Originally Posted by Triumph

I've recently heard some rumors of talk about a frontier acquisition. Makes at least a little sense. They have the Airbus and they have some gates in Denver.

Originally Posted by PowerMan

This seems likely to me (on the outside looking in).
Frontier is assumed to IPO first quarter of 2017. Kirby says more connectivity wanted in ORD and something about DEN being the most profitable hub (2 of the 3 F9 bases). SNB aircraft are needed, and 61 of 65 -700 orders are deferred. How many airframes does F9 have?...61!
Plus you get gates, trained crew, and aircraft already on order. All for probably significantly less than just the 61 -700 airframes.

Originally Posted by ReadyRsv

It would be significantly more than the -700s and THEN you get to assume their debt!

Originally Posted by powerman

this seems likely to me (on the outside looking in).
Frontier is assumed to ipo first quarter of 2017. Kirby says more connectivity wanted in ord and something about den being the most profitable hub (2 of the 3 f9 bases). Snb aircraft are needed, and 61 of 65 -700 orders are deferred. How many airframes does f9 have?...61!
Plus you get gates, trained crew, and aircraft already on order. All for probably significantly less than just the 61 -700 airframes.

Originally Posted by Boeing Aviator

What I was told by a MEC member twice was the MEC was briefed either late Summer or early Fall. The briefing was held in open session (so ask any reps for confirmation). The briefing was conducted by the crew rest committee I believe they are called the Crew Rest Oversight Committee committee <--- redundant.

Rest facility is too small, bunks were cut narrow and overall space and associated crew rest seat woefully unacceptable (with video too). Company counterparts agreed with ALPA CROC. Apparently very unlikely Airbus can make any significant changes tried one with another carrier but didn't yield any better results.

I'm told, again and please verify with one of your reps. That 350 crew rest is non compliant with UPA and FAR 117. We can prevent 350 flying in any augmented legs st UAL. Was told by this rep that DAL and AA language wasn't as strong as ours and most likely their union will support with their companies a waiver from FAA, but our MEC will not.

That's all I know talk to any rep for verification and more info.

Originally Posted by Boeing Aviator

What I was told by a MEC member twice was the MEC was briefed either late Summer or early Fall. The briefing was held in open session (so ask any reps for confirmation). The briefing was conducted by the crew rest committee I believe they are called the CROC committee.

Rest facility is too small, bunks were cut narrow and overall space and associated crew rest seat woefully unacceptable. Company counterparts agreed with ALPA CROC. Apparently very unlikely Airbus can make any significant changes tried one with another carrier but didn't yeild any better results.

I'm told, again and please verify with one of your reps. That 350 crew rest is non compliant with UPA and FAR 117. We can prevent 350 flying in any augmented legs st UAL. Was told by this rep that DAL and AA language wasn't as strong as ours and most likely their union will support with their companies a waiver from FAA, but our MEC will not.

That's all I know talk to any rep for verification and more info.

Originally Posted by CousinEddie

As the UAL-MEC worries about the featherbedding, the competition turns around and eats our lunch. Seen that show before, and it didn't end well.

Originally Posted by zippinbye

From a Delta guy who's on the verge of being flushed from the 744 to the A350, can somebody give me the low-down on the UAL PWA that would render the 350 crew rest facility unsuitable for augmented ops? I've seen the pics and find myself confused - it looks comfy. Admittedly, we have had some spineless bums sign off on unsat crew rest situations (the old curtain around a business class seat trick). If you guys have leverage to turn down something that looks like the 350 facility, you're in control. Good for you. But I'm curious as to what the argument could possibly be. Thanks.

Originally Posted by b52dthdlr

what do you suggest, that ALPA allow the company and vendors to violate our contract? our contract was written to protect us. allowing the company and others to ignore it for the sake of expediency and profit or worse, just so that we can fly a neat airplane would be foolish and have consequences far beyond this issue. tell me, what "show" are you referring to?

Originally Posted by b52dthdlr

i have no problem with being flexible. but from what ive read here and on other forums the company is actually in agreement with alpa, due to the regulatory constraints of the current A350 crew rest accommodations. if we need to replace the 747 (i believe that we do) and if the company is serious about contining to improve our international footprint, there are alternative aircraft...