If you think SWAPA has the juice in DC to actually move the needle on this issue, you are fooling yourself.
The waiver will pass. There are literally billions of dollars in tax revenue hanging in the balance.

Besides, this isn't an issue they have any levers to control. Our contract permits us to fly it and we are flying the same aircraft, only 25 seats longer. To say that the -7 is somehow different and needs an EICAS system would make us look like complete amateurs.

 

No decision is without risk, and they were willing to take that risk. There is a huge difference in a 1600 pilot operation Ind a 10,000 pilot operation. There is a point where the business model won’t work paying “X” in payroll and the only course is business closure.

 

Of course SWAPA doesn't have "the juice" to make much of a difference in DC. But SWAPA is spending our dues money and using our GAC members' time to attempt to solve a problem for the company and for Boeing. And we are getting nothing in return for our efforts.


As explained earlier, I agree that it will pass regardless of whatever SWAPA does to try to influence the process. So why are we expending our membership's resources on it when what we're doing will make little, if any, difference and we're getting nothing for our efforts?

So, again, what's in it for us to spend union money and time on an effort that SWAPA has virtually no control over? Is the company or Boeing compensating us in some way?

SWAPA doesn't need to say anything one way or another about the EICAS issue. SWAPA didn't create the problem. But SWAPA has taken it upon itself to try to "help" solve this particular problem. And similar to the -800 SL, we're offering our "help" to the company on a purely complimentary basis.

In the big scheme of things, it's not a huge deal. But it's just further evidence of our ham-handed approach to negotiations and trying to obtain an industry leading contract.

We're in Section 6, with the company stalling and dragging their feet. There are how many unresolved grievances? There are how many millions of dollars in "pay errors"? And here we are, Jonny-on-the-Spot, trying to "help" the company out of their own predicament.

 

We do not have the unity. You know it , I know it and the company knows it.

 

We do not have the unity. You know it , I know it and the company knows it.

38 percent will vote for whatever the company offers .

 

the union is there to protect and create pilot jobs. I believe they believe that lobbying to have the max 7 certificerboth saves and creates jobs.
not saying I agree one way or another but I thinks that's their prospective.
The good thing is we all have a voice via our reps.

 

Yes, I get that's how they're probably rationalizing it.

It's similar to the claims SWAPA made in favor of approving the -800 SL. Remember? Gary was gonna cancel the -800 order if we didn't agree to fly them for no extra pay. But, don't worry, Gary was gonna have our back down the road. How well has that worked out for us?

It's the principle of the thing: is it our job to help the company out of a predicament without us getting anything at all in return except, perhaps, I guess, a feeling that maybe someday the company might return the favor some way or other or that SWAPA might somehow be helping to save SWAPA jobs?

 

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.

 

Damn Lew. You are firing on all cylinders for sure. You put into concise words, everything I grasp at when I hear the stupid $#/π that comes out of "SNAPA 2.0" Why in the name of dog would "we" ever get into the politics of the Max debate? As has been said, we don't make a dent in this massive money/politics issue. I feel like I just woke up from a dream and I'm stumbling around the uniform shop wondering why everyone else is getting fitted with custom knee pads. I'm pretty sure that's not the way we get an industry leading contract. A special little hooker nickname maybe, but not a contract.