Jumbo Pilot

I just got back from a 12+ month MLOA and there was a change in my seat status, while I was gone.. here is what happened to me.

When I notified the company the date I was returning to work, I was subsequently allowed to modify my standing bid and I was awarded the seat I could hold based on my seniority when I returned to work. And I accomplished the training appropriate for that seat.

While on a Long Term MLOA you actually don't actively participate in the bids but you don't lose any ground either.

I hope that answers your question

FreightDawgyDog

Lots of 777 Captains on that practice bid who will be around 2 years or less. Since there are no passover pay issues for those already in a WB Capt seat, why would they send these these guys to training? I sure hope they have learned from their previous mistake of training those with less than 2 years to retire. What a total waste of my 4a2b contribution that was! In hindsight though, some of those less than 2 year guys got 4 years worth of flying in while the rest of us took a pay cut. Maybe there is a method to the company madness. Either way, October and then December 2012 cannot get here quick enough!

Jetjok

I believe that it takes about 9 months of line flying for the company to recoup their investment in a line-flying pilot, be it a Captain or a First Officer. That's the reason they are willing to train guys who are "close" to retirement. If it weren't financially viable, they wouldn't do it, unless of course it was to spite someone who they thought was messing with the system, which has been done before.

JJ

SeeDub

What the heck, go for it...WB Capt. Age 65 is coming soon for a lot of folks.

290kts

They will explain it all to you - the word compartmentalize will be used a bunch.

Gunter

I like to bash those two as much as the next guy but c'mon.

I think BC waited an appropriate amount of time. He hasn't be the NC for years and you want him to act like he still is? When does his term officially end for you?

Even if he still was the NC, politicians can only do so much. They are a reflection of their electorate. Their electorate (us) has an independent streak and we ignored the "don't bid it" request. Negotiations are over and we're waiting on arbitration. If he had bid it earlier I would have agreed with you but not now.

The FDA LOA is another story. That was a gross miscalculation on their part. The company didn't want to run several bids to fill it but they had to. I don't think the company wants that to happen again. We better not see the involuntary 90 day award section again.

FreightDawgyDog

JJ,

I believe the company (prior to the Bring Back the Jack Pack bid anyway) always chose to follow the contract verbiage about not training anyone within 2 years of retirement who was awarded a new seat on a bid. Now that the Jack Pack is Back, it will be interesting to see what they do. I am not sure where your "9 months on the line" figure comes from. Do you have a reference? If so, does it include the fact that you will need to take another pilot off the line in a year to retrain and fill that seat when the guy with less than 2 years retires? Pretty big loss of productivity if you ask me. Seems much more financial viable to me to just choose not to send the soon to be gone guy to training (especially with no passover pay involved) and fill the slot with someone who will be there for more than 2 years and likely a lot longer. There are a lot of Jack Pack members on this bid though so it wouldn't shock me either way.

Jetjok

Sorry, I have no reference for that 9 month comment, just remembering a conversation with one of the Chief Pilots a long time ago. I don't believe it includes any bubble up or bubble down training that might result from the initial training. So I'm wondering where you got your "information" from? It might just be another case of seeing and hearing only what we want to.

JJ

Huck

Help me out here. What is that a quote from?

FreightDawgyDog

Not sure what you meant by the cryptic last line. You are the one throwing out numbers, not me. I was honestly just wondering if you had a back up for those figures as they did not make sense to me, especially when you factor in the training cost of the replacement in 2 years. Paying to train someone who you know will do the job for several years vs paying someone you know will be gone in less than 2 years has nothing to do with what I would like to hear or see. It's just economic common sense to spend the money and time on the employee who will be more productive in the long run, especially when no passover pay is involved. When the Jack Pack is involved though, economic common sense doesn't seem to matter, hence decisions made on previous bids that led to 4a2b and the excesses to make room for them back at the top.