CNN article *sponsored by FordHarrison
05-03-2023, 11:01 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,210
CNN article *sponsored by FordHarrison
FordHarrison seems to be alive and well in this negotiating cycle. Below is an article that bears all the hallmarks of a FordHarrison product placement on the CNN Business site. It's apparently an attempt to weave FordHarrison's paid-for narrative into the news cycle in order to blunt the booking away of passengers that may occur in reaction to the SAV's at AA and SWA. I wonder what CNN's price may have been or what the behind-closed-doors quid pro quo may have looked like?
Why you don’t have to worry about a US airline strike disrupting your summer travel plans
New York
CNN
—
American Airlines pilots voted to go on strike Monday. Southwest pilots are holding a strike vote as well. But none of those union members will be allowed to go on strike anytime soon — if at all — under the labor law that applies to airline workers.
This is definitely true in the case of American Airlines, which hasn't even filed for mediation yet. A strike is impossible under the RLA until the process of mediation has played out. It's also true that it's unlikely, though not impossible, that SWA will be allowed to strike until the second half of next year, at the earliest, because of the time in mediation factors that I've posted about before..
That law is the Railway Labor Act, which, despite the name, covers both rail workers and airline employees. Those are two of the most heavily unionized US industries, and the law places considerable hurdles in the way of any union that wants to strike. The pilots have cleared exactly zero of those hurdles so far.
It's true that the American pilots have cleared none of the regulatory hurdles required to be released to self help yet. However, SWAPA, by entering mediation, has cleared the first and lowest hurdle..
If federally mediated union negotiations reach an impasse, a union can be given permission to strike. But the law allows the president to step in at the last moment and order workers to stay on the job for a months-long “cooling off periods” while a presidential panel comes up with recommendations as to how to settle the deadlock.
The President can, by establishing a Presidential Emergency Board, delay a strike by 60 days. So, technically, yes, that's "months-long," but just barely. Neither side can be forced to accept the recommendations of the PEB. If either side declines the proposed terms of the PEB's settlement plan, then they are released to self-help at the expiration of the PEB..
If the two sides can’t reach a deal during that cooling off period, the union could then go on strike — but only if Congress stays on the sideline and allows the strike to take place. But it’s possible that Congress would act to block a strike. That’s what happened with the freight railroads last December when Congress imposed a contract on the angry rail unions to keep the railroads operating.
It is here that apparent ghostwriter FordHarrison is truly attempting to manipulate the discussion. They seem to be trying to plant the idea that, because Congress intervened in the railroad dispute, they will, ergo, intervene in any possible SWA or AA strike. In reality, that argument is a non sequitur.
The fact of the matter is there is no certainty that Congress will intervene to stop a SWAPA strike. Certainly, Congress can, after the RLA process is completed, intervene in a labor dispute. If they do that, it is called a “Post-PEB Congressional Intervention.” It is accomplished entirely outside of the RLA. For Congress to intervene, they have to pass special legislation to do whatever they dream up to handle the dispute in question: extend the status quo period, impose a settlement, or something else. They can be as creative as they want to be. Like any other law, it requires both houses of Congress and the President to sign off on it for it to become effective.
There is no mandate that Congress intervene in a labor dispute. In fact, Congress has never intervened in an airline dispute. That doesn’t mean they won’t. But to date, they never have. In the nearly 100-year history of the RLA, Congress has intervened only 19 times. To lend some context to that, there have been 250 PEB's in the history of the RLA. The latest intervention was an episode we are all familiar with, having just occurred at the end of last year with the national coalition of freight railroad unions. Prior to that, the last time Congress intervened was in 1994, when it extended the status quo period in a dispute involving the Soo Line Railroad.
Why has Congress thus far intervened exclusively in railroad disputes? It's important to understand that when freight rail unions bargain, they do so as a massive bloc of unions at all major freight rail companies. They term this "national handling." It's similar to if all the pilot unions, all the flight attendant unions, all the maintainers' unions, all the ramp unions, etc at The Big 3, SWA, Spirit, and JetBlue all banded together to negotiate their contracts and all honored each other's picket lines.
