That was 1989, there was no provision to fly 400's nor was there a pay scale for it. The company had waited to the last minute thinking we would fly a shiny new airplane no matter. Rick was able to get the 570 seniority restored, even after we signed an agreement that said it would never be a subject of negotiations.There was a lot going on then, we were a unified pilot group, management was in disarray after the strike miscreants were fired, those were different times.

Rick knew leverage better than anyone else, but he also would say, (to paraphrase) "gather the chips when you can get them, say thank you, and tell them, now we want more."

Leverage today is far less than it was in the 80's. Given the notion of "too big to strike," and the legal blocks to job actions, there are fewer tools available. Nevertheless, the company always wants something, so negotiation are a continuous process. Section 6 is really a last century concept.

As one disinterested observer, it is fascinating to watch some of the revisionism here. My guess is 74% in favor, money has always trumped everything else. Predicting future gains is very risky, but it really doesn't matter which way this vote goes (until 1994 it would have already passed). No one will lose a job, retirement, or will the union's existence be threatened with B scales or RJ's. So, it is a quality decision, except for some politics by those maneuvering to be MEC Chair, this would be a non-event.

 

Thanks for the interesting post. I always enjoy hearing about these sort of things from guys who lived the events, so to speak.

 

Interesting then why Dubinsky opted for Section 6 and Contract 2000 instead of an extension.

 

I must have missed that an early contract extension was ever offered to Dubinsky....

 

No, you didn't miss it. The company knew not to make such a weak offer to Dubinsky.

 

Back then, we could pull off a debacle like the summer of 2000. And get a way with it. That ship has sailed. We will never be able to do that again.

So what leverage do we have now, exactly?

 

So, your last statement.

The MEC is abrogating their duty by allowing membership ratification? Sorry, and no offense, but that might be one of the weirdest statements I have read here.

You think it is better that the MEC dictate to us what we want and get, and never let us vote on anything? If they let us vote, they are abrogating their representational duty?

Maybe you mis-typed, or I mis-read.

Me? I think we should vote on just about everything. Most importantly, the top 3 MEC officers themselves, and ALPA national, should be voted in by us. Not their cronies, which is the way it works now.

 

Ah the summer of love!

 

it's been delineated repeatedly, but you can't see past 1.13.

 

We were already in section 6, management choose to ignore the pilots were due to recover concessions for the ESOP. We told them we were not going to pay for it twice. The pilots did not forget, and they were less than pleased during the summer of 2000. That was the leverage. It was the end of an era though, after that, management found they could run to the courts and take hostages for overt acts of pilot displeasure.

Dubinsky played Goodwin like a fiddle. When all was said and done, and the contract was about to be signed, he said, "Oh Jim, one more thing," remember that 1% increase we talked about for the B fund, and it was so. It was a great contract, but who could have guessed 911 was just around the corner.

We lost Dubinsky to politics when he was most needed, simply because the ants that populated the MEC at the time did not understand that personality is secondary to performance. The stakes were much higher then, as those furloughed will attest.

Pay is the one thing upon which everyone agrees they will benefit. I don't recall the pilots have ever given up pay to fix someone else's working conditions, but there is always hope.

No doubt, there is more going on with MEC politics than the line pilots will ever know, be careful who you believe.