"Was it a mistake to place UAL aircraft on these once extremely profitable routes? Is it maintenance? I really don't know the answer. "

First question, do you have any evidence these aren't currently profitable routes? It's amazing when something becomes viral because a statement like this is made on the web.

Second, just look at the age difference between the airplanes you mention. UAL airplanes are older and do require more maintenance.

Third, When UAL purchased the Pacific division from PAA the UAL mechanics were amazed with what the PAA pilots would go with. Each pilot group has their traditions and culture for what deferred items they are willing to fly with. Historically UAL has been a culture of fix it, even when it was determined OK by deferral. Safer? Depends on who you ask.

Fourth, I have no idea about the culture and traditions of CAL pilots and their acceptance of deferrals so my third point may be pointless. Of course I'm sure the Guam and EWR guy will correct me.

Summary: Don't make hyperbolic statements with out the facts, me included.

Bingo, and the group you and I find us in have been down this road far too many times my friend.

The CAL side here on the forum really doesn't understand the history or mindset of what is left of the 2172/1473 group. I for one, will actively participate in any litigation action towards ALPA if we find ourselves STAPLED. Thats not a beef against the CAL pilots, but they pay dues into ALPA just as much.

So why even bring this up here? Well, yes, an arbitrator will make a binding decision. However, it cannot bind what both sides have already mutually agreed upon is in the best interest of all parties. A CAL MEC that does not acknowledge that a 1999 UAL type not be placed behind a 2007 CAL type ala staple job, for example, in an attempt to grab as much for its own group as possible, is just as GUILTY as a UAL MEC which refuses to defend the junior with as much fervor and skill as it would a senior 747 captain. This is exactly what the ALPA Merger Policy is supposed to safe guard against. Unfortunately, as Coto has said, we as a union have a very poor track record of corporately defending all of its constituents. This is not a slam against the average line pilot, except for their silence in speaking out, especially when it might mean that they not gain everything in which they feel individually entitled to.

The best outcome is one in which all parties win, or lose the least. You would think we as a union would be the first to grasp that versus standing in front of an arbitration panel in heavily entrenched positions.

KC

In regards to schedule reliability on the UA side, I think I can speak to that. I have spent a good bit of time on CO recently and know enough people there to see that when adversity rears it's head, the CO pilots are much more likely to step up and make things happen to get the flight out. UA pilots, for the most part, are more likely to sit on their hands, do nothing more than is contractually required of them, and let the system crumble under its own weight. I'm not throwing stones, but just commenting on a great cultural difference between the groups.

I would bet, that with a good contract, reliability on the UA side would greatly improve. Unfortunately, management doesn't seem to see this or their cost benefit analysis suggests that the status quo is more profitable.

I hear that the LIM trip is referredd to as the "OPS INTEGRITY" trip.
Get familiar with that provision of our contract if you want more answers... I think the way they scheduled the crews to cover these trips have a lot more to do with reliability than the aircrafts on those routes...You will not find too many on the S-UAL side waiving anything these days...

You are right, I don't have the numbers in front of me. My sources are the VP of the IAH hub and the chief pilot and director of operations(both of whom have been out on Guam for years and are worried about our market share if this continues) in Guam. I do not have access to the financial numbers but I do have access to the operational numbers(load factor/completion factor/departure within 00 minutes/arrival within 14 etc). I'm not trying to pick a fight here. You are probably correct in that we rarely have to make a decision to fly with something deferred in that our fleet of widebody aircraft and our narrowbodies are young in comparison.

The best thing about this merger is having the ability to match markets with aircraft and aircraft with markets that stand alone, we could not have done. The 767-300 alone is going to be a game changer for Europe in that it will replace(once they have undergone a cabin makeover) the 757-200 aircraft that currently fly on the edge of the performance envelope in the Winter to deep European markets s-CAL has developed out of NYC(EWR). South America will see the widebody service it deserves from NYC and IAH along with IAD with 767's(and later 787's) because this merger allows that.

SFO and LAX will see more 757-300 aircraft flying Hawaii routes profitably as the 757-300 has the lowest seat mile cost of any 756 aircraft. It is perfect for the leisure market from the West Coast to Hawaii. 757-200's will open new markets to the U.K from IAD. The U.K is perfect from the East Coast in a 757-200(with RR engines) all year round. There are 747 routes like LAX-SYD that the s-CAL 777 can do for 80,000 less per leg than a 747 in fuel burn freeing up the 747 to fly something more profitable.

I'm bullish on this combination but like others, my worst nightmare is waking up in 12 months reading the papers and internet boards as we file lawsuits etc. like Airways. I'm not going to argue the SLI on here as it is a waste of time. I understand the feelings many at s-UAL have and believe it or not, I agree with some of the arguments. In the end I expect to be disappointed somewhat with the SLI and if the majority at both CAL and UAL feel the same, then the arbitrator probably did a good job.

Thanks for the reply. I'm really hoping we have something to vote on this Summer. The sooner we get past this JCBA the better. We all deserve it.

I've heard that. I know several of the crews that have flown the trip and love the layover and I know the first few months was a maintenance nightmare due to the aircraft routing and the relationship our maintenance folks had with SAMC. A lot of the bugs have been worked out allowing a crew to call in a cabin item and having a CAL mechanic(sorry maintenance technician) work on the aircraft without a 45 minute delay waiting on a directive from SFO to be faxed to the CAL maintenance control office.

I think that the LUAL pilots are just tired of being deficated on so we are more likely to let the man behind the curtain desperately and unsuccessfully try to solve problems we can easily solve ourselves. When we felt like we were all pulling on the same end of the rope(mid to late 90s) it was amazing how problems were easily solved. With the last 10 years of abuse I would rather (edited for sensitive ears) let management pick up and pull the rope bythemselves. I dont feel like I need to be paid well obove everyone else I just expect to be paid in the same ballpark as the other similar operations.

Why? SWA pays the same regardless of whether you fly the -500 or the -800. That's the industry gold standard. I could care less about the mission, payload, etc. Just show me the money!!!!

No.

I have zero interest in getting involved in this totally worthless "my toy is bigger than your toy" discussion. Just to correct this observation: UAL's widebody's are all ETOPS certified (not that it matters, really). Not all the 757's are ETOPS, but they are not "widebody" by definition