Sorry, no, opting for full contract negotiations instead of contract extension wouldn’t have fixed it. Line pilots wanted pay and work rule improvements but have almost always placed a much heavier weight on pay than work rules.
It’s not so much that the company cares whether we take pay or work rules; it’s that pilots are by and large prostitutes who value money above all.
The company is willing to give us a package worth $X. Pilots decide the composition of that package and the company tells us what they’re willing to offer based on the value they attach to our demands.

During the cold years there were quite a few guys getting rid of toys, downsizing houses and cars and private schools and such ... Some went through several iterations of the process.

The extension allowed them to get back closer to their desired lifestyles.

That is ... Living beyond their means.

Not when you took a 42 percent paycut....:cool:

Better that than a 100% paycut. Twice.

Thanks for emphasizing my point.

I took the same pay cut. Guys furloughed ... Now that was a pay cut.

Only flew with one guy that was over 60 in 2008 just before the furlough. The guy couldn't stop going on and on about how great it was he would get 5 more years at top of scale in the left seat. I finally had to ask the guy if he knew that 1400 furloughs were about to happen, many of which were more about age 65 rather than the aircraft parking. Classic quote, "you're young, you can make it up later. I've got a boat to payoff and a retirement to fund." To which I asked, how does someone make up five years of zero? Total clueless @~hole

We do have more than one like that :(

I'm confident the company would prefer to operate with zero work rules. The flexibility is worth a lot to them. Some pilots will always want money over quality of life. Many have never experienced quality work rules and it's incumbent upon the union and other pilots to explain the benefits.

The valuation of contractual items is a two way street.

Absolutely. My point was to the poster referring to guys living beyond their means...

I think what he was trying to say was "Poor poor me. I had to take a 42% pay cut".

Your reference to the 100% pay cut times 2 puts it into perspective.

I think he still made my point.

We all saw tough financial times. One would do well to not forget those tough times and live within their means. And save for the inevitable rainy day. Some will, some won't.

I think you nailed it.

What people need to think about on occasion is that these good times won't last forever. Let's talk 42% paycut. Is it a possibility in a future downturn? Absolutely. Even before any pay concessions.

For some, just reducing our flying hours down to contractual maximum while there are furloughees will be a healthy paycut. I'm hoping that those flying greater than 82 hours are familiar with Section 5-B-1-a-(1) of the contract. Personally, in spite of being a huge slacker, I fly more than 82 hrs on a regular basis because my wife's a workaholic and if I wasn't working, I'd just be getting in trouble. Throw in a couple of downgrades due to surpluses and one can quickly get to >42% paycut before any concessionary negotiations on the contract. Going from WB to NB alone is a >20% paycut.
How many are prepared for that? I banked ~60% of gross last year without trying, but I'd definitely notice the pay difference as a 72hr guppy FO and would cut expenses.

This economic expansion is getting way long in the tooth and will eventually end. When it does, passenger air traffic will decline and United will likely park a lot of our oldest equipment (777s, 756s) in order to adjust the fleet to reduced demand.

Nailed it again ... Head on.

PS: A true slacker bids low 70s and drops from there. Throw in an occasional Type 3 trade/schedule adjustment and life is good.

Just saying ...:D

The company may place a lower value on some work rules, but they don't care as long as the total labor cost is neutral in their calculations for maximum profitability. We're all just widgets; the company doesn't care if there are 6000 pilots or 12000 pilots, just as long as profit is maximized. In fact, for overall reliability, the company would almost certainly prefer to have more pilots but the total cost of pilots is more than just hourly pay; our benefits package skews the company toward minimizing the number of pilots on property.

And as far as work rules go, some pilots place a very high value on some work rules while others place zero value on some work rules. The perfect example is reserve rules. How much value are reserve rules to senior lineholders?

The low 70s bid + drops to ~50 is my strategy for the next economic downturn.

99% of normal people who work do it to make a living and earn money. Why would pilots be any different?

I’m picking up your slack, I get an 80 hr line and turn it into 100 hours or more. 90 hrs is a bad month. Make money while you can!

A lot of pilots were very vocal in how THEY would retire at 60, irrespective of the change to 65.
How many actually did that?

At least this guy wasn't kidding anyone that he would stay until forced out at 65.

Pay vs work rules. Everyone else understood what I wrote.

I understand exactly. Some work rules are very important to me, some aren't. Ask 10000 pilots whats important to them and will get 10000 different answers. But the paycheck is usually very important to anyone that has a job.

What the company is willing to give is irrelevant. That’s why we have a union. It’s like the same tired management bile such as “the pie is only so big”. Our response is to tell them to bake a bigger pie.

Ah, thank ya, thank ya very much.:p