T28driver

I’m a little surprised nobody has really discussed the “same 5,000 resumes at all the majors” nugget from the OP.

Friends of mine at WN and UA in the hiring/training departments told me 2 years ago that their projections showed the “pilot shortage” finally starting to hit the majors around the fourth quarter of 2018. When I saw it happening at the regional level (and the corresponding increase in compensation it forced), I dusted off my logbook and started looking for a 121 job.

I’m currently a RJ pilot flying in the United Express system, and I’ve been really impressed with the mainline United pilots I have met. Thankfully, everyone I have visited with seems to fully grasp the implications of scope, and I’m comforted by the fact that your group appears to be unified in not offering any relaxations.

That being said, United is in trouble in terms of staffing on the Express side. The proof of this is pretty simple: a pilot that meets ATP minimums can have an interview immediately and a class date soon after at any of the United Express carriers. Endeavor is slammed with resumes and their classes are booked out through June. The lack of a wholly owned regional means that the independent carriers can’t really compete with the AA/DL regionals in terms of flow/compensation.

I think that United will be the first major to bring RJ’s in house, not necessarily because they want to but because they have no other choice. I also think that the first major to do this will be at a huge advantage in terms of being able to staff their flying over the next decade.

Sincerely,

A 50 seat RJ pilot that doesn’t want to fly a bigger jet with “United” on the side unless the word “express” is gone.

rp2pilot

You bring up an important point that many self adsorbed forget .. the majority of the people in the back of the airplane (the paying passengers) aren't just out flying the system for laughs; rather, they have weddings, funerals, sick family, honeymoons, et al. It's our job to get them there, safely. While there are legitimate reasons for declining an airplane, I think we can all agree we've encountered the guys that have inferiority complexes and will needlessly decline an airplane just to stroke their poor pathetic self image ("Look at me, the powerful Captain"). We've also seen the guys that are out looking for missing rivets with a microscope on every walk around solely for delaying the flight. Unfortunately, there's no effective way of measuring maturity before pinning on that fourth stripe.

Zenofzin

Job well done, that’s what we get paid the big bucks for, to make decisions like this, manage situations, and get the job done. I have had days like this and called the FODM, talked it over with them, they are extremely helpful and can coordinate directly with ATC, ramp supervisors etc, and act as a great cover your a$$ if something happens. The FODM are a phenomenal resource. We had an apu air inop on a snow day in ORD, the FODM coordinated everything we needed with ramp tower and ground people device etc, and we pulled it off without a hiccup, arrived 10 early, SAFELY, and with a lot of happy people. You want big $$ and big profit sharing checks, try doing your job....

Aviatorr

It could go down just like that, but like usual they’ll have no other choice due to UALs lack of planning not by being proactive!!

Regularguy

I’m not so sure it’s a lack of planning at all. Historically UAL has always had the option to buy these planes and operations, but they didn’t. Even in it’s day CAL never embraced the smaller jets, so it would be safe to consider the idea that management does not see it your way.

Consider this, if we each had $1 mil to invest in an asset which can produce a return of 5% or we had the option to pay a fee to someone else, for a similar return, as they take all the risk with their $, what would we do?

Clearly in the long run UAL would rather use someone else’s assets for a fee and use their investment funds another way. It’s history and not from lack of planning (although they sure have made some huge errors in the past).

Now as far as the 5,000 applicants go; what do you hear Kirby actually saying about these people? Why doesn’t UAL or the other majors just hire them?

Personally I’m all for offering UAL pilot openings to the most senior ALPA pilot whom flys for a UAL Express carrier first. Of course they would start at the bottom of the UAL list and have to be fully vetted with interviews, background checks and whatever is done these days to get hired. But I’m an old guy whose seen all the National ALPA seniority list discussions before.

But what does this all have to do with “charm school?” Nothing, just a blog thread adrift in the sea of chaos.

Flytolive

Our flights are not the only ones with mom and pop in the back of the plane. As Attarian admits United had and still has systemic problems. These problems don't get fixed by flying the junk and putting bandaids on the problem. If it is safe, an exception, everyone is comfortable with the plan and it won't screw crews and customers downline then sure.

What is disturbing is how quick some are to question other Captains' motives and authority based on hearsay and management BS.

Sunvox

I can tell you that I have communicated with our MEC Chairman directly on several recent occasions, and he is confident that our pilots will be pleased with what is coming in terms of Scope. I, for one, am optimistic that the company and ALPA will find a new and better way forward.


I realize much was said in between my original posts and this last sentiment, but I want to elaborate slightly as I feel the intent is not what folks here think. I do not believe Howard's comments in any way shape or form were meant to diminish Captain's Authority. In fact, every speaker and every lesson, that we heard from or watched during the 4 days emphasized over and over the importance of being a "Captain" and being proactive. I think Howard was speaking to a very simple cultural tendency that a handful of pilots still have who are quick to reject a plane without any reason other than "it's broke and I ain't takin' it". Now we did not discuss and I wholeheartedly agree that there are another handful of pilots who are taking broken planes when it's NOT appropriate, but we simply didn't discuss that.

Again, it was not my impression that anyone, not Howard nor anyone else, was implying captains shouldn't be allowed to use their own judgement and authority when deciding whether an MEL is safe or not. They were just asking us to do so logically and not emotionally.

CousinEddie

Or based on some actual experiences from 20 years in the right seat.....

Grumble

Not everyone is a self absorbed jerk, but the only way to force the company to fix something that’s broken is for it to cost them money. Bandaid fixes like yours only kick the can down the road for the next guy. Maybe this is why none of the PC air units in IAH can keep an airplane cool. Or maybe we should just all board with an engine turning with an APU inop. Surely if it’s safe for one it’s safe to do for all.

I’ve yet to fly with the Captain that doesn’t put pax first, but there have been many instances of that drive being thwarted, by the SOC wanting their D:0 at any cost for instance.

intrepidcv11

The stats on ramp injuries is enough to have me say no thanks to taking the risk of prolonged engine runs at the gate. Quite frankly I don’t trust them or various other contractors to fully appreciate the danger. Sorry I don’t need what happened in ELP back when on my conscious. This isn’t about ME, it’s about the company fixing a glaring problem not slapping on a loose fitting bandaid as was suggested above.