You bet.

He has a bunk. There is also an open seat in Businessfirst. That seat, on the 777 is often "reserved" for a pilot who, on a 14 hour flight wants to read or relax and watch a movie during his/her 6.5 hour break. It is not a guarantee, more of a courtesy if and only if there is an open seat. Some contracts do allow for a rest seat along with the bunk. Not at CAL.

About 30-40 minutes out of EWR, going to Delhi/Mumbai/NRT/PEK etc, the 2 relief first officers will leave the cockpit to take "rest". It is a nice perk to have somewhere to wind down before crawling into the bunk if you know you are not going to be able to fall asleep right away. Most FA's will let the crew know if and where a seat is located for this purpose.

Thank You!

Correct.....The term "Dedicated Crew Rest Area".

As I expressed earlier, the segregated BUNK area constitutes/complies with the term of Dedicated Crew Rest. That term has nothing to do with "roping off" 1 or 2 Business First seats (Lay-flat beds or not) on flights blocked for >12 hours. If those "roped off" BizFirst seats are there in addition to the Bunk, great!

Without the Dedicated Crew Rest Area, that particular airframe (IE- the B777's w/o BUNKS) is relegated to flight segments of 12 Hours or less. It has nothing to do with being a CBA thing, it's mandated per the FAA as things presently stand (barring any change in the future by the purposed changes regarding the Flight Time Duty Regs).

'twas a UAL bird. Don't know if it had a bunk or not. I haven't paid attention to what the 777's have done rest wise, so not even sure where the bunk IS on our jets. I just know that I used to hear guys complain that the bunk was noisy.

On a side note... I thought that I just read something saying that the last UAL bird in the old Battleship Grey colors had gone in to be painted. The jet last night was still wearing them, so obviously I must have read it wrong. Had the new interior, but the old old paint

Sorry, should have been more clear..... I don't know if they rope off the 2 First seats IN ADDITION to the bunk for +12. I seem to recall there was a fight about it years ago when the 777's with the bunks first started showing up, and guys were saying they would rather have a 1st class seat because it was so noisy in the bunk. Don't know whatever became of that situation. I figure if I type long enough eventually one of our 777 guys will chime in! :)

Thanks for the clarification.

But in the same breath do you also find it acceptable for a 1999 UAL hire with 10 years of furlough to be placed in front of a 2005 hire that has been a 737 captain at CAL?

I'm not advocating a staple and I don't think most CAL pilots want a senority grab. We want the same thing most UAL pilots want; a fair and equitable integration. Just what that is, remains with the MC's and the arbitrator.

Anyone with access to Skynet/Flying together can see those stats. Right side under the SSD link.

And from looking at Gum and Lim since November, the operational stats don't look too abnormal with regards to completion percentage/ on time:14 as compared to the system as a whole.

Lim in November was 96.7%, December was bad at only a 93.5% completion. January was 100%, and Feb is 100% so far

But Guam has been 100% for November , 95% for December, 98% for Jan, 98% so far in Feb.

Now if you said customers were upset due to the first class offering on the domestic 767, i would agree.

DC

Why do you believe that I'm not going to like it at all? That particular post was in response to a lame (my cocoa is bigger than your bean) statement about CO 757s ETOPS certification and why UAL's were not.

In the broader context of your post though, the next time you personally have the opportunity to put a particular type of equipment in a particular market, I'm certain that you won't hesitate to step up. Today however, that function is purposely left out of the pilots' hands and it's no secret. I'm sure you'll agree that UAL's management goal is for pilots to just show up, fly their trip and go home (good for some, not so good for others). There's no better example of how management wants very little influence coming from the brass hatters on how the company is run, as evident in their exclusion of Pilot SMEs in the integration of the airline. It's a tech company, remember? So consider this to be a full blown assault to render the pilot powerless by eradicating any shred of equal leadership by virtue of the experience they bring to the table (as in your case).

Your observations, however well intended, are a sore to management. Instead, well paid metric oriented/spreadsheet people, whose picture of the world is formed out of data streaming from a 21 inch screen, produces the ideas that promises great results while you witnessed otherwise. Inefficiency, incompetence, inconvenience(as in passengers)?? Who cares when they're still showing a huge profit.

I would think most pilots do appreciate the legit worries your sources feel. They (your sources) only need to move that apprehension further along and up the management tree because all that great fluff (painting airplanes, shifting metal, great route structure, whatever) won't blow until the other bottom line, well paid pilots with the decency of a respectable QOL, and the opportunity to enjoy it with "JOB PROTECTION," is factored into the metric.

Until then there is little else besides flying the contract, that should be done, and never forget that you are a pilot at a Fortune 100 company!!!

A 1999 hire doesn't have 10 years of furlough time. The most time that any furloughee would have would be a 2001 hire; probably ~8 years of furlough time. That means he's got 3 years time on property. Are you saying that with his 3 years on property and 8 years on the street, he should be stapled below a 2008 CAL hire?

I could make a very strong argument for a snapshot date being taken in 2008 based on Continental joining the Star alliance. As a result of DOJ's objections, LUAL dumped the 737 fleet. Will UALALPA's lawyer push for a snapshot date in 2008 based on CAL joining the Star alliance? I don't know but I bet he's thought about it.
In 2008, a 1999 hire had 3+ more years on property than a 2005 CAL hire. Just another perspective.

Fair and equitable is in the eye of the beholder. And it'll be decided by an arbitration panel, with each side's lawyers bringing forth their best arguments. LCAL has Katz; LUAL has Freund. Nothing that is said on these boards will change that.