Originally Posted by hummingbear

I’ll play the odds & guess those 777 CAs were at the upper age range. That would put them at the top seniority in their new hire class, which also means they get first pick on choosing their BES. It’s the young guys in each group who get stuck with the leftovers. Even if we may hire a lot of very experienced candidates, those guys, in general, are not the ones getting last pick in BI- see the problem?

I have no issue with giving an experienced guy w/ logbooks full of WB crossings the opportunity to choose NBCA; but that’s very different from telling the 24YO 8ball in that same class that he has to take it.

Originally Posted by hummingbear

First off, responding to a PR mess is “we fly, they manage”. Deciding whether you personally are going to sign your name to a contract that allows forced street captains is very much in your control.

We just had a relatively experienced crew almost turn a 777 into a submarine. This job is a lot more than just flipping switches & the attitude that anyone w/ a wet ATP can do it is reckless, in my opinion. It’s very possible that NBCA would go junior in new hire classes for the same reasons WBFO often does. So while yes, we do have some very experienced new hires, our age-based seniority system would more likely push those seats onto the youngest, and therefore often least experienced in each class.

We’re currently fighting the FAA on the safety of SkyWest trying to use 135 mins on certain city pairs, & yet we’re somehow ok with forcing a probationary pilot into a command position who didn’t explicitly ask for the responsibility? Explain that logic to me.

As early as next year, we could have crews with less than 4K hours, 8 months on property, & 50 years of age between the two of them flying into BOG in bad weather at night. I wouldn’t want my family on that plane & I don’t particularly want anyone else’s. And if- heaven forbid- that flight does become the worst case scenario, I doubt the fact that the CA had 100 hours of IOE will provide much reassurance to the flying public or protect us from the doo-do storm to follow; not to mention the far graver human tragedy. There are just so many better ways to address this issue it really surprises me we’re even considering this one.

Originally Posted by Da40Pilot

I am not sure what the fuzz is all about. Current contract allows upgrade at 500 hours on United metal and people are upgrading. This means that a new hire 777 FO can upgrade to 737 CA as long as he has 500 hours on United metal. The new contract says they have to have at a minimum 350 hours time on type before they can upgrade and once they do, a minimum of 100 hours of OE. That's only 50 hours less than previous contract and with 100 hours of managed OE included and addtl. ground school on top of that.

Old contract: 500 hours on United metal.
New contract: 450 hours on United metal and type and they still have to pass through the school house twice and through OE twice and get FAA sign offs etc - meaning, It's not an "automatic Captain" just being thrown into the wild.

Furthermore, while that junior person has been assigned the CA upgrade, if any other senior pilot upgrades between the new hire's indoc and the 350 hours, they can get bumped off their upgrade.

Most people that come here have already been Captains before, a lot at regionals with way worse conditions and to way more "manual" airports. I am not worried about this one bit. There is no data that supports that a new hire (which does not equate to lack of experience) is more prone to having an incident than a highly experienced/more senior crew, just to give an example. I think this has been proven already by taking a look at the latest slew of incidents in our industry.

Originally Posted by hummingbear

I’ll play the odds & guess those 777 CAs were at the upper age range. That would put them at the top seniority in their new hire class, which also means they get first pick on choosing their BES. It’s the young guys in each group who get stuck with the leftovers. Even if we may hire a lot of very experienced candidates, those guys, in general, are not the ones getting last pick in BI- see the problem?

I have no issue with giving an experienced guy w/ logbooks full of WB crossings the opportunity to choose NBCA; but that’s very different from telling the 24YO 8ball in that same class that he has to take it.

Originally Posted by Monkeyfly

This is the correct thought process.

If one tries to defend this provision, it must be done on the basis of what could happen worst case scenario. A pilot will be assigned a Captain position that he or she doesn’t wan’t and/or isn’t prepared for.

If you think this provision is OK, you must believe for a fact that every single pilot hired by United is ready for Captain at United.

P.S. A FACT team member has verified that forced assignment is possible.

Originally Posted by hummingbear

…yet we’re somehow ok with forcing a probationary pilot into a command position who didn’t explicitly ask.

As early as next year, we could have crews with less than 4K hours, 8 months on property, & 50 years of age between the two of them flying into BOG in bad weather at night.

Originally Posted by Buck Rogers

A good synopsis and logically presented. With all the gnashing of teeth prior to your post, I thought the sky was falling. Sounds to me(outsider) like it is even safer than what was allowed before at UAL and more stringent that what DAL does. I've never worried about putting my family on a Delta jet or, heaven forbid, even a Delta feeder RJ.

Originally Posted by ReadOnly7

Did that team member also confirm that deferring the unwanted assignment is possible? A NH who doesn’t want the CA assignment can opt to push it down the road for others.

Originally Posted by Monkeyfly

😑
You people are arguing straw men.

Those people have bid it by choice. Please tell me why a new hire should be FORCED into it.