nopac6

Todd,

you seem like a very knowledgeable and level-headed guy and I've been enjoying your posts in the various threads. I want to get your take on the 787 fence and rather than hijack a thread that you were posting in, thought I'd start a new thread (with your name in the title so you'd see it).

I was an LAX 747 Capt for 7 years until I got bumped 2 years ago when LAX-NRT-BKK went from the 747 to the 777. I could have stayed on the 747 but would have had to commute to SFO and since I live in LA, I decided to change to the 777.

Now that LAX-NRT and LAX-PVG have gone to the 787, it looks like I might get bumped again. The 777 is taking over LAX-SYD (which seems like a very bad idea) from the 747 but I'm expecting most of those Captains to bump onto the LAX 777 unless the 787 fence gets rescinded in which case many of them might bump into that airplane. I tell you all this so you can understand my interest in this subject.

How do you see the 787 fence dispute playing out? I liked your post about how the UAL MC might have screwed itself by advocating a 747 fence which was what caused the CO MC to propose the 787 fence in the first place. Very good point.

I've read the filings and think the UA MC makes a pretty good argument when they say that the entire 787 fence is based on the belief that UA didn't have any 787's on order on the MAD. Since that's completely inaccurate, they argue that the 787 fence should be rescinded.

Now, obviously I have a somewhat biased opinion here but what's your take on that argument and its likelihood of persuading the arb's to rescind the 787 fence?

SpecialTracking

Add to the fact that the 787 is intended to replace LUAL's 767-300's. As our -300's are parked, the LUAL pilots are unable to bid it's replacement.

757Driver

I'll chime in here as I hope to be one of the guys who transfers into LAX on the 787 with the next bid. As you point out, we never asked for fences, your side of the house did that. As for "changing" anything the arbitrators have handed down, if they open up ANYTHING at all, you best be prepared for our side to demand that the whole award is up for grabs and the whole decision should be "changed".

If I were your MC, I'd be quiet and quietly accept victory. We got our asses kicked with this ruling and now that one part doesn't fit the bill, you're protesting it, (yes I realize that you are not the one doing this but your MC is).

As a point of information, the first 25 787 orders were placed well before the merger so the arbitrators, per the UAL MC's wishes, fenced the 747 and as a residual side effect, our pre-ordered 787's. In reality the fence shouldn't be lifted until post aircraft 25 is delivered, otherwise known as aircraft number 26.

I've accepted the arbitrators ruling why can't everyone else?

SpecialTracking

Got the horsepower to bid 787 in LAX? How did your 2010 relative seniority change from LCAL to the arb's ISL?

nopac6

Why should we be worried about them reconsidering all of the award? They made their ruling based on their interpretation of merger policy. Just because their interpretation was so drastically different than yours doesn't mean theirs was wrong. Our merger committee argued (successfully) that yours was wrong. Do you really think the arbs will have changed their minds this quickly where we'd have to worry about them reversing themselves on a lot of the award? I really don't think that needs to be a concern of ours.

The 787 fence is completely different because it was specifically based on ONE fact that was completely inaccurate. It would be NEGLIGENT for our MC to know that that was the case and just ignore it because we "lucked" out on the rest of the award.

swampfoxviper

I'm not a heavy driver, just a little 737 twerp, but I will chime in and add to 757driver's post.. It is my understanding that the original proposal was a 747 and A350 fence, which is why the 787 fence came about..

I think it's perfectly reasonable to fence it up for the first 25. Both sides got something in the fence debate..

by the way, I don't really think I would say the 787 was intended to replace the 763er's at first.. At least not the first 25. All I see right now is 767-300ers getting new interiors and the CAL767-200s going bye bye

nopac6

No offense intended (really) but It's not about what you or anybody else thinks is reasonable, it's about precedent. A member of our MC told me that fences have been awarded in the past for desirable airplanes that one airline has that the other doesn't (like the 747 in this case). Basing it on future orders is new ground.

In this case, NEITHER airline had the airplane on the MAD but BOTH airlines had it on order, how is that anything like the 747 which is already here?

You could say that the 787 fence is comparable to the A350 fence because they were both airplanes that weren't here on the MAD but since we're not supposed to have any A350's before the fence expires, that "fence" was really a whole lot of nothing.

CRM114

Strictly as a point of information, the order for 25 United 787's and 25 United A350 aircraft was placed on December 8, 2009 - 5 months before the merger announcement on May 3, 2010. The order had options for 50 additional aircraft.

Sunvox

I'm not Todd, and I will be curious to hear what he has to say.

From my perspective I see numerous flaws in the logic of the request to rescind the Fence. First and foremost nothing in the decision is based on "one" fact. To suggest such is to imply the arbitrators are simpletons. The Fence is meant to recognize "Career Expectations". Career Expectation arguments accounted for many long hours of debate surrounding fleet plans and block hour growth. Rescinding the Fence would require negating the CAL MC argument. In addition, as mentioned above changing one part of the decision would open up the entire decision to discussion. I am saddened by all the pilot sub-groups that continue to clammer "I'm special so I deserve special dispensation" or "that's not fair to me".

My educated guess is the arbitrators will quickly deny the request and will specifically note "career expectations". We shall see.

For the record the 25th 787 is currently scheduled for 12/15/2015 which is only 2 years and 4 months away.

SEDPA

Agreed ... surprised "quickly" hasn't already come ... perhaps the three " I thought they were wiseman" are actually seriously considering this request?