Originally Posted by
Horhay
Please stop with this type of conjecture; it isn't based in fact and until you can cite a valid source, I urge that you cease and desist from promulgating myth vs. fact regarding this specific subject matter.
There is enough fear paralyzing the UAL pilot group at this point. Lets let cooler heads prevail by tabling this discussion until a VALID disposition of this question be rendered.
The consequences of "getting this wrong" are too far-reaching and this (collective) decision should be based in fact, not fear and folly. My 2 cents from a former UAL and current CAL guy.
Cheers,
Horhay
You've chose THAT one post to urge a "cease and desist"???? This whole FORUM is riddled with the cancer of people stating their opinion as fact. The simple truth is that NO ONE knows what will happen to the TPA with a 'No' vote. Not even the lawyers, though they have an idea.
Here is what we KNOW. L-UAL has no 737-900ER simulators. They have no 737-900ER instructors, and they have no 737-900ER syllabus. The first airplanes arrive in August, and coincide with the L-UAL 757's being parked. There is simply NO WAY that L-UAL can fly those airplanes in August UNLESS there is a JCBA and SLI so that current CAL facilities and instructors can be used. L-UAL announced recalls, and then promptly shelved them. Waiting for..... What? So what's UAL to do if the TA is turned down?
They could:
1) RACE to get a new TA ratified IMMEDIATELY
2) Tell Boeing they can't take the airplanes
3) Contend that since we turned the TA down, there IS no TA and that the TPA should be allowed to expire.
a) Would they win that argument?
b) Would the CAL MC agree and join the company in arguing the TPA
should expire, thus allowing them to take the airplanes, hire
pilots, while L-UAL furloughs pilots with the parking 757's, thus continuing to attempt to improve their position in the SLI argument?
4) Act as if the TPA expired and tell us to grieve it if we don't like it.
I've seen enough of recent past history to have an opinion of what would happen. But my opinion isn't worth any more than anyone else's on here.
Like it or not, the simple fact remains that NO ONE knows what will happen in this scenario, and there are risks that we would all be smart to consider. This TA does not exist in a vacuum, despite all the cries to "vote on the TA ONLY on it's merits, considering NOTHING else". I liken that to showing up in ops, sitting down with the paperwork to find that an engine generator is inop. You are going to Reno, and it's night time and snowing, but you tell the F/O, we are ONLY going to consider this flight on the legality of the MEL, consider NO other outside risks. Assessing risks is what we as pilots are paid to do.