United Cancels newhire classes

[Tanker Clown]

Hey all,

I interviewed at the end of February and was told to expect an August class. An HR Rep just confirmed that April and May classes have been canceled, but that job offers for those of us in this waiting for training "pool" are good for one year from the date of the interview. Hope that helps to answer some questions.

jr

Bummer. It's probably pretty optimistic to think that they'll be having new hire classes by Feb.

 

[Andy]

Bummer. It's probably pretty optimistic to think that they'll be having new hire classes by Feb.

On this I agree.

I expect that a few in the 31 March class will decline. It'll be interesting to see if they offer up any empty slots to those in the pool.

 

[Ottersphere]

Future UAL Classes

Yeah, it's hard to say what will happen in the next year, lots of variables.

Admittedly, I'm on the outside looking in, but it wouldn't surprise me if the economic environment deteriorated to the point where they decided in a few months to sell all 30 -500s. Not pleasurable to think about but possible. Scenarios like that would obviously push the next batch of new hire training far into the future.

On a positive note, I was told that there's not a lot of people in the pool. There was only one class in May and none in June or July. So anyone slated for August like I was could potentially move up if people decide to go other places or not make a move after all. Obviously that's provided there are any classes in the next year!

Will be interesting for sure, possibly just not meant to be. Best to all.

jr

 

[Tanker Clown]

At this point, I think it's safe to say the chance of a new class within the next year are about even with the chance that there will be a furlough. With energy prices where they are, the outlook for a newbie (very new hire or poolie) at Big U is probably pretty bleak.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

It's absolutely OK for people to reject my ideas.....just don't ask me to support failed ideas....I don't support ideas that I think don't work or are actually worse....

As suspected you read my question in terms of your perception to your reality.... what was asked was "what about those who don't agree with you.."

You won't support failed ideas but you expect others to support your ideas... even if they your idea won't work or is acutally worse..

See you Joe... it about you and only you..

The truth is it is you folks on the other side of the aisle that can't stand different opinions....Continue to wave your ALPA pom-pom....That's great.....

Wrong...again Joe... see what the effective members of democracy don't like is regressors like you. How effective is it if a group is trying to solve problems and guys like you say.. "Its my way or I'll sue"

It is the ALPAistas that think everyone must comply with them.....Keep posting your opinion and I will keep posting mine....

Wrong.... again.....and again.... It has nothing to do with complying... but there must be some sort of teamwork.

Look at the military... How long do you think you'd last in a platoon? Guys would blanket party you beofre they hit the hot zone.. cause they a guy like you would get everyone killed.

See Joe, you are an individualist. You are classic american economy: self intrest, negotiates for number one, instant gratification, willing to undercut and sell out... all for your own personal gain...

So why did you become a pilot? Why not a small business owner?

And then on top of that you still don't know yourself so you became a ALPA rep.. thinking you could use elected psotion fro your person gain.. but you got dump by ALPA so natuarally your defense mechinism kick in.. you have to hate ALPA back..

Absolutely I do.....That is how I treated the recent TA at ASA......I would have put more into the scope section even if it meant less for the rest of the contract....I had lots of heartburn with it and the circumstances that led to it....But I voted yes because it was time to move on and we were in danger of becoming the next victim of the "Portfolio Wheel of Misfortune"....

So there is hope?

The truth always comes out with me.....I don't hide my opinions or beliefs for political expediency.... My primary objective is protecting my job....not the profession....

Here is it folks... don't forget it... Joe will screw you in an instant if he can get a gain on his job.

Because of failed policies in Herndon (and DFW)....it has become a free-for-all everyman for themself deal....Not the best way to do business...but it is what it is......

Didn't you fail as a status rep Joe?

Using your analogy...I wouldn't be able to be a very good Vice President.....I vote for Bush....But I believe he has made many mistakes....

And you'll probably vote for McCain... a pig voting for Jimmy Dean... how cute...

I voted for Ron Paul to send a message to the Republican Party.....

I am sure that got that message.... Ron who?

You see Rez....there is a place for people to challenge the status quo and stir things up......

Sure... but when no one listen you resort to Joe bin legal laden terrorism...

