sleeves

Allen is not interested in a unified group. Only a group that does not have any remnants of LCAL. It seems Ben is his newest boogie man. It is sad really.

AllenAllert

"I'm not in favor of unity for unity's sake; that action actually denigrates the concept of unity."

AllenAllert

I wasn't going to respond but you guys are headed in a very wrong direction. First let me say, I said nothing about LCAL other than references to BenS actions and his continued pursuit of a bad resolution. That resolution will have a greater impact on all United pilots going forward.

Just about all LUAL guys know PW. He brokered a deal with Tilton giving away additional scope of more and larger RJ's. He did this without the benefit of member input or being vetted by any of the committees. At the same time, Tilton was parking 737's and putting people on the street. PW currently reside in the halls of shame and we have mud on our face for allowing the guy to get elected.

BenS is trying to do the same thing. He did a backroom deal that would change the 120 day surplus protection to 12 months. Given assurances by the company that if he can get the resolution through the MEC the company would sign off on it.

The "unintended consequence" ( there are good examples of this in prior post ) far exceed any benefit to those being surplussed. This is not a LUAL, LCAL thing it's a United thing. It will give the company a new tool to move pilots around seasonally to cover flying or just to cover their planning mistakes. If you don't think they'll use it to their advantage, you are WRONG.

Hopefully I'm wrong but I do own "I told you so" rights.

sleeves

I would argue that the precedent for this deal lies at the feet of whomever brokered the 747 base closure deals. They were the ones that opened up this can of worms. While I do not like the deal myself I believe Ben is doing what he believes is the best for the group.

Scott Stoops

close the iah 737 base and there is a discussion. Otherwise, you're really not talking about the same situation. Not even close.
Scott

pilot64golfer

Exactly. Why then didn't we get 24 month grandfather rights for all the surplusses we've had? Because the contract already covers that. But a base closure and reopening is a flush and that wasn't covered in the contract, so the hole had to be filled with a MOU.

sleeves

Hmmm. Section 8-H of the UPA Opening a Category or Closing a Base. That seems to be the exact situation you describe. It was already in the contract. The MOU was a special deal and should not have been done for the exact reasons Allen is against the IAH deal.

pilot64golfer

No. Opening means opening a new category, never existed. Closing means closing and not reopening. If they closed and reopened the IAH Guppy base I'd completely agree. What they did to ORD was essentially a flush.

Technically all MOUs are "special deals". But the IAH guppy displacement isn't any different than any other displacement. Its not a base closure nor a base opening.

I guess we will see if the MEC agrees with you when this proposal comes to them to vote on.

sleeves

So the "guppy" base in IAD is not new according to your definition. Didn't you have one there before the merger? Closing a base is closing a base. Opening a category is the same. The amount of time it is closed before it is reopened is irrelevant. It was a special deal given to a special few and was wrong. Now everyone wants and deserves the same.

pilot64golfer

The IAD guppy base was closed 6 years ago. That's more than 24 months. I guess the MEC will solve this debate by determining if this is actually the same thing and passing the Resolution.

Plus the 747 is a fenced fleet, so why do you care? You couldn't have bid it, and it would have just gone to the same people anyway based on seniority.