Originally Posted by g-code (Post 1137125)

Some of the posts here make me hope the UAL guys fence off all the widebodies.

Originally Posted by Coto Pilot (Post 1137022)

As dues paying ALPA members, ALPA is now legally obligated to represent us in the integration.

Originally Posted by Coto Pilot (Post 1137022)

If it is not a vigorous representation, we will do what some many ALPA pilots have done before and file a DFR lawsuit.

Originally Posted by CleCapt (Post 1137154)

Be careful what you HOPE for.

I believe NWA was adamant about having a fence around their 747s

After the merger, DAL moved the 747s from dtw to atl.

Now the NWA pilots HAVE to commute to atl.

I see that as a very possible scenario here.

Originally Posted by Scott Stoops (Post 1137092)

Am I glad that then furloughed LUAL pilots have been offered employment at LCAL? Absolutely. That said, they furloughed so that the merger could happen (I could care less if you agree). We flew all of the same jets (737's) that UCH is now proposing that CAL will fly on the same routes not 4 years ago. They "replaced" them with inefficient RJ's, and claimed that the 737's simply couldn't be flown cost effectively despite the fact that they had the lowest cost of ANY 737 operator in the US through our bankruptcy contract. Total and complete crap. They were parked for a reason. Any guesses what that might be? The 50-70 seat RJ isn't a panacea. It isn't more efficient than any of our "old" 737's that it replaced. Period.

Originally Posted by Scott Stoops (Post 1137092)

So... just so we're clear... you personally did this? You're taking personal and/or effectual personal credit for getting the UAL furloughees back into the cockpit? UFB. Your posts are the most condescending posts of any pilot I've ever read. You did NOTHING to make this happen. NOTHING. Don't act like you did. Decisions have been made that benefited UCH. You didn't make them. You working "extra hard" as a pilot for UCAL didn't make it happen, and me working for UAL didn't cause it in the first place or make it happen. If you really feel that you're the cause, reason or fault in any of this then you simply don't understand how the big the game is or how it is played.

Am I glad that then furloughed LUAL pilots have been offered employment at LCAL? Absolutely. That said, they furloughed so that the merger could happen (I could care less if you agree). We flew all of the same jets (737's) that UCH is now proposing that CAL will fly on the same routes not 4 years ago. They "replaced" them with inefficient RJ's, and claimed that the 737's simply couldn't be flown cost effectively despite the fact that they had the lowest cost of ANY 737 operator in the US through our bankruptcy contract. Total and complete crap. They were parked for a reason. Any guesses what that might be? The 50-70 seat RJ isn't a panacea. It isn't more efficient than any of our "old" 737's that it replaced. Period.

Originally Posted by intrepidcv11 (Post 1137178)

Wasn't aware UAL had a large 737-800/900 fleet that was parked. Almost anytime I've touched a UAL hub it has been in a NG (btw I didn't want to be there either). Sorry the Guppies got parked but don't EVER expect us to believe it was all laid out to help save CAL from certain B/K!

Originally Posted by catan (Post 1137194)

A 737 is a 737 whether it's a 200 or a 900. It's a 737. UAL park it's 737 fleet because it was older and less efficient and looked for a "small" airplane airline to merge with - you were it! Just as Pierce has been puffing his chest to explain the inflated presence of the 767-400 being equal to a 747-400, you are trying to equate a 737 to anything smaller than a 747-400. You are a 737 airline and fly the smallest airplane on routes that are normally flown by wide-bodies. Get over yourself - you're an RJ outfit flying long-haul routes.