Former Chief Counsel of the Federal Transit Administration and former Senior Counsel for the Union Pacific Railroad, John Brennan III, explains: "[that] Congress has acted in the past to end nationwide rail shutdowns is out of concern that a work stoppage so adversely affects the nation’s economy and military defense capabilities that one cannot be tolerated." Last year's freight railroad dispute, for example, involved 12 railroad unions comprising 110,000 workers. Had they gone on strike, the entire national freight railroad system would have gone down. Towns would have not been able to treat their drinking water. Gas stations would have started running out of gas for your car. Coal-fired power plants would have begun running low on coal. And on and on and on. There is no real viable alternative to the national freight railroad system. Trucking is reportedly already maxed out. Air cargo can't handle the volume nor the types of cargo that travel by rail. Had the railroad unions struck, the economy, already snarled by supply chain issues, would have ground to a halt.
If the pilots strike at an individual airline, even one of the Big 3, it only takes that one airline down. In terms of the threat to interstate commerce posed by one single airline being forced to halt operations due to a strike compared to the threat of all American rail freight traffic coming to a standstill because of a strike (and also a good chunk of rail passenger traffic since the freight rail companies own much of the trackage the passenger rail trains operate on), there really is no comparison. A rail freight shut down is orders of magnitude more significant to the national economy than a single airline shut-down.
The effect of an airline strike is also blunted by the fact that passengers begin booking away from an airline in the run-up to a strike. Business and leisure travelers begin finding ways to accomplish their travels on other carriers. Well before an airline strike begins, this book away phenomena blunts the effect of the possible strike on interstate commerce. A SWA strike, for example, would have nowhere near the impact on passengers' travel plans that SWA's Christmas meltdown had because for the 30-90 days prior to a possible strike, passengers would have had plenty of time to book away from SWA. A SWAPA strike would not come as any kind of a surprise to travelers the way that the meltdown did.
The significance of the hit to commerce is further reduced by competing airlines adding capacity to routes flown by a struck carrier in an attempt to gain market share and increase revenue during a competitor's strike. In the 1998 NWA pilots' strike, for example, American began adding lift to abandoned NWA domestic routes and JAL did the same on some of NWA's international routes. This even further mitigates the impact on interstate commerce of a single airline strike.
For all of the above reasons: 1) the repercussions to the economy of an airline strike are dramatically less than the entire national freight rail system suspending operations, 2) what effect one airline striking does have on commerce is weakened in advance of the strike by passengers booking away on other carriers, and 3) other airlines rush in to fill the void left behind by the struck carrier during a strike. All of these factors make it significantly less likely, though not impossible, that Congress would intervene in an airline strike.
In the case of a railroad strike, there really is no viable "book away" alternative. Where can freight rail customers turn to book their freight? There are no competing rail lines or trucking operations or air cargo services with the ability and excess capacity to step in and fill the void of a freight railroad strike because they cannot match the capabilities of rail freight and/or are already operating at full tilt.
Because so much of our economy depends on the freight rail system, to have the entire national rail freight network taken out by striking workers is something that is a much, much bigger deal to the economy than a single airline going down. That's a headache and hassle for that airline's customers, but it's not paralyzing to the entire economy.
Uncertainty is what gives labor leverage even in the face of a possible congressional intervention after the RLA process is completed. Congress may or may not intervene. But, the truth is no one knows for sure: A) whether Congress will act, and B) if they do act, how they will act. Congress could elect to impose a contract that sides with labor. They could do the opposite. They could simply extend the status quo period as they did when they intervened in 1994.
Depending on the political climate at the time of a possible congressional intervention, Congress may not be able to whip up the votes to pass any legislation at all. Even if they are able to get the votes needed, as indicated above, that legislation could just as easily favor labor as it might favor management. Does management want to take that risk when they aren’t guaranteed a favorable outcome? As Brennan and Railway Age contributing editor Frank Wilner described last summer regarding some of the aspects of the uncertainty around a possible congressional intervention in the freight railroad dispute, "... any one of 535 members of Congress, each skilled in the dark arts of politics, can slow or halt the process by opposing even a single word in a proposed back-to-work order, or by offering an amendment—such as a requirement for two-person crews assigned to the locomotive cab. Absent [unanimous consent], the congressional process—and a nationwide rail shutdown—could extend for weeks."
