Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > United
Standards Meeting Notes >

Standards Meeting Notes

Search

Notices

Standards Meeting Notes

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-09-2025 | 11:35 AM
  #61  
Line Holder
1M Airline Miles
5 Years
50 Countries Visited
 
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 864
Likes: 37
From: Guppy
Default

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.
Reply
Old 09-09-2025 | 02:36 PM
  #62  
Excargodog's Avatar
Perennial Reserve
 
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 14,183
Likes: 238
Default

Originally Posted by jerryleber
Could you show me a pilot group with superior language? Contractual language is just part of such efforts that are inculcated at United where ALPA has been more successful than any other pilot group in getting fellow pilots whose airlines were in trouble hired and it has benefitted the airline greatly. Ex-Pan Am, Eastern and others have brought all kinds of great ideas and improvements to United and United ALPA.
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.
Reply
Old 09-09-2025 | 03:27 PM
  #63  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Aug 2021
Posts: 934
Likes: 22
Default

Originally Posted by Excargodog
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
Reply
Old 09-10-2025 | 05:35 AM
  #64  
Excargodog's Avatar
Perennial Reserve
 
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 14,183
Likes: 238
Default

Originally Posted by KnightNight
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.
Reply
Old 09-11-2025 | 12:03 PM
  #65  
Pilot
 
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 713
Likes: 100
From: Airline Pilot
Default

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.

Last edited by HwkrPlt; 09-11-2025 at 12:24 PM.
Reply
Old 09-11-2025 | 12:28 PM
  #66  
ClappedOut145's Avatar
Line Holder
 
Joined: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,124
Likes: 70
From: AOG
Default

Originally Posted by HwkrPlt
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.
Reply
Old 09-11-2025 | 01:29 PM
  #67  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Feb 2022
Posts: 587
Likes: 105
From: 73FO
Default

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
Reply
Old 09-11-2025 | 01:36 PM
  #68  
Swakid8's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
Veteran: Navy
10 Years
On Reserve
20 Countries Visited
 
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,923
Likes: 95
Default

Originally Posted by BlueScholar
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…
Reply
Old 09-11-2025 | 01:52 PM
  #69  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Jan 2024
Posts: 892
Likes: 151
Default

Originally Posted by Swakid8
MCO was never going to be a hub…..

i could see it being a 321xlr base into SA
Reply
Old 09-11-2025 | 03:00 PM
  #70  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,069
Likes: 25
Default

Originally Posted by BlueScholar
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
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.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RyeMex
Atlas/Polar
2
04-17-2021 02:12 PM
ilinipilot
Delta
77
09-18-2015 01:56 PM
FL450
Mesa Airlines
554
06-07-2009 10:04 AM
overworked
Regional
94
02-11-2009 03:38 PM
Sluggo_63
Cargo
39
01-31-2007 07:35 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices