Originally Posted by Lewbronski

At best, it does not help us move toward our ultimate goal of an industry-leading contract. I don't know how long you've been here, but the dynamics that played out behind this MOU are classic SWAPA 1.0 behavior.

Again, Casey stated, "Overwhelmingly, you replied that you had no interest in an MOU that was merely a one-time buy off unless the Company included Contract 2020 scheduling efficiencies." The gratitude pay MOU did not include any C2020 scheduling efficiencies. It was effectively a one-time buy-off called "gratitude pay."

The dynamic that concerns me most is that SWAPA says one thing like Casey said above. Then, when a little coin is dangled in front of our faces, we immediately drop our stated principles and change our tune. It's just like The Platform from the last contract cycle. The entire BOD and all of SWAPA's executives signed a bold letter promising that they wouldn't settle for less than The Platform. But then, when the company dangled a bit of bonus/retro payment, some mediocre rate raises, and a B-fund in front of our faces, SWAPA couldn't drop The Platform quickly enough and metamorphosed from play-acting the not-taking-sh**-from-no-one-fake-Texas rancher into a just-happy-to-have-a-job-at-SWA sellout.

That's what we've done at SWAPA since the 70's. This is just another data point confirming that we haven't truly deviated much from that trajectory. I'm sure it's reassuring to the company executives and their FH advisors.

This morning's ELITT glitch and the response of the BOD members who took advantage of it at the expense of their constituents is just one more small example of SWAPA's pretty gross history of compromising their principles for a little cash. Those reps basically told those who called them out on their behavior OTOF, "Who cares? You don't like it? Sue me." It just helps the company confirm to themselves that SWAPA is the same old SWAPA at heart.