Management will be facing the uncertainty of whether Congress will act and, if they do, how they will act, all the way through the build up to a release from mediation and then, all the way through the 30-day cooling off period and 60-day PEB.
Along with management, SWA customers will not know for certain if Congress will step in to save the day for them or not. As a result, during that entire time, in the words of Acting Director, NMB Office of Mediation Services, John Livingood, “passengers with today's technology and access to reservation systems have the potential, en masse, to immediately reschedule their flights to try to avoid possible disruptions to their travel plans, thereby causing a potentially substantial loss of revenue/business that precedes the PEB, its report, or the potential for any work stoppage.”
Especially in the case of an impending airline strike, if there’s a chance of a particular airline going on strike in X days or Y weeks, news stories will circulate reporting on that risk. Airline unions can help to amplify that risk in the public’s mind with picketing and press relations. Even if some members of Congress are suggesting that an intervention may occur to head off a possible strike, passengers will still book away from that airline so as to avoid the possibility of their travel plans being spoiled if Congress doesn’t intervene and a strike actually does end up occurring. Will potential SWA customers be so certain that Congress will intervene in a strike that may occur that they will continue buying tickets on SWA for weddings, important business meetings, graduations, and other important life events when they could just as easily purchase their tickets on a competing carrier?
If your son's or daughter's wedding was scheduled for immediately after SWAPA's 30-day cooling off period or it's PEB expiring in a big SWA city with lots of SWA flights between your city and their wedding location, would you be so certain that Congress would thwart a SWAPA strike that you'd go ahead and buy tickets on SWA for you and all of your attending family members as your one and only avenue for attending your son's or daughter's big day? If your answer is no, why not? If your answer is yes, do you honestly think most of the traveling public would embrace your same mindset?
Does management want to take the loss of revenue and the brand injury that may occur during 90+ days of passengers booking away? Do they want to take the chance that Congress won't intervene? Do they want to take the chance that Congress might write into law a more costly contract than they anticipated or a contract that hamstrings them in ways they did not expect?
The recent railroad unions' dispute helps illustrate another reason why the threat of a congressional intervention is not the RLA-as-leverage killer that some people attempt to portray it as. While Congress can intervene, senators and representatives are loathe to actually come out and state that they will intervene or propose legislation to do so until very late in the game. For example, even in this most recent case of the potential national freight railway strike that posed a geometrically more serious threat to the nation's livelihood and national security concerns than a strike at SWA would pose, GOP senators Burr and Wicker didn’t even introduce a resolution to block the rail unions' strike until day 56 of the 60-day PEB process. Then, however, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont objected to their resolution, forcing it to meet a 60-vote threshold for passage in the Senate, effectively killing the resolution until two-and-a-half months after the PEB ended.
All of this boils down to the fact that there will always be so much uncertainty around whether or not Congress will intervene, up until the moment a bill is signed into law, that airline unions still retain tremendous leverage in the face of a possible congressional intervention.
A congressional intervention can occur but to insinuate that it therefore removes leverage from unions under the RLA is a Chicken Little way to neuter yourself because a congressional intervention, if it occurs at all, will never be a certainty until very late in the game, after or almost after the near entirety of the RLA process has been played out to exhaustion..
Why pilots voted to strike
This doesn’t mean that the airline unions and their members aren’t serious about going on strike if given the chance. Most airline employees have gone years without pay raises, and they have endured extremely difficult working conditions during the pandemic.
Many unions have had members participate in informational pickets at major airports, at American pilots did Monday.
“Membership has spoken. We will strike if necessary to secure the industry-leading contract that our pilots have earned and deserve,” said Capt. Ed Sicher, president of the Allied Pilots Association, the union that represents American pilots. “Our pilots’ resolve is unmistakable. We will not be deterred from our goal.”
