For this claiming Aviate is zero cost, UAL bought a flight school. That’s not zero cost, nor is it critical to the core business.
If you’re angry that mainline turbojet jobs were farmed out in the 1990s, welcome to the club. That was asinine at the time.
05-23-2020 | 11:03 PM
#47
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
I'd guess its more or less on indefinite hold. The benefit of staffing UAX is no longer applicable the UAX aviate carriers except for Mesa are on the chopping block aw c5 and xjt all fly 50 seaters and have no future. If our july bid stays come october at xjt we go down to 160 captains so 300 pilots total out of 1450 on the list keep jobs or we fold completely. UAL doesn't need the recruits cause they can pick from fully qualified regional cargo military and LCCs all day long once hiring resumes in 3 +years.
If i was UAL id scrap it, tell the 100ish people in the pool they'll honor the commitment and get rid of the administrative cost dump the flight school etc.
If i was UAL id scrap it, tell the 100ish people in the pool they'll honor the commitment and get rid of the administrative cost dump the flight school etc.
05-23-2020 | 11:12 PM
#48
You look like a nail
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
You’re deluding yourself if you see Aviate as HR. It’s a flight school in AZ formerly Westwind aviation, that currently has no place in the current post COVID United.. You could say it’s the where PFT from the 90s ended up.
05-24-2020 | 06:07 AM
#50
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2020
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
those who run successful businesses know that humans are resources and that recruitment is important and worth spending money on
your black and white “analysis” is noted and it’s not worth trying to convince you of the definition of “Human Resources” and how critical the resource is to any business endeavor, and whether the economy is up or down.
and equating ‘aviate’ with “PFT from the 90’s” is laughable and makes me wonder if you lived through those times or just read about them in ‘Flying’ magazine
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