Talk radio does influence politics in this country even though none of those guys could win a political office.....

You mean right wing talk shows tell people how to think and instill fear... of course they do... have you tried critical and objective thought? Didn't think so..

Depends on whether you want to be a politician.....Politicians rarely get anything done....You are a politician....I am not.....

Joe you can't even turn in LEC meeting minutes.

....well since we are going to use the CRM/cockpit analogy....Let's go one further.....

Let's not cause your minums example is weak and non applicable

The captain is going below minimums....how far do you as the FO sit there and let him go....

This isn't a regulatory issue Joe. See you need to make it black and white so you feel righteous... If you were the FO.. you'd sell out your Capt and sue him for criminally going below...

sometimes you have do what you think is right.....

We've gone over this time and time again.. but you need to keep it alive otherwise you are insignificant..

You tried to show ALPA what you thought was right... they disagreed.. but that wan't good enough.. you had to sue...

Your scenario and mine are different as are all of the various issues we face......I can live with small disagreements....but at a certain point you have to challenge the status quo.....

Joe... give it time... when flying the line vol XXV is written you will be vindicated...

All large organizations need a good shakeup....They get to complacent and to comfortable in the status quo......

And you're just the man to determine if a lawsuit with healthy rewards for your own personal gain is........right.





back to United where new hires are getting concerned

 

[johnsonrod]

Not trying to flame here but...

I wish everyone here luck, but I still don't see the attraction of UAL today. The UAL of 5-8 years ago is understandable. But today UAL lacks a coherent plan and there is ZERO fleet growth. It looks like it is attempting to find a merger partner - that is its plan going forward... Age 65 makes upgrades that much farther off...

So, why would people look seriously at UAL unless you currently live in ORD/DEN/SFO and you don't mind sitting in the right seat for 12-15 years (if it remains a standalone company)? Sure, the industry is not doing well now, but I've gotta think there are better airlines out there with better growth prospects - right? Nobody wants to be a professional FO for the rest of their career and all recent newhires at UAL will be facing that reality for a long, long time.

So, can someone help me understand why you would want to sit at the very bottom of UAL for many years to come? Are you not concerned about what might happen when UAL merges with another carrier and you are on the bottom of the list? UAL has zero plan unlike a number of its competitors (i.e., DAL and CAL are expanding internationally). It seems to be desparately looking for a dancing partner and that would concern me.

 

[user912]

I wish everyone here luck, but I still don't see the attraction of UAL today. The UAL of 5-8 years ago is understandable. But today UAL lacks a coherent plan and there is ZERO fleet growth. It looks like it is attempting to find a merger partner - that is its plan going forward... Age 65 makes upgrades that much farther off...

I hardly recognize this business any longer. ;-(

 

[Abernathy]

Yes let's vote in another republican. This way we can lower the rich folks' taxes even more and have no way of paying for the exorbitant amount of money the GOP spends, putting us into an even deeper pit. Maybe soon, we can buy Pesos for security.

Let's vote for McCain, who called us all "greedy, overpaid, and under-worked".. Remember when he called us unpatriotic because of our greed? I liked that. a$$hole.

Now watch this drive...

 

[sstearns2]

Let's not forget about destroying social security, eliminating the inheritance tax, and continuing to not enforce the regulations that are supposed to not let the impending economic disaster to happen.

Scott

 

[JoeMerchant]

Obama and Hillary voted to raise taxes on those who make more than 31,850/63,700.....which includes most of us....How is that going to help?

Obama, Clinton vote to raise taxes




March 13, 2008
if (SITELIFE_ENABLED == true){ gSiteLife.Recommend("ExternalResource", "841145,tax031308", "http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/841145,tax031308.article"); }//if true Recommend




