I'm going to presume that you believe another union and/or a union with more balls wouldn't have given in as much. Looking around at all the concessionary contracts the industry has suffered since 2001 I wonder exactly how much less you think you could've lost.
Nobody seems to like their union when things are tough. Funny how that works.
You would presume wrong then and would be putting words in my mouth. How much less could have been lost? Plenty. The MC at UAL ALPA during the majority of the post 9/11 concessions outside of the last deal in 2005, was Paul Whiteford a furloughee from the last time UA furloughed back in 1978. He was closely aligned with a portion of the union leadership who really thought they could see eye-to-eye and get along with management equitably. His biggest claim to fame beyond his 'stellar' personality was that he achieved A fund furlough longevity credit for the 1978 furloughees along with any future furloughes-previous furloughees were left out. All he wanted was to protect the A fund, preferably at contract 2000 book rates. All other things, including not just furloughees and SJ limits, but pay, narrowbody work rules and rigs, guarantees, minimum fleet size, minimum pilot numbers and so on were a distant second to his goal. When even his committee people couldn't stand what he was doing, he just went around them. Most of UA's concessionary deals were negotiated without the use of the negotiating committee but instead with Whiteford and his handpicked helper. When the communication people couldn't deal with his garbage, he 'supplemented' them with an outside PR firm.
But that's all just more background stuff that illustrates how bad things were and doesn't answer your question as to what I think could/should have been done. First they(meaning the leadership and not the line peeps who by and large were more than willing), should have stepped up to the plate on helping out with COBRA funds like the other ALPA carriers did at the time. The attitude that MEC took on this issue along with the SJ/furlough grievance abeyances was a clear early indicator of where they were going with the furloughees.
Second they could have simply followed their own precedent. The last time UA furloughed people in violation of the contract, they settled those grievances by paying the affected pilots their salaries from when they were furloughed until ALPA settled the grievances and officially sanctioned the furlough. Most of the initial two groups of furlougees were on or just off probation, so they definitely could have used the $$$ along with longevity credit that was proposed and dropped after 'Economic Recovery Plan' I.
As for the rest, they could have just looked across the ALPA hallway at DAL. At the time, Delta and UAL's contract were extremely similar in many of the areas that were relevant here. The difference was that Delta fought their furloughee grievance and won a settlement that forced a recall schedule while UA ALPA
didn't even try once after Nov. 2001. They also didn't gut their SJ provisions outside of BK in a shameless attempt to sacrifice jobs for an A fund and the overall size of their current pilot group compared to pre-9/11 shows it compared to what happened at UAL.
Speaking of SJ's, UA ALPA drug their feet on ensuring that their furloughees got a shot at the jobs created by their ignorance of the contract limits. UA pilots were first furloughed at the end of Oct. 2001, yet it wasn't until late 2003-2004 before the first furloughees were hired into UAX carriers and to add insult to injury for the guys who had been out for 2 years they doled the positions out by seniority order. IOW the people who just hit the street got first crack at a limited # of positions, and often left them quickly for other jobs reducing the future job opportunities for nothing. I'm not blaming those guys for leaving, just saying that it wasn't negotiated well especially when you compare it to say the Jets-4-jobs program that a much weaker UsAirways negotiated back during those times.
Also, look at how bad the fcuked over the narrowbody pilots with not only the paycuts, but no rigs, a low guarantee, less min. days off, movable R-days, among other things. You seem to think that I believe that all of this was the result of United being ALPA. It wasn't. It was the result of incredibly poor leadership that had a great deal of complicity from several LEC's and a bunch of pilots who didn't get involved so another union wouldn't change that and I never suggested that it would. Pilot apathy aside though most of these things were the brainchild of ALPA reps, and as such ALPA cannot escape culpability here imo as several of these things should never have even been brought to a vote.
I
