I have personally been dismissed once after 11 PM and hired once after 10 PM. If I have a tight schedule I will generally make a backup travel plan and/or book with an airline like Southwest which will let me change my flight at no additional cost. If there's a dedicated day for finals, that doesn't guarantee it will conclude early. It's possible that due to their working schedule or venue restrictions they will start in the late afternoon or evening. It's always a good idea to check with the personnel manager in advance.

You've flaired yourself here as "principal" so I'll assume you're employed somewhere, nevertheless I'll respond for the masses. There's no industry-wide trend or conspiracy here. You're zoomed in on a particular instrument at a particular time when there happen to be lots of vacancies which cannot all presently be filled for the long term. Orchestras have not decided as a whole that it's better to hire musicians for one year at a time. They operate independently under the terms of their unique CBAs and under the watchful eyes of their local unions. Yes, the union is a national organization, but the locals are overseen by... locals. Sure, the ICSOM and ROPA conferences share data and strategies, but those are for the protection of musicians and preservation of our industry. I've worked for 7 salaried US orchestras either as a contract member or a sub, and each had completely different hiring practices and roster requirements. Yes, the League of American Orchestras gives administrators a platform to share ideas, some good, some bad, but ultimately the hiring process is strictly defined in each group's CBA and cannot be affected purely by the will of management. As a matter of pure opinion, I don't believe any major orchestra in America would generally prefer to hire a one-year vs a tenure-track player. Sometimes, however, it's the best, only, or most necessary solution to a problem. Some of those problems have been described below. Perhaps someone is on a leave of absence, a sabbatical, or disability, leaving a temporary vacancy. Perhaps someone won a job in a new orchestra and the contract requires their chair be preserved for a year in the event they are not tenured elsewhere, or perhaps the music director has elected to save that chair by choice. Perhaps someone moved up from a section chair to a title chair and left a temporary vacancy while they complete their probationary contract in the new chair. Perhaps there are numerous vacancies to fill and the orchestra does not have the resources, budgetary or otherwise, to fill all of those chairs with tenure-track players at once. Perhaps management reserves the right to delay hiring pending the resolution of a financial condition. Perhaps there is not presently a music director and one is required by contract to make tenure decisions. Perhaps someone won a job and subsequently declined to take the contract, leaving a vacancy with short notice. Perhaps there are a wealth of conflicting auditions nationwide for the same instrument at the same time, and an orchestra is not confident they'll have the opportunity to hear every interested party. Perhaps the orchestra is in a bargaining period and/or facing cuts. The point is, there are innumerable possible explanations unique to each gig. You said this "trend" isn't good for musicians? I think it could be a lot worse. Those groups could be hiring subs by recommendation or at random with no equity or opportunity for those withou the right connections. Instead someone gets to win a year of job stability and income while someone else gets a year to recover from a surgical procedure, earn tenure in a new place, decide whether they're really ready to retire, further their education, take care of their newborn, etc... Someone gets a wealth of job experience beyond what they could hope for as an occasional sub. Someone gets to occupy a chair that is not fully vacant and to work alongside musicians they may hope to join in a permanent capacity should that chair become available for the long-term. I don't think everything is fair and equitable in this industry, and I don't think every audition is run entirely without bias, but we can't always cry foul and point fingers when something happens that we are not entirely informed about.

Let's not make a whole bunch of assumptions and stir up drama for no reason. The RPO has audition protocols dictated by its CBA, like any other orchestra. It also has a policy with regard to pre-advancing section players and subs, like most other orchestras. I can say with certainty that the orchestra committee and audition coordinator take seriously their obligations to uphold the rules and run fair auditions. The fact is that the RPO screens *all* auditions, for *all* candidates, through the final round. There are no unscreened semis, and nobody is pre-advanced to an unscreened round. An unscreened super-final can occur if the majority of the committee elects to proceed in that fashion by a secret ballot, however if they have elected to hear an internal candidate then they will be informed that the screen must remain in place regardless. Having experience playing in a section is as much an advantage as it is a disadvantage. The pressure to win one's own job again coupled with the ability of that person to receive direct and often contradictory feedback from a multitude of one's colleagues can make it difficult to succeed behind the screen. In *many* cases, the recipients of one-year contracts do not win tenure-track contracts for the chair they occupy, even when they are beloved by the orchestra members. It's fine to question philosophically whether a private audition is problematic, but please don't create a hypothetical scenario to support your view in which none of the existing rules are followed. I would personally imagine, without direct knowledge of this particular set of circumstances, that the urgency of filling the chair along with the logistics and expenses associated with holding an open audition make this the most viable solution. It's rather late in the season, and if they advertised and organized an open audition, they'd likely be holding said audition mid-summer when most qualified players, both experienced and green, will be at conflicting festival engagements. In any case, it will be a blind audition, and it seems to me akin to having an aggressive resume screening process to ensure that all candidates in attendance will be both available on short notice for the duration of the season, and capable of succeeding on the job. It seems like it would be potentially pointless to end up hiring a very green player with great chops and no experience who is still learning on the job (or perhaps someone who immediately wins a tenure-track job elsewhere). It's a one-year after all.