FROM ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday gave a sweeping endorsement to some of President Bush’s tax cuts but rejected renewing others as all three major presidential candidates interrupted their campaigns to cast key votes on the budget.
The chamber voted 52-47 to reject a move by Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., to extend Bush’s tax cuts for middle- and higher-income taxpayers, investors and people inheriting businesses and big estates.
That vote came immediately after the Senate gave a sweeping 99-1 tally to an amendment by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., endorsing cuts aimed at low-income workers, married couples and people with children.
The votes are mostly symbolic, but they put senators in both parties on the record for when the tax cuts actually expire in three years.
Arizona GOP Sen. John McCain, Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting, voted for the full roster of Bush tax cuts. Rivals Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., both voted against them.
The developments came as the Senate began a full day of votes on a $3 trillion Democratic budget blueprint for 2009. The nonbinding plan envisions a balanced budget in four years and promises generous increases for many domestic programs, but achieves those goals only by assuming major tax increases when Bush’s tax cuts expire.
Obama and Clinton both promise to reverse Bush’s tax cuts for wealthier taxpayers, but the Democratic budget they’ll be voting for would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700 or more.
Opponents of ‘‘pork barrel’’ projects expected to lose a late-night vote to ban such earmarks for a year, despite the endorsement of all three presidential candidates. Across the Capitol, the House resumed debate on a companion Democratic measure predicting larger surpluses while allowing $683 billion worth of tax increases over five years with the expiration of Bush’s tax cuts.
A Republican alternative that largely mirrored a plan by McCain to permanently extend Bush’s tax cuts and eliminate the alternative minimum tax was expected to fail badly, with party moderates distancing themselves from the GOP plan’s huge cuts in popular programs like Medicare, housing, community development, and the Medicaid health care program for the poor and disabled.
Such cuts were needed to make room for big tax cuts and still project a balanced budget.
Congress’ annual budget debate involves a nonbinding budget resolution that sets the stage for subsequent bills affecting taxes, benefit programs such as Medicare, and the annual appropriations bills. Unless such follow-up legislation is passed, however, the budget debate has little real effect and is mostly about making statements about party priorities.
This is such a year. Congress rarely tackles difficult budget issues as elections loom, and a standoff with Bush means that Democrats may even take a pass on advancing the 12 annual appropriations bills.
The rival budget plans display the difficult trade-offs facing the next president, who must weigh attempting to balance the budget with tax cuts that expire at the end of 2010 and spending programs popular with Democrats and Republicans alike.
‘‘The biggest issue in this campaign is going to be your taxes,’’ Bush said Wednesday night at a GOP fundraiser. ‘‘I think the biggest issue in this campaign is which side of the political divide is going to let you keep your money, and which side is going to raise your taxes.’’
The first year of an administration is typically when heavy lifting on the budget is done, but each candidate’s campaign plans seem to promise more than they can deliver. McCain’s tax cuts would require applying a meat cleaver to spending, while the Democrats promise spending plans that would enlarge the deficit or require too-large tax increases.
The White House forecasts the deficit for the current year at $410 billion, a near record.
On Capitol Hill, Democrats trumpeted their plan for putting the budget back in surplus while also making investments in infrastructure, education, community development, clean energy and other programs. It also avoids $196 billion worth of Bush-proposed cuts to Medicare and the Medicaid health care program for the poor and disabled.
Democrats in the House and Senate are divided on taxes. The House budget plan assumes elimination of the full roster of Bush tax cuts.
In the Senate, however, Democrats offered an amendment to renew tax cuts including the 10 percent tax bracket on the first $7,825 of income for individuals, the $1,000 per child tax credit, and estate tax relief. But the tax plan offered by Baucus would eat up virtually all the planned surpluses while allowing income tax rates to bounce back to pre-Bush levels, as would taxes on dividends and capital gains on stock and real estate sales.
Under both Democratic plans, tax rates would increase by 3 percentage points for each of the 25 percent, 28 percent and 33 percent brackets. At present, the 25 percent bracket begins at $31,850 for individuals and $63,700 for married couples. The 35 percent bracket on incomes over $349,700 would jump to 39.6 percent.
Senate Republicans countered with an amendment that would extend income tax cuts and current rates on investments, but the move would mean the budget would stay in the red, producing deficits of about $130 billion in 2012 and $160 billion in 2013.
The Democratic plans would provide generous, greater-than-inflation increases for domestic agency budgets. They both endorse Bush’s even more generous $36 billion, or 7 percent, increase for the core Pentagon budget.