One could argue that the contractual improvements were led by United by voting no on the Tumi TA. If they ratified that, it would have led to a completely different pattern in bargaining.

Wasn't the main reason for that was AA quickly offered APA the Tumi deal plus a little more and the UAL ALPA said, "wait, we settled too quickly if AA mgmt thinks it's a good deal....."

Pretty sure it would have been shot down regardless. Just probably not 94%. I remember reading the thing and speaking with UAL friends (former lec reps) and it was clear it’s going to fail.

Is this the extent of your experience with ALPA? Man, are you in for a rude awakening when the pendulum swings...

TLDR, but I'm wrong? LOL.. nice!

I agree that the 94% Tumi no vote was critical just like the Delta TA1 no vote in July 2015, but Delta had already done most of the heavy lifting that they finished shortly afterwards.

Jerry, out of sheer curiosity, I looked you up and saw that you are an ALPA spokesman and a United pilot since 1995. Credit where credit is due and I sincerely apologize for treating you like a typical internet forum troll that this forum is full of, myself on occcasions included.

But please tell me... having bearing on this conversation, how do you justify ALPA's actions in 2007 when it went against the wishes of the majority of membership with respect to Age 60? I refuse to buy the notion that "we wanted to have a say in implementation..." as if ALPA would somehow be "punished" for representing the will of its membership?

Along those lines, do you think ALPA is even relevant in the Age 67 debate? The reason I'm asking is because in 2007, ALPA rendered itself irrelevant when it dropped its opposition to changing Age 60 rule despite membership because "it was going to happen anyway." Back then, I called it a betrayal. I still do. Same with ALPA's stance on pensions and how ALPA National folded without so much as a wimper when it came to A plan terminations. Literally, nothing was sacred, except political self-preservation at the detriment of its membership.

Pardon me for not celebrating the return of dues money after the famed and long-forecasted pilot shortage finally caught up with the industry.

Again, apologies on being rude and unbecoming earlier.

Without ALPA and the pendulum swings, where’d you be? Better off? ooof that’s some speculative logic I’m excited to hear.

It would have failed. You're right not 94%, but a quick skim of it told me that it was a concessionary contract. I ignored section 3; there were so many concessionary items in the contract that I could not see how anyone would vote for it.

...but the most disappointing thing to me is how your NC/MEC could even let the TUMI TA go out for a vote.

It’s been explained, you just refuse to accept it. It had nothing to do with being “punished”, it had everything to do with an inevitable conclusion, and needed to have a seat at the table to shape implementation and mitigate problems.

Bomb throwing parties on the other team don’t get invited to those meeting/discussions. It’s that simple.