I have heard through the unofficial grapevine that UAL is going out of its way to court military members and recruit them to work here at UAL.

This is sort of weird because the staffing and crew planning people are going to have to accommodate UTA's, drill weekends, and Military leave.

Is the reason that UAL is holding these special military recruiting events to get "right" with the military community? Is this sort of like the ole days when UAL got spanked pretty hard and was forced by the courts to hire women and minorities?

Just sort of wondering what anyone is hearing..... My google research indicates 4 military lawsuits filed against either UAL or CAL within the last 10 years.

Could be part of it. Also could be the new FAA requirements make them more sought after than before.

Hopefully Krudawg isn't on the hiring board because all Reserve/Guard members would be screwed...

There is something to that. United's image (and maybe visa-vi the UALCAL holdings moniker) is not that great within the military community. The Reserve Officers Association has written pretty strongly on the subject to Mr. Munoz on the subject personally.

United's managers have been embarrassed both personally and professionally for their conduct and dealings with their military pilot employees. They haven't been embarrassed for their dealings with their ground employees, just their pilots. What's the difference.... I think it's PBS.

PBS forces tighter staffing solutions and any "short notice" absences make the efficiencies of PBS null and void. The cost savings isn't there to run PBS if pilots can drop trips. Of course pilots can drop trips for other reasons besides MLLV. But, this is a legal and lawful thing and UAL's crew planners are going to need to staff up more reserve pilots to accommodate it.

I do notice more reserves today in 2016 at the new U, then I did in 2007 at the ole CO.

Anyway, more to your point. UAL needs to clean up its image in how their managers deal with their military pilots. Holding the military only recruiting events is likely one step in that direction. Solving their pay and benefits disputes with the complaints already on file is their next logical step. After that, putting place the right institutional and leadership fixes in place to follow the rules is the final step in compliance.

Are you referring to the 500 hour military pilot restricted ATP (proposal), or is it something different? The 1500 hour/ATP requirement now on the books....? Is that what you are referring to?

"Military pilots need only 750 hours total flight time and 200 hours cross-country time"

https://www.boldmethod.com/blog/2013...estricted-atp/

Mpat of the "military guys" I know are retiring/separating, and will have no continued military obligation.
The few I know that are continuing only plan to do so for the short term.

If you are wondering why this becomes so volatile I will give a specific example:

Today at 9AM local ORD time a PVG trip came open for tomorrow.
This meant that at 1055 in seniority order a pilot could pick up the trip.
It also meant that nobody could drop a trip as part of that pick up. If a pilot wanted to trade out of a trip on the 21st to pick up the trip on the 20th, that would not be allowed. I am not commenting on the contract on this, but those are the rules that we are all subject to.
At 1045 AM a pilot took one day of MIL on the 24th, dropping his 4 day PEK trip on the 21st! Then he was free to pick up the PVG trip on the 20th! There were several other pilots that had trade requests in to drop a trip and pick this one up, but the one who got it was the one that could get a drop via a path that none of the others had available!

I was in the Navy for many years, and while I was in if a guy pulled that kind of s___ on his fellow squadron mates , there would have been hell to pay for that pilot for the rest of his career! But here we are told to mind our own business??? When a pilot uses his MIL status to violate the contract, it is all of our business!

I have a big problem with UA not giving pilots their correct benefits they deserve when they return from active duty (which is what the suit is about), but I do not have a problem at all with UA verifying status (absolutely allowable by USERRA law) especially if it is a case such as one outlined above.

Ahem.

All well and good to have this attitude, but make sure to understand what Uncle Sam provides to you and your airline.

Specifically, how about those CRAF contracts that United is a part of every year? Millions and millions of dollars of profit.

Not to mention, if you were to look and see who UA's biggest "corporate clients" are, I'd venture a guess that somewhere up near the top, if not at the top, is Uncle Sam himself.

Uncle Sam is helping to pay the bills, so it would be nice if UA would back off the folks who are playing by the rules when it comes to mil leave.

That is how things work in lots of guard/reserve units.

If orders can't get cut til last minute the military member is left dangling until the schedule and aircraft availability are confirmed. Hence, lots of last minute stuff happens in the guard and reserve today that didn't happen 20 years ago.

The entire guard/reserve system is last minute. So, I don't see it as an intentional screw job. I see it as the federal side isn't giving the guard/reserve enough resources to do the job, staff the operation, and fulfill their missions in a timely manner. The ops tempo and unique unit requirements often mean last minute requests happen all too frequently. It's not just affecting PBS organizations like airlines. Same goes for the postal service, and Mr. Goodwrench.

The other side of it that we lost sight of is that the guard and reserve units are being asked to do much, for too long. Both in sustained operations, and in deployment support.