Lol, i just keep reading and laughing. Glad to know that after years of trying to improve things here it will be left in your hands.lol

I’ll sum up this dilemma with a sports analogy: It’s really difficult to come up with a winning strategy when the rules keep changing and the goal posts keep moving. Keep the contract intact, hope for the best, plan for the worst. We have a seniority system for a reason, and thats how I planned my life. Now, if you want to talk about changing the entire paradigm regarding the “seniority system” in place, thats an entirely different argument for another time. JMHO

I tend to agree with LUVPLANES.

Back during the lost decade, we shafted the furloughees and still lost everything. So, in my opinion, let’s at least try to take care of our junior ranks this time, even if it costs us some money.

You're simply wrong. Our seniority based system isn't just in reference to Aircraft/Schedule! The company must comply with our CBA, and if they don't need as many pilots they have levers within the contract to adjust. None of like it, but if it comes to that point we all understand the furloughs are inverse seniority order. it's not about comparing sacrifices or looking at individual stories - it's about a COLLECTIVE Bargaining Agreement. We have absolutely built in contractual mechanisms that allow things to occur 'out of seniority', for example hardship base transfers. The unions job to represent everyone is being honored by entering negotiations and considering alternative furlough mitigation. WE will decide whether or not to amend our contract in a way that 'spreads the pain' among all of us. You should not expect that we agree to such a scheme - you should expect the current contract to be followed. Let me ask again - when you provided input to your reps regarding our current Section 6 negotiations did you suggest any changes to the furlough and recall section?

Your understanding of past actions that "...made sure only the seniors were taking (sic) care of..." is misleading and incomplete at best. Since the 9/11 tragedy and the UAL BK the pilot group (the ones you are painting as greedy) have made GREAT STRIDES in spreading the contract benefits among all pilots. Pay scales, vacation bidding, health benefits, and the overall tone of leadership have been pushed DOWN the seniority list. WE have and continue to support those efforts. The fact that our union is even considering such an agreement is remarkable considering how things operated less than 20 years ago.

So go ahead and make your case about why we should agree to 'share the pain', but you will get a LOT of pushback if you try to paint the 'senior' pilots as greedy or entitled if they don't agree. I don't know what that's so hard to understand. Do you like our current contract? If so, you should be content if we simply followed it.

ya except for scope. thanks for that one.

Of course he likes the current contract as I'm sure he was one of the many new hires saying we are in no hurry for a new contract because everything is great. While some of us were trying to get a new contract even though our mec chair was not interested, our current cea was not interested, so nothing got done.

How about we give UAL 120 additional 76 seaters in exchange for keeping the MPG intact for the top 2/3s? Are you ok with that? Why not?

I’ll make it simple, MY UNION SPEAKS FOR ME.

120 at mainline. Yep. That would rock for us and the profession.

You're one of the few I was talking about. Total screw job. I'm voting NO on anything that divides the pilot group into thirds (fourths, whatever). We're a UNION. All of us have a common goal, to preserve the quality of our career. Dividing us is an attempt to give each group a carrot that makes them overlook that common goal and vote for personal short term gain. We need to rise above this. And, if I do see a TA that divides us in thirds, I'm all for recalling our negotiating committee and think we will need transparancy at the MEC level to know why they thought a division was acceptable.