NFLUALNFL

Why did the L-UA MC expect to be granted 2 favorable fences (1 for a dying fleet type) and then be disappointed with some measure of reciprocity?

untied

You are hilarious.

We are so afraid that your side will demand anything in regards to the SLI. They have already been laughed out of the building!

Having a dispute over the 787 fence will only open up THAT part of the SLI...nothing else.

If the arbitrators had their facts wrong, they may decide to make a change. They will not "redo" the SLI since the awesome CAL leadership team sees it as an opportunity for a "do over".

Seriously....you crack me up with your naivete.

Probe

Instead of thinking of the fence as a way to keep UAL pilots out, I prefer to think of it as a way to keep CAL pilots in. Instead of a fence, I like to think of it as a prison.

In 2 years and 4 months, there will either be 300+ 787's flying around trouble free, or they will be grounded for a long time due to electrical problems. I would give it 50/50.

Personally I would rather not take any more Sparky deliveries until they can show that it doesn't self-immolate.

The l-UAL MEC is off-base. The ISL is done. Time to move on.

LAX Pilot

So the fleet with 24 airplanes will still be 24 airplanes in Dec 2014 when the fences come down, and the 787 fence protects 8 airplanes now, and by the time we get to 25 there are no fences.

Next year this time when we still have 24 747s they will be fenced off.
We will only have 14 787s fenced.

So 24 airplanes fenced for 2.5 years in the 747

And 8 now up to 25 for 2.5 years in the 787.

Which do you think is a better fence???

Plus when the 787 fence drops, it will have gone so junior, lots of guys will bid in and be automatic lineholders.

nopac6

The entire award is based on a lot of different factors but the 787 fence truly is based on one thing and one thing only: the fact that CO had them on order at the MAD and we didn't. It's in the award, read it again. Of course they were wrong in that belief and that's the basis of the UAL MEC's request for reconsideration.

The fact that the reasoning behind the 787 fence was so simple doesn't mean that the arb's are simpletons, as you claim, it just means that it's a simple issue.

What's your basis for saying that if one aspect of the award is changed then the whole thing must be changed? I've never heard that before.

And nobody's claiming that they're special and deserve special dispensation. The arb's made an error in their assumptions and it's right there in the open for everybody to see. When a specific part of the award is so obviously based on something that is so obviously incorrect, it's our MC's DUTY to ask that it be corrected and the award be reevaluated.

nopac6

What does reciprocity have to do with anything? You mean like, "since we gave the UA side a fence on the 747, we're now obligated to give the CO side a fence for the 787." Is that what you mean? If so, it doesn't work that way.

Fences have historically been created to protect a certain airplane type that is highly desirable and only brought by one of the airlines to the merger. That historical usage would obviously apply to the 747 in this case but applying it to an airplane that only one airline has ON ORDER would have been precedent-setting (according to our merger committee). The fact that the arbs were wrong about only CO having it on order on the MAD is the basis of the filing.

nopac6

It's for the arbs to decide whether they're "off base" or not, not you.

Also, there's absolutely nothing wrong with pursuing this. It's a single issue COMPLETELY based on ONE erroneous belief. If your merger committee knew about something you'd (correctly) expect them to pursue a correction.

bearcat

Could be. But they have to have a vacancy to bid into.

untied

Have you seen the retirement forecast?

There will be vacancies...

GoCats67

Based on the DOB info on the ISL and the assumption that the age 65 rule stays a rule, here are the coming retirements:
125 since ISL date (4/1/2013-9/6/2013)
88 more to go (9/7/2013-12/31/2013)
318 in 2014
310 in 2015
313 in 2016
388 in 2017
390 in 2018
408 in 2019
416 in 2020
500 in 2021
462 in 2022