Originally Posted by flygirl135

I don't know about you, but the FAA I work under says that any and all discrepancies must be written up at the time of discovery. I don't work for Unical, but one of our guys recently got a letter of correction for carrying a known discrepancy back to base... CYA

Originally Posted by EWRflyr

Sorry, but that is selective emphasis on the wrong portion of that part of the T&PA.

This has to do with protection of each others bases/domiciles at the time this was drafted. Reread the first part:



That part specifies what would happen (at that time) to existing domiciles within 150 miles of each other NOT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM. That is why there is a specific mileage stated. IAH did not, at that time, reside within 150 miles of any UAL domicile. United could have also announced new equipment and flying at ORD or IAD for example under the verbiage of this agreement. An exemption was negotiated for EWR 787 and LAX 737 because those were already being contemplated at that time by the company and were within the range of UAL NYC and UAL LAX bases. Whatever happened with IAH didn't apply because of the mileage language and because UAL did not have a base in IAH.

The original T&PA did not restrict the 787 solely to EWR as some are claiming on here. It only allowed an exemption because it was so close to the UAL base.

The extension of the T&PA allowed for the opening of other bases, equipment flying on both sides and the language was changed to reflect that. IAH Airbus and 756 flying for L-UAL and 737 bases in ORD/DEN for L-CAL. Without that language change, none of these would have been allowed.

No conspiracy at all. The language is quite clear and this is exactly how it was explained in local council meetings regarding the original T&PA. More grievances to delay the JCBA is just what we need.
[/COLOR][/COLOR]

Originally Posted by EWRflyr

More grievances to delay the JCBA is just what we need.