3b6 came out of POS 96.

First used for the 737-800 in ‘98. This is one reason why the 737 pays as close as it does to the 757.

3b6 again used for the 777 and 767-400 with negotiations starting in 99. United was below 200 bucks an hour at that time for the 777 when we settled. There was also a profit sharing conversion into that rate (and all pay rates) of 6% which is the max it could ever pay . I never heard anyone complain about that as the PS language was not as robust. (Leo would stroke writing checks with the current language)

C2K it switched to 3b4. In that billion dollar deal, 3b6 was a no go item for the company. Although I am sure no one wanted to give it up, considering the deal and the huge gains, most felt it had served it purpose as a hedge coming out of a concessionary contract.

Up until TA2, it had been triggered multiple times and had only paid pennies I think 1 time. Considering the track record of 3b4 and another billion dollar deal, should the MEC have walked away from negotiations and the NMB over this? Did we have them over a barrel?

You can’t look at this stuff in a vacuum. When we had it, it seemed management was structuring raises to avoid it. Would this pay raise look different as well? It is much like the retirement issue and pay. People want to take the current contract pay and apply a DB that went away 13 years ago. Who knows what our pay/contract (as well as any of the other passenger carrier contracts) would look like if we still had a DB? Maybe the same, but I doubt it.

Anyway, I know I know, any of the things that were traded in negotiations might have easily stayed if we just had a “real union,” but you also can’t discredit the opinion that negotiations might take much longer than many want to admit. (Which still doesn’t guarantee the perfect contract)

Examples? The JV negotiations, reroute, DH. We are already a couple of years into those with no resolution in sight. I only use that as an example of time and “as long as it takes” may be quite a while.