I find it a little strange to be critical of United's contract for the "weak language" when, to my knowledge, it's the only airline's union that has negotiated any language for the benefit of another airline's pilots in a contract negotiation.

I don't inherently disagree that the language doesn't force anything in particular, but I do disagree that it does nothing.

Not disparaging either the idea or the results. I think it’s a wonderful thing to do and it generally is going to make good business sense as well for the company doing it. Just pointing out that the CBA as written isn’t really enforceable, notwithstanding the company benefits from it.

but it is beneficial to alpa members as it doesn’t state say mainline aircraft operators or something. So a regional furloughed can jump over people doing lateral, is how I read it

“Can” but not “shall”.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor of the idea and think both the individuals and the company benefit, but citing it as a part of the contract and implying that is legally binding on the company is not correct. It’s permissive without being compulsory, but the company is ALREADY permitted to establish its own standards for acceptable applicants including whether or not they can give priority to the furloughed or soon to be unemployed personnel from a competitor regardless. It’s like asking “why United?” at an interview. If the company wants to declare “because I was just furloughed from another ALPA pilot group” the proper answer, they really don’t need a separate provision in the CBA to do it.

The other factor to consider is there are probably plenty of Spirit pilots that wouldn’t make good United material. Forcing the airline to hire them would not work out well for all parties.

We shouldn’t be forced to hire them, but 21-R doesn’t even give a guaranteed interview. That’s what I would like to see.

One pilot showed me pictures of slides from the meeting that showed fleet plans, and it certainly looked real. Most of the slides were inline with previous official statements forecasting growth on the coasts, moving 75/6/7's from west coast to the east, etc. But one thing that surprised me was MCO was expected to shrink. Is there any word on why that is the plan? This seems to put a hole in the "MCO will be a hub in the near term" rumors

MCO was never going to be a hub…..

I wish folks would just stop trying to wish it into existence lol…

i could see it being a 321xlr base into SA

The Crew Resources guy was on the ORD townhall today and showed the same slides that were used at the Standards Meeting. It showed the MCO/TPA base as shrinking on the slide but then he said he thinks that is actually not reality, but that it would not be growing anytime soon, so pilots will likely be replaced as they take bids or retire, but just wouldn't see any growth in the total at the base.

He did also say that this was current information as of Aug/Sept for his entire presentation (which he borrowed from his boss Felisha Mitchell) and that when Network Planning makes changes they will make the appropriate changes to accommodate. He said they have a very good relationship with Network Planning (not always the case in our history) and that they try to be good partners on working together to best accommodate any changes that come.

heard that as at least they are getting included in on plans so we don't have another IAH-SYD example. That might be to generous on my part, but he seemed happy with how Network and FO were working together, so I don't think we will see MCO/TPA growth in the near-near term, but I think he gave the example of the currency of the situation to point out that things change and UA reacts, so if Spirit does go away quickly, they would have to be able to react to the changes that Network Planning comes up with. Would that include growing MCO/TPA, who knows, but if UA adds more flights into and out of FL, then the pilot staffing across the system has to support that. That may mean building trips inefficiently in the short term until they can get the pilots where the flying most efficiently fits.