Originally Posted by
Prospect
Glad to see not everyone on here is irrational.
Look, I'm not saying we don't deserve a large raise or to fix items in our contract. I'm saying asking for $600/tfp is just silly, unrealistic, and not what SWAPA is trying for, so I don't understand why Lew makes post after long post arguing for it. I'm also tired of the whiny people on here acting like our work rules are the worst in every way, when I pay 0 a month for excellent healthcare. We should fight to be the highest paid NB pilots with the best work rules. Much more than that is going to kill the golden goose and is frankly a waste of time.
I wrote out a detailed reply to your concerns about my (one) post illustrating what kinds of rates it would take to achieve a 30% premium on Delta's career compensation at ten years. I cited the RLA and RLA case law and referred to you an even more detailed thread on the issue with more supporting information.
Your reply to all of that? Not a rational refutation of my argument but, instead, an ad hominem attack using terms like "silly" and "unrealistic." I gave you actual RLA examples, adjudicated by federal courts, of unions demanding terms even more "silly" and "unrealistic" than if SWAPA were to demand $600/TFP. And you had nothing - zero - to counter with besides name-calling and labeling.
You said I made "post after long post" about $600/TFP when, in reality, I made one. And I wasn't "arguing for it," I was citing it as an example of what it would take to attain a 30% premium at ten years on Delta's career compensation. That's called a strawman: you attempted to turn what I said into something I didn't say in order to make it easier for you to attack with your ad hominems.
Then you turned your rant into the red herring of "whiny people on here" who aren't appreciative enough of the company you've worked eight whole months for.
And then, worst of all, IMO, you unironcially threw down the "golden goose" argument without having any idea how much baggage is associated with that here at SWA. Unless you're auditioning for a project pilot position at the GO, uttering that term while attempting to have a serious conversation is immediately discrediting and makes you sound beyond naive.
Originally Posted by
Prospect
Yeah, I hope you guys are right and SWAPA all the sudden starts fighting for $600/tfp, the company agrees to it, and it doesn't destroy the company's ability to turn a profit. If living in the reality that none of that will happen is "self defeating" then yes, in guilty. I'll be happy with industry leading pay and work rules. You guys seem like you want to form a mob and burn those that disagree with your wild claims at the stake, repeatedly acting like those that disagree with you are the enemy and must be horrible people. It's sad.
Please produce your financial analysis that shows $600/TFP will destroy the company's ability to turn a profit. What 12-year captain rate is the threshold between profitability and unprofitability at SWA? Please show your work. Cite your sources. Let's see your spreadsheet.
What is the difference, in your assessment, between claims in this contract cycle between "wild claims" and rational, acceptable claims? Lay it out. Let's hear the confines of the conversation you'd prefer us to have.
And the person I hear more than anyone in this conversation name-calling, ad-homineming, and attempting to make others (like myself) appear to be out of touch and "horrible" is yourself.