Originally Posted by
e6bpilot
Show me on the doll where SWAPA hurt you.
I get it, the 800 SL, not achieving the platform, age 65, yadda yadda yadda.
The union you have now is so different from that union, it may as well be completely new.
SWAPA is charged with representing the pilots. The vast majority of the seniority list will benefit greatly from the Max 7 being approved as is. If the union went negative on it and it isn't approved as is, it will be totally and completely out of the union's control, kind of like it is now. That isn't leverage, it's spite for the sake of spite.
It's the same as pooping where you eat by saying that your airline has safety and maintenance issues so don't buy tickets there. In the end, it's counter productive to your goals even though it hurts the company in the meantime.
Leverage is when you hold something that the other party wants and you use it in negotiation. We had it with the Max last contract, we had it with the 800 and ****ed it away, and we have it now with the current pilot economy.
Where do you get the idea that I, or anyone else, is advocating going "negative on it"?
SWAPA doesn't need to say anything about the EICAS issue.
Again, it's the principle of trying to "help" solve a problem for the company without getting anything in return. It's pretty simple. It's basic unioning 101 sort of stuff.
While SWAPA today is better than SWAPA ten years ago, that's not saying very much at all. They're still making elementary blunders in the present from the relatively small - like this - or the big - like failing to file for mediation for more than two years. While we're no longer "SWAPA 1.0," we're pretty far from being a true "SWAPA 2.0." We're more like a SWAPA 1.2.