I'm a complete contract neophyte, but what choice did the company have for DEN 76T crews when it decided to close the category? One thing I've noticed since landing here is how fast folks can churn back through training if they so desire. My April Indoc class had a couple of Bus guys who immediately bid to 756 in 15-08v.... meaning they will finish Bus IOE and be off to the 756 this fall. My partner in 737 training was a 737 CA upgrade who spent six months as a 777 FO before bidding up. A lot of $$$ is being wasted on disposable training (and buybacks), and not enough spent on fixing our broken operation. I'd be fine if the next contract reduced some of our flexibility for more $$$ in our pockets, as I'm not planning on visiting the TK very often during my remaining career if I can avoid it. But, perhaps I am missing something?

 

Note that in all of your examples pilots are moving UP a category.

We have 5,000 retirements in the next 10 years and 10,000 in the next 20. There WILL be upward movement as long as we don't shrink so there must be a mechanism for pilots to use their seniority to move UP the ranks. Every retirement will naturally trigger several training events as pilots shuffle up the ladder. This is one of the major reasons why the company wants and loves "categories" instead of totally individual fleets. For example, when LUAL placed the 747-400 and 777 in the same pay band it was considered a concession with a dollar value assigned.

Meanwhile, there are already existing freezes in the contract for pilots that don't move up a category but still bid for something that causes a training event.

For historical comparison, CAL used to do a twice yearly system bid free-for-all that could trigger massive training requirements (or not, depending) while UAL once upon a time had training freezes so onerous that new hires(!) were able to bid 747-400 FO because all the pilots senior to them were already in seat locks during a period of rapid movement.

Thus, we already have a pretty good "balance" in the UPA, IMHO, and I would oppose any effort to further restrict pilot movement. If the company wants to save training $$$, better management and planning is the answer.

 

The broken system is of managements making. What's going on is not normal and was created on day one of the merger. Some of what's going on is the normal cycle of fixing those mistakes. Our contract does a good job of handling these types of events during the normal course of expansion and reduction. This is neither, it's just plane stupidity of our management team making really dumb decisions and it shows.

No need to change our contract as was attempted by the Houston LEC carveout - our contract is doing it's job and that's fine.

 

Very interesting, thanks!

 

That is incorrect. It was not a "free for all". There were no bumping rights unless there was a displacement based on reduction. The bid was for vacancies/reductions. It was not a great system, and they had the ability to put out monthly bids if they wished. That was seldom.

 

Yes, poor choice of words on my part.