"Or is it time to dust off the recall rules section of the by-laws... "

You two seem to miss the point here. The UAL/CAL proposal was based on the CAL contract and actually made things worse!

They, Management, hold up the DAL contract but their proposal isn't even close to it and the current UAL work rules are better than all three, DAL current CAL and the proposal.

Now are you wanting to recall Wendy because she has tipped some mysterious hand and hurt the ability to improve the contract beyond UAL by stating the obvious to the public?

As if recalling Wendy will change something.
It's time for people to stand on their own and stop waiting for the MEC to "do it for you"......
We are no longer close to bankruptcy, and we should not have bailed them out the first time.
We didn't enter bankruptcy because of the pilots and any post-9/11 load imbalances have been remedied.
Did the fuel companies bail them out? Did the airports bail them out?
The idea that it was the pilot's responsibility to correct the company's failures was a forced hand by the co.,court and MEC.
Not now.

Anything less than what we had before bankruptcy is an automatic no. Bankruptcy was a forced manipulation.
(and by the way, the power to do so, as UAL did, has been changed in the U.S. bankruptcy laws since)
How is that hard to understand? It has nothing to do with what the company or the MEC tells us.
They each have their own agendas. It's time we stand up for the pilot agenda.

For those curious or who would like to review it, here is the pre-bankruptcy contract.

2000 Agreement - UAL CORP /DE/ - 3-16-2001

I've been hearing about this pilot shortage for the past 20 years.

Oops... just saw someone else already chimed in. Well, it probably should be said twice to sink in.

Right on... Well said.

Please enlighten me...
I try to stay up to date on everything going on with the Legacys as that is were I would like to end up. I think it's hard for us younger pilots who've only been in the industry for a few years (<10 years) to understand what's been lost and how the industry has changed. I was curious how UA pilots were paid back in "the glory days" and found it in this contract. If I read correctly the highest negotiated hourly wage would have been 355.82 in 2004 and the current highest wage is 190. That is HUGE! Now my question is wasn't this a concession agreed on by pilot and management and aren't these "temporary" measures? How can management say you will never get back to 2000 pay if it were temporary? Why do pilots have to fight so hard to get something back they willing gave to help the company?

My point of view may be woefully ignorant so be gentle. Also, I understand management wouldn't ever want to give it back but...Golden rule anyone?

This might help you for the remainder of your career. The answer to your question is that there weren't any "snapback" provisions negotiated. Without "snapback" provisions included in a concessionary agreement, there is no such thing as "temporary" and every contract becomes it's own "stand-alone" basis when the time comes to "section 6" again. Merger, peer comparison and economy notwithstanding.

There is a whole host of people who wish there were "snapbacks."

I hope your MEC is not setting a goal of DAL+1 pay rates. We are operating under bankruptcy wages at the moment and none of us finds this acceptable when the company earned $1.4B in profit in 2010. If the excuse is "DAL is the highest paid ALPA carrier", then perhaps it's time to switch union representation.

A couple of things....

The MEC's still exist separately in their present form, but for practical purposes, contract negotiations were reset on the date of the merger announcement and we have been negotiating as a joint committee for a joint contract since...about one year...the last six months of that in mediation. Not too terribly long in the overall scheme of things. I truly do not know exactly what the committee is proposing except for generalities.

Neither side (management/joint committee) is able to convincingly or effectively cost a proposal or trade "meat" proposals routinely since flight and duty time are unknown quantities at present. It's my understanding the FAA is supposed to issue the final rule on or about the August/September timeframe. The pace should pick up about that time.

Secondly, your notion that profitability translates directly into base compensation is a popular notion that has rarely been realized in fact in the deregulated environment. Profitability certainly affects variable compensation (profit sharing, bonus, etc.) shares. However, base compensation is directly affected by a comparison to peer groups at similar companies and how the economy is doing.

Taking it a step further to the present day, this industry is deregulated, global in nature and so fiercely competitive that there likely isn't a surviving company or management group that would sign up to base labor compensation that they considered uncompetitive relative to other industry companies. If "bankruptcy" wages are where the industry is, that's about where everybody will sit unless a dynamic market factor changes. Variable comp is a different matter.

I have no inkling of how the deals will look at UAL or DAL when the time comes...or American for that matter. You can rest assured though, they are all watching each other.

If what you're saying is true, then how DID UAL pilots get their 2000 payrates?

Exactly, and it's the addition to OUC's quote below, although agree with most of what OUC said.
Most of what enabled the C2000 outcome was Rick Dubinsky's (MEC chair)
refusal to back down to protect ALPA's seeming bias to not strike along
with the summer of 2000 demonstration that the pilots wouldn't be intimidated by mgmt. threats.
The company's back was pushed against the wall. Imho, that's the only way to go again unfortunately. Nobody wants to strike. But that eventuality
may be necessary to "negotiate" back toward what was taken from us in bankruptcy as is so conveniently ignored and forgotten by mgmt.

......until a group steps up like UAL or American did to force a strike and put the same pressure back on mgmt. that that they put upon the pilots,
to show today's compensation and offers are totally unacceptable.

Now, American was forced back to work, but it still improved their outcome.
The fact that UAL is larger now and a more significant factor in U.S. commerce will have the government being involved as well.
Both those points don't justify avoiding a strike, just additional factors.

The biggest problem imho is ALPA's reluctance to push for a substantial return to the previous contract
because of fearing the income losses it would incur to defend us. Hopefully they prove me wrong.
(ie. the ALPA dues losses/costs during a strike and actually burning the strike fund)