A history of airline strikes
There have been airline strikes in the past, but because of the hurdle, they are very rare and generally with relatively small carriers.
Spirit Airlines pilots struck for a week in 2010, but the airline was much smaller then - with only about 1% of domestic air traffic at that time.
The last time a major airline was grounded by a strike was 25 years ago when Northwest Airlines pilots went on strike for two weeks. Northwest was then the fourth largest US airline, but back then there was far less consolidation in the industry.
Since 1998, the 11 largest US airlines have merged to become the four largest carriers today, including Southwest and American. Those two, along with Delta and United, carry 80% of US air traffic between them.
Why a strike is unlikely
It’s unlikely that Congress would allow any of the four major carriers to go on strike. When Southwest had a service meltdown over the holidays that forced it to ground more than half its scheduled flights, it sparked a Congressional hearing to look into the problem.
This was a very different scenario, as described above, than if SWAPA were to strike. The Christmas meltdown occurred without any warning and resulted from management malfeasance. There were questions as to the way management treated passengers and as to what management did with all the bailout funds they had been given. A strike under the RLA, by contrast, is preceded by 30-90 days of warning to the general public that the airline may go on strike. And it is entirely legal and ethical, as opposed to any laws or ethical boundaries that may have been violated by SWA management in the way they handled recompensing affected passengers and in the way they spent public bailout funds they were granted by Congress..
And strike votes, in and of themselves, don’t mean that a union is going to go on strike.
Strike votes are a common negotiating tactic taken during talks. They virtually always pass by an overwhelming margin. But most negotiations are settled, even after a strike vote, without a work stoppage. Delta’s pilots approved a strike vote last year, and quickly reached a lucrative deal that gave them a 34% average raise.
American and Southwest both said this week that they are not particularly concerned about the strike vote by its pilots.
Of course they said that. And American's exec's said it with good reason due to the lack of a filing for mediation from APA..
The Southwest Airlines Pilots Association’s “authorization vote will not affect Southwest’s operation or our ability to take care of our customers,” said Adam Carlisle, vice president of labor relations at Southwest. “Our negotiations continue, with talks resuming this week, and we’ll keep working … to reach an agreement that rewards our pilots.”
This is coming from the same management team that produced the Christmas meltdown. If we do not capitulate and sell ourselves short again, then it's very likely that, unless SWA moves dramatically toward SWAPA's demands, the SAV be part of a process that ends up impacting SWA's ability to take care of its customers..
“We remain confident that an agreement for our pilots is within reach and can be finalized quickly. The finish line is in sight,” said American spokesperson Curtis Blessing. “We understand that a strike authorization vote is one of the important ways pilots express their desire to get a deal done and we respect the message of voting results.”
Why you don’t have to worry about a US airline strike disrupting your summer travel plans
New York
CNN
—
American Airlines pilots voted to go on strike Monday. Southwest pilots are holding a strike vote as well. But none of those union members will be allowed to go on strike anytime soon — if at all — under the labor law that applies to airline workers.
This is definitely true in the case of American Airlines, which hasn't even filed for mediation yet. A strike is impossible under the RLA until the process of mediation has played out. It's also true that it's unlikely, though not impossible, that SWA will be allowed to strike until the second half of next year, at the earliest, because of the time in mediation factors that I've posted about before.
That law is the Railway Labor Act, which, despite the name, covers both rail workers and airline employees. Those are two of the most heavily unionized US industries, and the law places considerable hurdles in the way of any union that wants to strike. The pilots have cleared exactly zero of those hurdles so far.
It's true that the American pilots have cleared none of the regulatory hurdles required to be released to self help yet. However, SWAPA, by entering mediation, has cleared the first and lowest hurdle.
If federally mediated union negotiations reach an impasse, a union can be given permission to strike. But the law allows the president to step in at the last moment and order workers to stay on the job for a months-long “cooling off periods” while a presidential panel comes up with recommendations as to how to settle the deadlock.
The President can, by establishing a Presidential Emergency Board, delay a strike by 60 days. So, technically, yes, that's "months-long," but just barely. Neither side can be forced to accept the recommendations of the PEB. If either side declines the proposed terms of the PEB's settlement plan, then they are released to self-help at the expiration of the PEB.
