We do a pretty good job at SFO. Very few do it. All I can say is....put the pressure on.

 

How was this anomaly, as you put it, to be fixed? UAL did not have a single narrowbody on order at the time of this merger.

The only "fix" that UAL had in place at the time was through alliances and outsourcing. This outsourcing was not only of RJ's but widebodies as well.

That aside, I agree with you that career expectations should be part of the equation. I believe that the UAL pilots career expectations have been enhanced in this merger. While the WB Capt seat may be further away, the route to getting there now goes through many more years of being a NB Capt rather than a WB/NB FO.

That's my opinion and I really don't have the data to back it up. Let's wait and see what the merger committees present sometime in the future.

 

UAL had, and still has, 40+ Airbus narrowbodies on order. UAL was also preparing a large narrowbody order in 2009. My guess is that it was a hedge in the event that a merger didn't take place. In effect, they had two options going forward; merge to acquire the correct fleet mix, or purchase planes. Your assertion that UAL could've continued forward through outsourcing and alliances is wrong. You simply have to take a look at the redeployment of our current fleets to understand what I'm saying. UAL got unsustainably small in anticipation of this merger.

The panel of arbitrators will decide the career expectation changes, if any. All I'm saying is that relative seniority is not a viable option.

Look, I don't expect you CAL guys to come on here and agree with the UAL perspective, but I would hope that one particular one of you would quit being a ****

 

Do you know of their projected delivery date and who is financing the purchase?

 

Why do you ask? Are you challenging the veracity of my claim?

 

Sans merger, there would still be 104 guppies on the property. The ones that were yanked even though they were flying around with record load factors and generating amazing amounts of revenue. Irrespective of what some on the CAL side of the fence opine here, I flew those things for a few years after we exited bankruptcy and they were full, full, full. And the airlines financial docs support that. We had turned the corner and were charging uphill.

That's a lot of upgrades, so methinks that my career expectations were pretty good. Of course, that's just my opinion. One I suspect shared by at least 1457 other guys now on the street, and all the Captains who got bumped when they were parked.

Have a swell day!

 

Not at all. I'm sure it's full of veracity. Just wondering how soon they might be coming on the property.

 

ual didnt need any narrowbody orders bc- they had the CAL narrowbody orders---- thats why the first merger " didnt take" they had to right size for the CAL narrowbody deliveries

 

CAL's narrowbody orders were placed well before the merger discussions in 2008. I do agree with you that the UAL 737's were eliminated in order to make UAL a more attractive merger partner for CAL or USAIR or AMR, but that was UAL's decision to make.

The fact that Tilton positioned UAL for a merger (he openly said that's what he was doing) should in no way impact the seniority of the pilots of whatever airline UAL ended up with.

 

Maybe never, who knows. That doesn't change my point that UAL was too small to be sustainable -- they did it on purpose. UAL had many opportunities to terminate that contract, but never did. Clearly I wasn't involved in developing or executing their plans, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what was, and still is, going on. My guess (that's all it is) is that they were hedging the bets on the merger by retaining the ability to get those planes -- if that wasn't necessary they would be able to use the order as leverage with AB on other orders (A350, A340, etc...). It would be a win-win for the company by preserving flexibility. This line of reasoning will go nowhere with your pilot group, and I won't pretend that it will. It's not in your interests to see it for what it is and I accept that.

Since you are asking questions, let me pose one to you. Will you tell your LEC to direct the MEC & MC to sign a MFR that removes JCBA terms from the SLI? If not - why not. Thanks.