Savings?

[WSurf]

Reading the post about most of the check-airman leaving MDA to go and work for JetBlue had me wondering. With such a crappy contract, MDA should expect a high turn-over... JetBlue saw that these guys were Typed in the EMB and Airbus experienced. Awesome, they thought take them all. US Airways eats the training cost and has to train more pilots(mo money, mo money). Don't you think once JetBlue starts getting those 100 EMB-190 in 2005 that they wont hire everyone at MDA..... I am sure they will!!! And most will go!
Here at Piedmont(a wholly owned for some that dont know) we can't even keep a new hire around for 3 months before they are off too Air Wisc. , Comair, ASA, Conex, etc. etc. So US Airways pay 20k to train them and there gone in 3 months. Bottom line, we need to start working on ways to keep our flight crews. We need to redo MDA's Contract, work on a better flow thru with the WO's so new hires see and future. If not, we are just gonna keep dropping millions of dollars a year in training guys/gals that hang around for just 3-5 months. And that is crazy considering I/we took pay cuts to save money. :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

 

[Light Years]

Wsurf

I absolutely agree. They cannot be saving money by training people only to have to train replacements soon after. Once MAA starts hiring off the street there will be a lot of this, a high turnover. More would be saved with a few small contract adjustments to retain what you have, rather than pay for a new hire over and over again.

Another benefit to redoing the whole MAA/WO/Mainline fiasco and fixing a flow through is that it would actually promote morale and interest in the company's success. Employees are more apt to work and sacrifice for a company that they want to be around. Why give anything if there's nothing to look forwars to (aside from another job offer?)

 

[FM2436]

My wife works in the radio/television industry and typically is required to signs a non-compete contract (2-3 year contract) which prohits her from leaving the station and moving on to a new station during the term of her existing contract. Of course, there is a buy-out clause in her existing contract, if she's willing to pay the cost of that buy-out clause.

About a year ago, an employee under contract did up and leave the station. The station took her to court and successfully sued her for the remaining amount of her buy-out contract cost.

Would this work at the MAA and/or the W/Os?

 

[Hope777]

Since these guys don't make that much, why not make them sign a contract saying that they will complete one year of service or the PAY the company for the training?

 

[WO/drone]

This program of signing a contract to work for the employer for a given time after training is used quite often in the trucking industry. Leave before your time is up and you pay the company for the training. Not to unlike the Navy requiring six years after flight school. Hey, a little pay incentive, a contract for "X" number of years, or you owe a set value for the training.

 

[Long Gone]

Taken in the same context- If the UGroup of company's enters Chapter 7 you could sue for the remaining balance of your contract. Or if like in the corporate world. Incorporate yourself and declare the corporation chapter 11 thereby "changing the way you do business". If it's good enough for USairways it should be good enough for PoorEmployee Inc.

 

[autofixer]

"Training is a fixed cost." All of this should not be costing UAIR a dime!

 

[WSurf]

"Training is a fixed cost." All of this should not be costing UAIR a dime!





?????????????????????? and how's that!!!!

 

[BoeingBoy]

autofixer was quoting some of our illustrious former leadership.

Jim