If the two sides can’t reach a deal during that cooling off period, the union could then go on strike — but only if Congress stays on the sideline and allows the strike to take place. But it’s possible that Congress would act to block a strike. That’s what happened with the freight railroads last December when Congress imposed a contract on the angry rail unions to keep the railroads operating.
It is here that apparent ghostwriter FordHarrison is truly attempting to manipulate the discussion. They seem to be trying to plant the idea that, because Congress intervened in the railroad dispute, they will, ergo, intervene in any possible SWA or AA strike. In reality, that argument is a non sequitur.
The fact of the matter is there is no certainty that Congress will intervene to stop a SWAPA strike. Certainly, Congress can, after the RLA process is completed, intervene in a labor dispute. If they do that, it is called a “Post-PEB Congressional Intervention.” It is accomplished entirely outside of the RLA. For Congress to intervene, they have to pass special legislation to do whatever they dream up to handle the dispute in question: extend the status quo period, impose a settlement, or something else. They can be as creative as they want to be. Like any other law, it requires both houses of Congress and the President to sign off on it for it to become effective.
There is no mandate that Congress intervene in a labor dispute. In fact, Congress has never intervened in an airline dispute. That doesn’t mean they won’t. But to date, they never have. In the nearly 100-year history of the RLA, Congress has intervened only 19 times. To lend some context to that, there have been 250 PEB's in the history of the RLA. The latest intervention was an episode we are all familiar with, having just occurred at the end of last year with the national coalition of freight railroad unions. Prior to that, the last time Congress intervened was in 1994, when it extended the status quo period in a dispute involving the Soo Line Railroad.
Why has Congress thus far intervened exclusively in railroad disputes? It's important to understand that when freight rail unions bargain, they do so as a massive bloc of unions at all major freight rail companies. They term this "national handling." It's similar to if all the pilot unions, all the flight attendant unions, all the maintainers' unions, all the ramp unions, etc at The Big 3, SWA, Spirit, and JetBlue all banded together to negotiate their contracts and all honored each other's picket lines.
Former Chief Counsel of the Federal Transit Administration and former Senior Counsel for the Union Pacific Railroad, John Brennan III, explains: "[that] Congress has acted in the past to end nationwide rail shutdowns is out of concern that a work stoppage so adversely affects the nation’s economy and military defense capabilities that one cannot be tolerated." Last year's freight railroad dispute, for example, involved 12 railroad unions comprising 110,000 workers. Had they gone on strike, the entire national freight railroad system would have gone down. Towns would have not been able to treat their drinking water. Gas stations would have started running out of gas for your car. Coal-fired power plants would have begun running low on coal. And on and on and on. There is no real viable alternative to the national freight railroad system. Trucking is reportedly already maxed out. Air cargo can't handle the volume nor the types of cargo that travel by rail. Had the railroad unions struck, the economy, already snarled by supply chain issues, would have ground to a halt.
If the pilots strike at an individual airline, even one of the Big 3, it only takes that one airline down. In terms of the threat to interstate commerce posed by one single airline being forced to halt operations due to a strike compared to the threat of all American rail freight traffic coming to a standstill because of a strike (and also a good chunk of rail passenger traffic since the freight rail companies own much of the trackage the passenger rail trains operate on), there really is no comparison. A rail freight shut down is orders of magnitude more significant to the national economy than a single airline shut-down.
The effect of an airline strike is also blunted by the fact that passengers begin booking away from an airline in the run-up to a strike. Business and leisure travelers begin finding ways to accomplish their travels on other carriers. Well before an airline strike begins, this book away phenomena blunts the effect of the possible strike on interstate commerce. A SWA strike, for example, would have nowhere near the impact on passengers' travel plans that SWA's Christmas meltdown had because for the 30-90 days prior to a possible strike, passengers would have had plenty of time to book away from SWA. A SWAPA strike would not come as any kind of a surprise to travelers the way that the meltdown did.
