No need to apologize, at least to me. Succinctness is not my strong suit.

The RLA is, by design, "a long and drawn out process." That is the territory. The fact that the RLA creates a landscape that requires a long journey in order to successfully navigate across it is not the source of the "general sense of failure" you speak of. "Long and drawn out" is the nature of the beast. The source of pilots repeatedly failing to achieve a "generational" contract and to claw back their contractual losses of the last two to three decades is pilots' impatience with the process combined with a refusal to educate themselves on the reality (versus the myths) of the process.

At its core, it's a tale as old as time. It's essentially the story of the tortoise and the hare. It's also sort of like what Ross Perot said, "Most people give up just when they're about to achieve success. They quit on the one yard line. They give up at the last minute of the game one foot from a winning touchdown." Pilots want to "get rick quick." And, in so doing, they end up losing.

Pilots have proven themselves to be fake alphas.

Nope. Almost 100% of the time, a pilot with seniority is not going to leave. Other than perhaps contributing to a toxic work environment, a pilot who feels undercompensated doesn't really cost the company much money. And money is truly the only thing the company cares about. They still show up for work. They don't cause airplanes to fall out of the sky.

A pilot with seniority could (emphasis on could) threaten the company's bottom line by using the legal process available to them to be viewed by the company as posing the credible threat of a legal strike if the their demands aren't satisfactorily met. Right now, SWA does not feel any kind of threat like that because they're aware of pilot psychology over the last 20-30 years. They're aware of how shortsightedly frail pilots have become. They're aware that despite how "alpha" pilots like to think of themselves, at the end of the day, pilots across the profession fold at the mere whiff of the possibility of a less than guaranteed outcome.

This isn't true according to those who know how the process works. In a 2016 speech, former NMB chariman Joshua Javits explained, "the use of [a] self-help strike" is "the most powerful threat [labor] can use against management." Albert Rees, a Princeton economist who served as an advisor to President Ford and co-authored a landmark labor study with George P. Shultz, described the strike as, "by far the most important source of union power" in his book The Economics of Trade Unions. In a 1964 RLA case, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit characterized the strike as "[letting] loose the full economic power" of labor. Javits reiterated in a 2016 paper he published that "the employment of self-help - or its credible threat - is the most direct way to achieve a CBA."

The "real power" in contract negotiations conducted under the RLA in America is the credible threat of a legal strike. To whatever degree a pilot shortage may exist at the major airline level comes into play in making it more difficult for managers to successfully carry out one of their historically successful strike-breaking strategies: hiring scabs. In that sense, if there's a pilot shortage, it helps to amplify the credible threat of a legal strike by denying to them or severely mitigating the leverage of one of their most effective strike-breaking tools.

Pressure/threats/lists not having influence on you speaks mainly to SWAPA's (and the profession's) almost entirely ineffectual and lazy communications efforts. I've said it before, they absolutely suck at communications. To me, what is probably the most critical component of communications within a campaign like SWAPA is engaged in right now is education. SWAPA get's an F- on that component of communications. They need to be sent to remedial intensive summer school.

This is a red herring. This emphasizes the idea that an impaired ability to attract new hires vis a vis a substandard contract is a powerful form of leverage. It's not. It is leverage but it's fairly weak. As far as education goes, see above.

I agree that the messaging needs to be different. The messaging now is weak and incoherent. It seems to be focused on a sort of "angertainment." There's little emphasis on what can really be done about the company's repeated exploitation of our current contract and the pilot group. Instead, it seems like SWAPA balks at doing much more than point the finger at the company and play the victim. I thought pilots were supposed to be self-starters who take personal responsibility for their lives. It's clear to me based on the late filing for mediation and the hesitancy to conduct a SAV ostensibly because of the voodooish rationalization that "100% of our pilots aren't wearing lanyards" that SWAPA itself really has little idea of how the RLA works and how the game needs to be played in order to leverage what experts in organized labor assert is our most powerful weapon.

Yep. And a possible pilot shortage that might or might not affect SWA's ability to attract new hires isn't going to do that much to improve my checkbook nor my quality of life when it comes to securing a better contract. The credible threat of a legal strike and an actual legal strike definitely threaten SWA's revenue and therefore, its share price.

This statement leaves little doubt in my mind that you're either working for the company in some capacity and/or are a ghoul who is opposed in principle for some reason to organized labor. You know and I know that fully leveraging the RLA in the form of posing the credible threat of a legal strike is rarely a "fast" course of action. Taking the "fast" deal is almost always a win for management and results in long-term loss for labor. Management fears a labor group that is wise enough to take the slow road via the RLA so that they can leverage the threat of posing an existential threat to the company.

Again, encouraging labor to take the "fast" route, which, unfortunately, is simply not how the RLA typically plays out if labor is going to produce any kind of significant gains (the glaring exception being the recent railroad dispute that entered and exited mediation in only 4.5 months).

The cost to the company of high attrition with a substandard pilot contract is small compared to the cost to the company of passengers booking away from SWA in droves in the face of a looming strike and the potentially complete cessation of operating revenue if a SWA pilot strike shuts down the entire operation for X days or weeks. That kind of leverage usually only matures after two to three solid years in mediation though there have been several cases over the years of disputes being released from mediation in less than 18 months.