Sorry but that wasn't bravado. It was an honest assessment. The seat grab was the reason I voted for the current contract. Pretty much everyone I know from sUAL that wasn't already a WB CA cites that one reason as the tipping point for voting in a less than perfect one.

 

That is not bravado but stating why a majority of sUAL pilots voted for the contract. Yes, some saw it as an "industry leading" contract, but many who voted for it new that it would trigger the isl timeline. To them, it was too much to watch 300+ Capt bids produced time and again at a combined airline that were not available to them. To compare the influences bearing on this contract in similar fashion to those on the jcba is disingenuous at best.

Today, I think this vote can come down to any combination of four different groups. We have those who value a combination of QOL and $$ vs those who place a higher value on $$$ over QOL. Then we have those who say take the money now and and kick the section 6 can down the road vs those who say wait for the soon to begin section 6 talks and solve everything.

Now throw in a healthy dose of operating in an information vacuum and mix it all in a blender. This is the quagmire we now find ourselves in.

 

I spoke to some WB "C"apts who said they were tired of watching their fellow pilots missing out on bids and voted for it as well while holding their nose.

 

I'll simply insert "hopefully" fix everything. Section 6 isn't a panacea or a guarantee by any means. Ask DAL, SWA, UPS, heck even FEDEX. They had some big gives in their TA. And if we happen to hit a downturn over the next few years (which wouldn't surprise me AT ALL given the terrorist threat), we will be talking about beating back consessions, not improvements

 

Almost a certainty....

 

Section 6 has nothing to do with the difference between these deals. It is all about leverage. DALPA gave away this leverage (FRMS & 117 waivers and extensions) in an LOA before Section 6 negotiations and the UAL MEC almost did with LOA 22. Thankfully the MEC woke up after much prodding from none other than Garry Kravit and voted unanimously against LOA 22. If not for those events we would not have this leverage.

 

Let's assume a downturn does occur. Why would we be "beating back concessions?" Unless the company uses Ch 11 against us, there is absolutely no reason to accept concessions. Even then we could say no and put it in the court's hands. After watching how our concessions were spent during the last decade, I wouldn't give them a case quarter.

We continue to operate under a concessionary contract. I'm sure the company is happy to extend a contract that we are still trying to claw out from bankruptcy.

What amazes me is as soon as the $$$ rumor is flashed, many will grab their abacus and then start defending their vote on rumored TA contents with all kinds of future hypotheticals.

 

Unfortunately, when we were threatened (fear mongered) with worse, a majority of us voted yes to concessions. Multiple times. You might say no now, but 67% of us voted yes then.

 

I'll follow your hypothetical. I agree that outside of bankruptcy we wouldn't need to accept a concessionary deal. But the company would most definitely not be offering up any improvements that cost them money. So NO improvements in reserve, and certainly no pay raises. We would be stuck with what we have for YEARS in a negotiating stalemate while the company shrinks and bumps. So rather than waiting out those years at 15% above current contract, we would be stuck with the same reserve rules and no increase in pay. That's a HUGELY expensive mistake. Who knows, maybe the economy goes crazy over the next 3-5 years and we are able to extract more gains by waiting. That's the bet. Is the negotiating landscape going to be better or worse over that time period. I have my opinion....

 

Using accusations like "seat grab" is the same strain of divisive rhetoric the misguided ISL conspircacy types from CAL tend to use. All and all indicative that there is little to no unity in this pilot group. Not a winning formula for Section 6 esp given there is this alternative. Wish I felt differently.