Search

Notices
View Poll Results: T/A Vote Yes or No
YES
65.70%
NO
34.30%
Voters: 277. You may not vote on this poll

TA Poll

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-03-2023, 06:53 PM
  #31  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2022
Posts: 240
Default

Everyone arguing that forced 350 hr UAL-time captains are unsafe (450 hrs if we count OE) need to remember that there are still higher regulatory minimums which apply to operating as a captain in 121 operations.

The regionals have been having forced upgrades fly United passengers (and DHing UAL crewmembers) for some time now—with much less support. Regional captains are often a one man band when it comes to dispatch and mx and pax issues—UAL captains have a much more robust and proactive support network than the average regional CA. I didn’t see this type of uproar about safety when SkyWest forced their FOs to upgrade.

It’s a huge kick to the nether regions for QOL for the unlucky forced upgrades, which is a great reason to dislike the proposed forced upgrade language. It’s also somewhat of a “poop flows downhill” move to force a new hire to upgrade into crap QOL but not a 30yr WB FO (into much better QOL)… those are more plausible reasons to not like contractual forced upgrade language.

The safety argument is valid and really needs to be had with the FAA if the regulatory 121 upgrade minimums are not sufficient, or if the FAA approved AQP upgrade program does not weed out current SICs who could not be competent PICs. Have the QOL argument with the companies.

All that said—I would not want to be forced to upgrade in any circumstance. I bid for it when I felt ready.

Last edited by three1five; 09-03-2023 at 07:03 PM.
three1five is offline  
Old 09-03-2023, 08:28 PM
  #32  
Gets Weekends Off
 
hummingbear's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,351
Default

Originally Posted by three1five
Everyone arguing that forced 350 hr UAL-time captains are unsafe (450 hrs if we count OE) need to remember that there are still higher regulatory minimums which apply to operating as a captain in 121 operations.

The regionals have been having forced upgrades fly United passengers (and DHing UAL crewmembers) for some time now—with much less support. Regional captains are often a one man band when it comes to dispatch and mx and pax issues—UAL captains have a much more robust and proactive support network than the average regional CA. I didn’t see this type of uproar about safety when SkyWest forced their FOs to upgrade.

It’s a huge kick to the nether regions for QOL for the unlucky forced upgrades, which is a great reason to dislike the proposed forced upgrade language. It’s also somewhat of a “poop flows downhill” move to force a new hire to upgrade into crap QOL but not a 30yr WB FO (into much better QOL)… those are more plausible reasons to not like contractual forced upgrade language.

The safety argument is valid and really needs to be had with the FAA if the regulatory 121 upgrade minimums are not sufficient, or if the FAA approved AQP upgrade program does not weed out current SICs who could not be competent PICs. Have the QOL argument with the companies.

All that said—I would not want to be forced to upgrade in any circumstance. I bid for it when I felt ready.
People who are for this like to make it about “low time CAs” because it’s easier to defend; but the real issue is forced CAs. I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem w/ the reduced mins if they got rid of the forced upgrade part. Pilots should upgrade when they choose to take on the extra responsibility, and if not enough people are making that choice, the job needs to be made more enticing. Forcing upgrades is a terrible idea & we’re bringing the industry down by championing it.
hummingbear is offline  
Old 09-03-2023, 09:39 PM
  #33  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,236
Default

Originally Posted by LJ Driver
DAL has even less stringent rules for baby captains than this TA does. Stop grandstanding and get real.
Can we make that the next lanyard? “We’re not the worst!”
Grumble is offline  
Old 09-03-2023, 11:11 PM
  #34  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2013
Posts: 806
Arrow

Originally Posted by three1five
Everyone arguing that forced 350 hr UAL-time captains are unsafe (450 hrs if we count OE) need to remember that there are still higher regulatory minimums which apply to operating as a captain in 121 operations.

The regionals have been having forced upgrades fly United passengers (and DHing UAL crewmembers) for some time now—with much less support. Regional captains are often a one man band when it comes to dispatch and mx and pax issues—UAL captains have a much more robust and proactive support network than the average regional CA. I didn’t see this type of uproar about safety when SkyWest forced their FOs to upgrade.
You are 100% correct. And I wish more people understood this. I think people with previous 121 background who understand how the system has worked in the past decade get it. This "forced upgrade" does not go into effect until the Fall of 2024, so there's literally a year where we will all get to test and see how this contract actually does its thing behind the scenes in re: RSV rules and improved QOL where there is any.

This delay in implementation may therefore make the whole "forced upgrade" a moot point and may not even be required - but let's say Fall of 2024 comes along and we still have a CA problem - well.......whoever comes to United at that point will be well aware that it may happen to them and it's something they have chosen to accept by applying here. Let's not forget that Part 121 rules require 1000 hours of SIC on a jet in order to upgrade - meaning, the 350 hour requirement may not qualify the new hire anyway.

Let's look further into that fact:

§ 121.436 Pilot Qualification: Certificates and experience requirements.(a) No certificate holder may use nor may any pilot act as pilot in command of an aircraft (or as second in command of an aircraft in a flag or supplemental operation that requires three or more pilots) unless the pilot:

(3) If serving as pilot in command in part 121 operations, has 1,000 hours as:

(i) Second in command in operations under this part;

(ii) Pilot in command in operations under § 91.1053(a)(2)(i) of this chapter;

(iii) Pilot in command in operations under § 135.243(a)(1) of this chapter;

(iv) Pilot in command in eligible on-demand operations that require the pilot to satisfy § 135.4(a)(2)(ii)(A) of this chapter; or

(v) Any combination thereof.