The significance of the hit to commerce is further reduced by competing airlines adding capacity to routes flown by a struck carrier in an attempt to gain market share and increase revenue during a competitor's strike. In the 1998 NWA pilots' strike, for example, American began adding lift to abandoned NWA domestic routes and JAL did the same on some of NWA's international routes. This even further mitigates the impact on interstate commerce of a single airline strike.
For all of the above reasons: 1) the repercussions to the economy of an airline strike are dramatically less than the entire national freight rail system suspending operations, 2) what effect one airline striking does have on commerce is weakened in advance of the strike by passengers booking away on other carriers, and 3) other airlines rush in to fill the void left behind by the struck carrier during a strike. All of these factors make it significantly less likely, though not impossible, that Congress would intervene in an airline strike.
In the case of a railroad strike, there really is no viable "book away" alternative. Where can freight rail customers turn to book their freight? There are no competing rail lines or trucking operations or air cargo services with the ability and excess capacity to step in and fill the void of a freight railroad strike because they cannot match the capabilities of rail freight and/or are already operating at full tilt.
Because so much of our economy depends on the freight rail system, to have the entire national rail freight network taken out by striking workers is something that is a much, much bigger deal to the economy than a single airline going down. That's a headache and hassle for that airline's customers, but it's not paralyzing to the entire economy.
Uncertainty is what gives labor leverage even in the face of a possible congressional intervention after the RLA process is completed. Congress may or may not intervene. But, the truth is no one knows for sure: A) whether Congress will act, and B) if they do act, how they will act. Congress could elect to impose a contract that sides with labor. They could do the opposite. They could simply extend the status quo period as they did when they intervened in 1994.
Depending on the political climate at the time of a possible congressional intervention, Congress may not be able to whip up the votes to pass any legislation at all. Even if they are able to get the votes needed, as indicated above, that legislation could just as easily favor labor as it might favor management. Does management want to take that risk when they aren’t guaranteed a favorable outcome? As Brennan and Railway Age contributing editor Frank Wilner described last summer regarding some of the aspects of the uncertainty around a possible congressional intervention in the freight railroad dispute, "... any one of 535 members of Congress, each skilled in the dark arts of politics, can slow or halt the process by opposing even a single word in a proposed back-to-work order, or by offering an amendment—such as a requirement for two-person crews assigned to the locomotive cab. Absent [unanimous consent], the congressional process—and a nationwide rail shutdown—could extend for weeks."
Management will be facing the uncertainty of whether Congress will act and, if they do, how they will act, all the way through the build up to a release from mediation and then, all the way through the 30-day cooling off period and 60-day PEB.
Along with management, SWA customers will not know for certain if Congress will step in to save the day for them or not. As a result, during that entire time, in the words of Acting Director, NMB Office of Mediation Services, John Livingood, “passengers with today's technology and access to reservation systems have the potential, en masse, to immediately reschedule their flights to try to avoid possible disruptions to their travel plans, thereby causing a potentially substantial loss of revenue/business that precedes the PEB, its report, or the potential for any work stoppage.”
Especially in the case of an impending airline strike, if there’s a chance of a particular airline going on strike in X days or Y weeks, news stories will circulate reporting on that risk. Airline unions can help to amplify that risk in the public’s mind with picketing and press relations. Even if some members of Congress are suggesting that an intervention may occur to head off a possible strike, passengers will still book away from that airline so as to avoid the possibility of their travel plans being spoiled if Congress doesn’t intervene and a strike actually does end up occurring. Will potential SWA customers be so certain that Congress will intervene in a strike that may occur that they will continue buying tickets on SWA for weddings, important business meetings, graduations, and other important life events when they could just as easily purchase their tickets on a competing carrier?
If your son's or daughter's wedding was scheduled for immediately after SWAPA's 30-day cooling off period or it's PEB expiring in a big SWA city with lots of SWA flights between your city and their wedding location, would you be so certain that Congress would thwart a SWAPA strike that you'd go ahead and buy tickets on SWA for you and all of your attending family members as your one and only avenue for attending your son's or daughter's big day? If your answer is no, why not? If your answer is yes, do you honestly think most of the traveling public would embrace your same mindset?
