There is no such thing as "unity" in any pilot group. There are only shared interests. When the shared interests are sufficiently spread across the demographics of a disparate seniority list, there's a sense of unity. On some things, all can agree. On many things agreement depends on where you sit (or where you came from) and is often ultimately impossible.

The seniority system creates have's and have not's. That's just the way it is. I share very few interests with the 64 yr old sitting to my left. I'm unwilling to personally finance any of his wants. Do you really think he cares about scope at this point? He'd sell me right out of a job in .5 seconds to get his A-fund back. I'd expect no less of him and I don't blame him at all. He and I have no unity just because we drink beer on layovers together. Respect sure, unity is a fantasy.

I don't feel any unity nor is it important to me, but I can agree on a number of things with my peers. On points of agreement, we can attempt to leverage our numbers. The company knows us better than we know ourselves. We fantasise about unity while the company plans accordingly.

Did unity lead to the signing of our current contract? Of course not, tribalism did. Now the yes voters would like a pass on that claiming their desire for unity to undue the damage. I suspect it's far too late for that. If you voted yes on the UPA, you'd better read it carefully, it's going to be here for a while. The only thing that can prevent this extension from passing is the MEC. Do you suppose they're unified? That would clearly depend on their individual constituencies. We'll know soon enough.