Search

Notices

New. Vacancy

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-12-2015 | 06:16 AM
  #11  
NavierStokes's Avatar
Line Holder
 
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Thor
Did anyone read the bid announcement on CCS, and does the sentence about new hire pilots make any sense? I read it 3 times and can only conclude that English is not the author's first language.
What was said about the new hires?
Reply
Old 09-12-2015 | 06:28 AM
  #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
From: EWR 777 FO
Default

The vacancy bid shows me no longer holding EWR 756 FO, which is my current position. Can this be correct? I can't be displaced or bumped out of my seat on a vacancy bid can I?
Reply
Old 09-12-2015 | 06:33 AM
  #13  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 985
Likes: 65
Default

Originally Posted by Pro2nd
The vacancy bid shows me no longer holding EWR 756 FO, which is my current position. Can this be correct? I can't be displaced or bumped out of my seat on a vacancy bid can I?
They always screw up the bid screen initially. Take a look at the min max #'s on the bid release document. They input the min # instead of the max, which will show you not being able to hold your current position.
Reply
Old 09-12-2015 | 06:38 AM
  #14  
cadetdrivr's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by NavierStokes
What was said about the new hires?
Basically the bid is designed, in theory, to place new hires across virtually all the bases and thus avoid a shuffle later after they are on the property to position the staffing for summer '16 flying.

My guess: the majority of the "unfilled vacancies" in this bid after the dust settles, and thus actually available to new hires in upcoming classes, will largely be the same bases and seats that always go junior.

Personally, I'm not anticipating too many unfilled vacancies in DEN, for example.
Reply
Old 09-12-2015 | 06:54 AM
  #15  
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
Moderate Moderator
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 5,681
Likes: 0
From: Curator at Static Display
Default

I actually think some of this is forced on the company by the contract.

Example: let's say they see that 400 guys will retire in the next 12 months. Pilot Planning says "We need to hire 400 pilots."

Company says "We will only hire 400 guys if you have 400 unfilled vacancies."

Hmmm. They are short 20 guys in EWR, 5 in IAH, 6 in ORD, and 9 in DCA. But they are overmanned in DEN, LAX, and SFO.

So, they somehow create vacancies that make no sense operationally, in a move they hope will take some of the overmanning to the undermanned bases.

Of course, this is just a ritual with little effect...onsie-twosies.

Now that Pilot Planning has done all they can do to move pilots without a bump, the company has a choice: a bump, or hire more guys.

Apparently, hiring is cheaper than bumping.

I have read several times in company announcements that hiring can only occur if there are unfilled vacancies.
Reply
Old 09-12-2015 | 07:26 AM
  #16  
bigfatdaddy's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
I actually think some of this is forced on the company by the contract.

Example: let's say they see that 400 guys will retire in the next 12 months. Pilot Planning says "We need to hire 400 pilots."

Company says "We will only hire 400 guys if you have 400 unfilled vacancies."

Hmmm. They are short 20 guys in EWR, 5 in IAH, 6 in ORD, and 9 in DCA. But they are overmanned in DEN, LAX, and SFO.

So, they somehow create vacancies that make no sense operationally, in a move they hope will take some of the overmanning to the undermanned bases.

Of course, this is just a ritual with little effect...onsie-twosies.

Now that Pilot Planning has done all they can do to move pilots without a bump, the company has a choice: a bump, or hire more guys.

Apparently, hiring is cheaper than bumping.

I have read several times in company announcements that hiring can only occur if there are unfilled vacancies.
Soooo....are they filling slots in Denver so they can displace them in 2016?
Reply
Old 09-12-2015 | 07:54 AM
  #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
From: 737 Cap
Default

Originally Posted by Probe
I think all the usual suspects here, including me, joked about vacancies in displaced categories very soon. Myself, and probably everybody else, is sorry to be correct. Again.

Everything old, and stupid, is new again. Welcome to the new UAL. Same same, the old.
I would argue that this is one of the first vacancies that actually makes sense. Backfill Denver instead of more bumps. We need the frequency to staff tk and get all the 20000 plus training event into and out of Denver each month (12k pilots on a 9 month cycle plus transitions). Second, no big 78 bid until after the fence goes away. Eliminates the bumps that happened after the seat grab of 12. Perhaps they're finally starting to undo the garbage decision making that occurred around the sli. That cost us hundreds of millions with no real improvement. Just angst for the workers.
Reply
Old 09-12-2015 | 07:55 AM
  #18  
Don't say Guppy
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,926
Likes: 0
From: Guppy driver
Default

Originally Posted by bigfatdaddy
Soooo....are they filling slots in Denver so they can displace them in 2016?
And your point is? Are you going somewhere with this? LOL
Reply
Old 09-12-2015 | 07:56 AM
  #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
From: 737 Cap
Default

Originally Posted by Pro2nd
The vacancy bid shows me no longer holding EWR 756 FO, which is my current position. Can this be correct? I can't be displaced or bumped out of my seat on a vacancy bid can I?
No. You can't .
Reply
Old 09-12-2015 | 08:06 AM
  #20  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
From: 737 Cap
Default

Originally Posted by bigfatdaddy
Soooo....are they filling slots in Denver so they can displace them in 2016?
No. They don't intend to bump more Captains from denver (apparently), so they're matching the seat staffing on the f/o side. Thats how I see it anyway. Would not surprise me one bit to see them grow den a bit only because of the costs associated with training and staffing an airline this size from a small hub. We need both frequency and volume into and out of Denver for tk alone. Once the decision makers see it as a cost of doing business, I think Denver will take a more prominent role. As it always was. Bunch of garbage decisions made in the last 5 years. Heck the last 15+...
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
sarahswhere
United
64
05-20-2015 12:58 PM
steve0617
United
1
10-03-2014 01:28 PM
C-17 Driver
United
47
07-18-2014 07:08 PM
LeeMat
United
217
02-06-2013 07:04 PM
ERJ135
Regional
44
07-21-2008 06:49 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices