Tanker Clown
KC-10 IP
- Joined
- May 22, 2004
- Posts
- 1,653
Bummer. It's probably pretty optimistic to think that they'll be having new hire classes by Feb.
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
United Cancels newhire classes
- Thread starter Andy
- Start date
- Watchers 30
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
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
Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2007
- Posts
- 20
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
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
Last edited:
Tanker Clown
KC-10 IP
- Joined
- May 22, 2004
- Posts
- 1,653
Rez O. Lewshun
Save the Profession
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2004
- Posts
- 13,422
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..
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"
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..
So there is hope?
Here is it folks... don't forget it... Joe will screw you in an instant if he can get a gain on his job.
Didn't you fail as a status rep Joe?
And you'll probably vote for McCain... a pig voting for Jimmy Dean... how cute...
I am sure that got that message.... Ron who?
Sure... but when no one listen you resort to Joe bin legal laden terrorism...
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..
Joe you can't even turn in LEC meeting minutes.
Let's not cause your minums example is weak and non applicable
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...
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...
Joe... give it time... when flying the line vol XXV is written you will be vindicated...
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2006
- Posts
- 4,218
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.
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.
Last edited:
user912
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2004
- Posts
- 42
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$$hole.
Now watch this drive...
Let's vote for McCain, who called us all "greedy, overpaid, and under-worked".. Remember when he called us unpatriotic because of our greed? I liked that. a$$hole.
Now watch this drive...
Last edited:
JoeMerchant
ASA pilot
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Posts
- 6,353
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.
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.
Last edited:
The "Rich" folks as you described means any household that makes over $93,000/ year...Which pretty much means any two income house like a firefighter and a nurse or a pilot and a Financial Analyst (as is my case). My family is FAR from "rich".
Bavarian Chef
Registered jetBluser
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2006
- Posts
- 1,743
JoeMerchant
ASA pilot
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Posts
- 6,353
I'm just waiting for you to pass the popcorn......
You have to pay for what you order. You fools elected a fool who buys more than we can pay for. And we all will pay for it now, and down the road:
Iraq;
Anti-labor mediators;
Anti-labor judges;
No energy plan;
Age 65, to name a few.
So vote based on taxes, as Bush proposes you do. Let's try this for another 4 years, plus residual years.
Iraq;
Anti-labor mediators;
Anti-labor judges;
No energy plan;
Age 65, to name a few.
So vote based on taxes, as Bush proposes you do. Let's try this for another 4 years, plus residual years.
Boeing747Driver
Nitromethane
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2003
- Posts
- 259
JoeMerchant
ASA pilot
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Posts
- 6,353
....and Hillary or Obama won't want want to pay for more? They have a huge list of entitlement programs that we can't afford....
UndauntedFlyer
Ease the nose down
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Posts
- 1,062
A very large percentage of airline pilots do vote Republican. They like to be macho and vote for Bush instead of Gore or then Kerry. That's the whole problem today. If Gore had of been elected the airline business would be much better today and I doubt these classes would be cancelled. It would probably still be age-60 for another year or more too.
Here your Union gives to Democrates and the membership votes Republican. In the cockpit it's hard to find any pilot around election time that says they voted Democratic. And in the next election it will be more of the same. No pilot will admit he voted for Hillary but maybe Obama. Most will again be macho (stupid) and vote Republican.
Don't ever leave a paying job for United.
Last edited:
Hic.........splrrrrf, ughhhhhhh....hic.........
Bavarian Chef
Registered jetBluser
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2006
- Posts
- 1,743
Okay -- first of all I am so sorry I am joining the hijack, but "if Gore had been elected"? Huh? Popsicle sticks have more personality than that jagnut (and I'm a democrat). He was NEVER gonna get elected. The Republicans could have run a cardboard box and Gore would have lost, even if by a few thousand hanging chads.
Back to thread -- Delta cancels them too apparently.
UndauntedFlyer
Ease the nose down
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Posts
- 1,062
It's the UAL pilots, stupid!
The above replies are in the response to my post that the pilots at UAL and other places should have voted for Gore in 2000 (and Kerry in 2004).
You see! That is my exact point. I'm sorry but as airline pilots we are stupid as a group. Of course individually there are exceptions (like me and I think even ANDY who I think said one time back that he always votes Democratic even though he's a hot shot military guy), but as a group this is true. Don't you all see that if ALPA represents your interests and it gives almost exclusively to Democrats it is very STUPID to vote for anyone other than the Democratic candidate for every office, including president. So if Hillary is the candidate you'll all have to vote for her but that's the problem: None of the airline pilot group will, just as they didn't vote for Gore in year 2000 or Kerry in 2004. So you see, therein lies the problem. Is there one person other than ANDY and me that would vote for Hillary if she's the candidate, probably not? There's the problem don't you see.
Now this is not a hijack of this thread because I'm explaining why United is shaky, selling off (not buying airplanes) and may soon be out of business. I'm explaining why United, who I worked for over 37-years is not now recommended by me and others as a place to work.
"It's the pilots stupid," we with our macho ways and attitudes are our own worst enemy.
So if you want to place blame or understand why United is canceling classes and selling airplanes not buying them, just look at yourselves.
You might remember just a few months ago when there was a thread about how great it is at UAL. I, of course, commented about not to leave a good job that paid real money for United. I was of course beat up and called names and so forth which is OK because that's the way it is at FI. So what do you think now? I hope maybe somebody listened to me and didn't give up a nice Regional caption seat for a worthless promise from UAL. Today's UAL is not the United of 8-years ago and before.
I'm sorry to say this, but next will be the sell off of the rest of the B737 fleet. And I don't think I need to spoon feed anyone on what that means!
Of course they've already sold the kitchens, the IND maintenance center, other maintenance centers, the Credit Union, some of reservations, and all the short-haul business. Next, after the 737 sell off, it will be the sell off of the Training Center before the merger.
Hang on or go somewhere else if you can.
And ANDY, because you and I are FI friends (or enemies), stay in the Military for a few more years if you're as smart as you think. The ground is still way too shaky at UAL.
The above replies are in the response to my post that the pilots at UAL and other places should have voted for Gore in 2000 (and Kerry in 2004).
You see! That is my exact point. I'm sorry but as airline pilots we are stupid as a group. Of course individually there are exceptions (like me and I think even ANDY who I think said one time back that he always votes Democratic even though he's a hot shot military guy), but as a group this is true. Don't you all see that if ALPA represents your interests and it gives almost exclusively to Democrats it is very STUPID to vote for anyone other than the Democratic candidate for every office, including president. So if Hillary is the candidate you'll all have to vote for her but that's the problem: None of the airline pilot group will, just as they didn't vote for Gore in year 2000 or Kerry in 2004. So you see, therein lies the problem. Is there one person other than ANDY and me that would vote for Hillary if she's the candidate, probably not? There's the problem don't you see.
Now this is not a hijack of this thread because I'm explaining why United is shaky, selling off (not buying airplanes) and may soon be out of business. I'm explaining why United, who I worked for over 37-years is not now recommended by me and others as a place to work.
"It's the pilots stupid," we with our macho ways and attitudes are our own worst enemy.
So if you want to place blame or understand why United is canceling classes and selling airplanes not buying them, just look at yourselves.
You might remember just a few months ago when there was a thread about how great it is at UAL. I, of course, commented about not to leave a good job that paid real money for United. I was of course beat up and called names and so forth which is OK because that's the way it is at FI. So what do you think now? I hope maybe somebody listened to me and didn't give up a nice Regional caption seat for a worthless promise from UAL. Today's UAL is not the United of 8-years ago and before.
I'm sorry to say this, but next will be the sell off of the rest of the B737 fleet. And I don't think I need to spoon feed anyone on what that means!
Of course they've already sold the kitchens, the IND maintenance center, other maintenance centers, the Credit Union, some of reservations, and all the short-haul business. Next, after the 737 sell off, it will be the sell off of the Training Center before the merger.
Hang on or go somewhere else if you can.
And ANDY, because you and I are FI friends (or enemies), stay in the Military for a few more years if you're as smart as you think. The ground is still way too shaky at UAL.
Last edited:
Share this page
Latest posts
-
Question Any Other NXCub Drivers Out There?- Latest: lrobichaux
-
-
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