(c) For the purpose of satisfying the flight hour requirement in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, a pilot may credit 500 hours of military flight time provided the flight time was obtained—

(1) As pilot in command in a multiengine, turbine-powered, fixed-wing airplane or powered-lift aircraft, or any combination thereof; and

(2) In an operation requiring more than one pilot.

In other news, European and South American pilots who make less than half of what we make and are exposed to way worse QOL while still flying the same airplanes and in even worse environments than we do, are reading this tread and shaking their heads. I always like to throw a bit of perspective into the mix, even though some may regard that as irrelevant. I respect everyone who chooses to vote No, but I do agree with the other poster that perhaps half of the NO voters would most likely vote YES if they felt this would not pass.

Last edited by Da40Pilot; 09-03-2023 at 11:28 PM.
Da40Pilot is offline  
Old 09-04-2023, 02:25 AM
  #35  
Gets Weekends Off
 
hummingbear's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,351
Default

Originally Posted by Da40Pilot
This "forced upgrade" does not go into effect until the Fall of 2024, so there's literally a year where we will all get to test and see how this contract actually does its thing behind the scenes in re: RSV rules and improved QOL where there is any.

This delay in implementation may therefore make the whole "forced upgrade" a moot point and may not even be required
Ah, the old, “let’s just vote yes & see how it plays out” argument. That one’s never bit us before…

Originally Posted by Da40Pilot
In other news, European and South American pilots who make less than half of what we make and are exposed to way worse QOL while still flying the same airplanes and in even worse environments than we do, are reading this tread and shaking their heads.
Did we just go from “industry leading” to “hey, at least we’re better off than the South American pilots”? Nice pivot.
hummingbear is offline  
Old 09-04-2023, 03:31 AM
  #36  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 1,858
Default

Originally Posted by hummingbear
Ah, the old, “let’s just vote yes & see how it plays out” argument. That one’s never bit us before…


Did we just go from “industry leading” to “hey, at least we’re better off than the South American pilots”? Nice pivot.
As soon as the pay rates and retro formula were confirmed this was a 75-25 lock to pass, the ensuing discussions are just noise.
JoePatroni is offline  
Old 09-04-2023, 03:47 AM
  #37  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 351
Default

Originally Posted by JoePatroni
As soon as the pay rates and retro formula were confirmed this was a 75-25 lock to pass, the ensuing discussions are just noise.
I was a yes and voted yes in this poll. However the more I dig into this the more I lean towards No
WhisperJet is offline  
Old 09-04-2023, 04:23 AM
  #38  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 174
Default

Originally Posted by sdj1986
The vast majority of the no voters are only voting that way because they know it will pass with flying colors. They want to be able to smugly tell people they voted no, for whatever nonsense reason they have. If it was down to the wire and they knew their vote would make a difference, they would vote yes. It’s like voting for a 3rd party candidate when you live in Texas or California. They will spend the next 5 years telling everyone they meet that they voted no.

bingo…………..
Otters is offline  
Old 09-04-2023, 04:51 AM
  #39  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 1,858
Default

Originally Posted by sdj1986
The vast majority of the no voters are only voting that way because they know it will pass with flying colors. They want to be able to smugly tell people they voted no, for whatever nonsense reason they have. If it was down to the wire and they knew their vote would make a difference, they would vote yes. It’s like voting for a 3rd party candidate when you live in Texas or California. They will spend the next 5 years telling everyone they meet that they voted no.
Just like GJ in EWR when he saw the recall hand writing on the wall.
JoePatroni is offline  
Old 09-04-2023, 05:22 AM
  #40  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Jan 2021
Posts: 1,154
Default

Originally Posted by three1five
Everyone arguing that forced 350 hr UAL-time captains are unsafe (450 hrs if we count OE) need to remember that there are still higher regulatory minimums which apply to operating as a captain in 121 operations.

The regionals have been having forced upgrades fly United passengers (and DHing UAL crewmembers) for some time now—with much less support. Regional captains are often a one man band when it comes to dispatch and mx and pax issues—UAL captains have a much more robust and proactive support network than the average regional CA. I didn’t see this type of uproar about safety when SkyWest forced their FOs to upgrade.

It’s a huge kick to the nether regions for QOL for the unlucky forced upgrades, which is a great reason to dislike the proposed forced upgrade language. It’s also somewhat of a “poop flows downhill” move to force a new hire to upgrade into crap QOL but not a 30yr WB FO (into much better QOL)… those are more plausible reasons to not like contractual forced upgrade language.

The safety argument is valid and really needs to be had with the FAA if the regulatory 121 upgrade minimums are not sufficient, or if the FAA approved AQP upgrade program does not weed out current SICs who could not be competent PICs. Have the QOL argument with the companies.

All that said—I would not want to be forced to upgrade in any circumstance. I bid for it when I felt ready.
You sort of answered your own question. If your current AQP program isn’t tough enough it’s time to start weeding them out. I’m assuming United’s upgrade training is designed for experienced pilots who probably spent a few years in the left seat already.

I think everything you said is accurate but I’d like to add on to your regional example with forced upgrades. Most the FO’s those CA’s are flying with at SkyWest have very little 121 experience that just came from a Cessna 172. So it’s actually worse than you describe.

You know why it hasn’t been an issue at SkyWest? Because that training department will wash you out the second they see a lack in leadership or airmanship skills. They’re not afraid to send you back to the right seat.

This is why most regional FO’s who are afraid to upgrade jump to a ULCC. The crazy part is they’ve been rewarded for that action with job offers from the big 3. A lot of them are on a United seniority list which is what makes this entire scenario so ironic if they’re forced to upgrade at United.
LAXtoDEN is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
BarrySeal
Envoy Airlines
13
10-07-2017 10:54 PM
Pineapple Guy
Major
4
05-22-2012 05:36 AM

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