Originally Posted by Roadkill

anyone know anything about the "engine fire" on an ATL> Charlotte flight about an hour ago? Saw it on CNN. Looks like they landed at ATL, no issues. What aircraft?

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44

If that's true, that's horrible. We are going to hire hundreds per year in a few years. There's no reason these pilots should be seat locked as new hires. I was placed in ANC as a new hire. To this day, I've never been to Alaska. I was able to bid out of there immediately. I strongly disagree with throwing new hires under the bus for our own gain just because they don't work here yet.

Originally Posted by sailingfun

It would be a seat not base lock. The majority of new hires would go to the MD88 which has multiple bases. The A320 and 737N also have many basing options. They would be free to bid any base they can hold without any lock.

This is however all rumor. I can't believe the company agreed to eliminate recovery flying for a seat lock on new hires. They would be saving a nickel in training and losing a dollar in recovery costs. Not very likely they agreed to this. Its far more likely they agreed to some modifications on recovery flying such as being required to get you back the same day and eliminate the 6 hours in base. That might be more of a equal cost savings.

Originally Posted by LeineLodge

The key is in the details, and we are all just speculating at this point.

Consider it this way: one dropped trip with pay due to better recovery language is worth a whole lot of "protected" international override (at $4/hr). It all depends on how this is laid out. It could be a much larger gain for all pilots, including newhires.

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44

I feel we just gave up a ton of future leverage. It doesn't seem like a big deal now because we have no new hires, but when we're hiring 500+ pilots per year, it is a huge give-back. I'm tired of ALPA changing our contract without our input.

Originally Posted by scambo1

While we may be spinning at windmills:

I consider it in the inverse: What does it cost the company to train a new hire and then retrain him on another jet? It really is the second training event we are talking about, let's say it costs the company $35K.

What did we gain by the contract changes implemented? QOL with maybe a dollar cost value of $2-3K to the company.

How many newhires change equipment (base changes dont count) in year 1? 25%?

How many pilots are affected by 23k and oe recovery? I have no earthly idea.

But new hire equipment changes and recovery flying have a dollar value to the company. Recovery flying has a free payday value to the individual pilot only with some QOL thrown in. I believe you have the very definition of a concession coupled with throwing new hires under the bus.

Now if the pilot cost savings was paid in cash to the pilots, it would be different.

Originally Posted by sailingfun

Recovery flying is a huge cost savings to the company. In virtually every IROPS it reduces greenslips by a huge amount. Elimination of recovery flying would also mandate a increase in staffing across all categories.
A 12 month freeze for new hires saves some money but it would be pennies on the dollar compared to recovery flying.
Again I would be shocked if we eliminated recovery flying by agreeing to a 12 month freeze. The company would never go for it. Changes to recovery yes but to eliminate it for this change would really surprise me.

Originally Posted by Waves

Humusbchittenme, do you know how many applications are sent in on a regular basis. It's staggaring. I will agree with some of you guys on the premise that just because it sucked for me as a new guy doesn't make it right for the next new guy, BUT I can't even believe any of you guys can actually think whinning about a 12 month equipment freeze is going to get any sympathy. Ain't happenin!!! Boo Hoo. And as some have pointed out, it's not even a base freeze. Since I was hired I've seen new guys come right out of training and go directly to the 757/767. Must be rough. We all know timing is everything, but to actually have guys indicate that we are throwing new hires under the bus and that we have (especially 767 Captains) the "Screw them, I've got mine attitude" is, quite frankly, offensive. Over many years and many contracts, we have given many concessions in order to "share the wealth" and limit the misery for the new guys. Now you guys have done it. I have a trip tomorrow and now I'm all jacked up. BTW: I wasn't saying that you said all of those things.

Originally Posted by newKnow

They still say no hiring for 2012 though.