Bear96

Correct. It was basically about whether UA has to create enough vacancies at LHR (the only remaining non-U.S. domicile after these closures) to accommodate the F/As from the domiciles being closed who cannot legally be based in the U.S. due to immigration reasons; or if UA only has an obligation to open up positions in the U.S., leaving those who cannot legally be based in the U.S. out of luck.

As I understand it, it came down to this: The CBA states that in the event of a "surplus" (an overage of F/As at a particular location) or base closure, the Company has to make enough vacancies available at other domiciles to accommodate the surplussed F/As. The Company's position is that it has the sole right to determine where those vacancies are (the CBA language references "vacancies determined by the Company across the system" (my emphasis)). So it can say there are only vacancies at U.S. domiciles. It does not have the obligation to create a surplus at LHR, which there would be if enough F/As from the closing domiciles go there.

The Union OTOH appears to be saying it makes no sense for the Company to only be obligated to create vacancies in the U.S. in this case, where many of the affected F/As cannot legally transfer to; rather, the Company has an obligation to make vacancies available at locations where the surplussed F/As can legally work (unless their seniority would not otherwise permit them to survive the imminent involuntary furloughs / layoffs effective Oct. 1).

Again this is just my understanding based on assumptions I made based on what info I could find. I have no opinion one way or the other on which side is right or should prevail. If someone who was directly involved or who has insider info wants to correct me or add insight, my feelings will not be hurt and in fact I would appreciate it. It is an interesting issue.