JimInOhio

Does the PHX UC use contracted staff?

PTahCha

MEX is staffed by UA employees.

NikoLGA

No, they were (before the closure) real UA employees.

I was there last, in 2015.

EWR764

Unrelated to any of the closing domiciles, but a nice video from my favorite base, HNLSW:

airforcevet123

Sad to see the Narita Flight Attendant Base closing. It will affect over 270 employees. Probably will affect future United flights into and out of Narita.

uastarflyer

Terrible news. So many years for me on UAUA via NRT - great people, excellent service on board. Wishing every impacted employee and family the best.

As an aside, NRT ground staff rocks too.

jhayes_1780

Announced back in June: https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unit...s-closing.html

Its only appearing in feeds this morning because NHK ran a story over the weekend.

DELee

Yes, but it is still not too late to postpone such a close. UA will need the base once Japan reopens with some sort of testing policy.

David

WineCountryUA

Would air carrier personnel be doing testing? Certainty not FAs. Seems more likely testing will be handled by governmental / airport personnel.
Closing an FA base does not preclude have locally hired staff for other roles.

MrJBoy

I heard UA's FAs union underwent expedited arbitration to save their job, and they are supposed to hear a decision this week???
If that doesn't work, I believe those FAs of foreign nationals will sue UA...

jhayes_1780

I understood the arbitration was not about stopping the closing of the bases, but forcing UA to open up vacancies at other domiciles.

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.

fezzington

I won't get into the minutiae of the argument, but you have the basic premise down.

There's years of system board decisions to go through and a whole slew of previous letters that I'm sure were argued on at the arbitration. From my understanding, it's already been heard and a decision was supposed to be announced very soon.

wpcoe

ISTR that the union used examples of the handling of previously closed domiciles -- CDG comes to mind -- that supposedly set a precedent and supported the union's position.

wanderingkev

It was my understanding that there had been a challenge on how UA was displacing/re assigning people around the planned overseas base closures and this was sent to arbitration .
I thought the ruling date had passed . Have I missed the out come ? or is it still pending