Birddog, I don't see anything here that is any different than before. Yes I read the award, and yes they agreed with the United C&R as far as training protections. I have two issues with the arbs decision here regarding being vague.

1. They accepted the UAL training protections, but as you can see the UAL training protections do not define "in the process of training"

2. As the arbs were putting down the CAL MC training protections they are talking about pilots who have been awarded, but not scheduled, for training. Here is their quote below:

"As of the close of these arbitration hearings, many of those individuals had not even been awarded a training date, let alone begun training."

So yes, I understand that they are saying those without training dates should not be protected, but they are vague on those that DO have training dates.

Lastly, you have the SFO base MOU which states that any award of a pilot who is in training, or who has been scheduled for training via either a L-CAL training advancement award or L-UAL Vacancy award will not have their bid cancelled.

Now, having said that, those on 14-02 or 14-02A that have not been awarded a training award were expecting to have their bids cancelled, so if the CAL MEC is trying to get those guys protected IMO that is a stretch.

Again, hopefully the arbs will clear this up in early OCT., but I can't believe they would go against something that the two sides have already agreed to. We will have to wait and see.