Does management want to take the loss of revenue and the brand injury that may occur during 90+ days of passengers booking away? Do they want to take the chance that Congress won't intervene? Do they want to take the chance that Congress might write into law a more costly contract than they anticipated or a contract that hamstrings them in ways they did not expect?
The recent railroad unions' dispute helps illustrate another reason why the threat of a congressional intervention is not the RLA-as-leverage killer that some people attempt to portray it as. While Congress can intervene, senators and representatives are loathe to actually come out and state that they will intervene or propose legislation to do so until very late in the game. For example, even in this most recent case of the potential national freight railway strike that posed a geometrically more serious threat to the nation's livelihood and national security concerns than a strike at SWA would pose, GOP senators Burr and Wicker didn’t even introduce a resolution to block the rail unions' strike until day 56 of the 60-day PEB process. Then, however, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont objected to their resolution, forcing it to meet a 60-vote threshold for passage in the Senate, effectively killing the resolution until two-and-a-half months after the PEB ended.
All of this boils down to the fact that there will always be so much uncertainty around whether or not Congress will intervene, up until the moment a bill is signed into law, that airline unions still retain tremendous leverage in the face of a possible congressional intervention.
A congressional intervention can occur but to insinuate that it therefore removes leverage from unions under the RLA is a Chicken Little way to neuter yourself because a congressional intervention, if it occurs at all, will never be a certainty until very late in the game, after or almost after the near entirety of the RLA process has been played out to exhaustion.
Why pilots voted to strike
This doesn’t mean that the airline unions and their members aren’t serious about going on strike if given the chance. Most airline employees have gone years without pay raises, and they have endured extremely difficult working conditions during the pandemic.
Many unions have had members participate in informational pickets at major airports, at American pilots did Monday.
“Membership has spoken. We will strike if necessary to secure the industry-leading contract that our pilots have earned and deserve,” said Capt. Ed Sicher, president of the Allied Pilots Association, the union that represents American pilots. “Our pilots’ resolve is unmistakable. We will not be deterred from our goal.”
A history of airline strikes
There have been airline strikes in the past, but because of the hurdle, they are very rare and generally with relatively small carriers.
Spirit Airlines pilots struck for a week in 2010, but the airline was much smaller then - with only about 1% of domestic air traffic at that time.
The last time a major airline was grounded by a strike was 25 years ago when Northwest Airlines pilots went on strike for two weeks. Northwest was then the fourth largest US airline, but back then there was far less consolidation in the industry.
Since 1998, the 11 largest US airlines have merged to become the four largest carriers today, including Southwest and American. Those two, along with Delta and United, carry 80% of US air traffic between them.
Why a strike is unlikely
It’s unlikely that Congress would allow any of the four major carriers to go on strike. When Southwest had a service meltdown over the holidays that forced it to ground more than half its scheduled flights, it sparked a Congressional hearing to look into the problem.
This was a very different scenario, as described above, than if SWAPA were to strike. The Christmas meltdown occurred without any warning and resulted from management malfeasance. There were questions as to the way management treated passengers and as to what management did with all the bailout funds they had been given. A strike under the RLA, by contrast, is preceded by 30-90 days of warning to the general public that the airline may go on strike. And it is entirely legal and ethical, as opposed to any laws or ethical boundaries that may have been violated by SWA management in the way they handled recompensing affected passengers and in the way they spent public bailout funds they were granted by Congress.
And strike votes, in and of themselves, don’t mean that a union is going to go on strike.
Strike votes are a common negotiating tactic taken during talks. They virtually always pass by an overwhelming margin. But most negotiations are settled, even after a strike vote, without a work stoppage. Delta’s pilots approved a strike vote last year, and quickly reached a lucrative deal that gave them a 34% average raise.
American and Southwest both said this week that they are not particularly concerned about the strike vote by its pilots.
Of course they said that. And American's exec's said it with good reason due to the lack of a filing for mediation from APA.
The Southwest Airlines Pilots Association’s “authorization vote will not affect Southwest’s operation or our ability to take care of our customers,” said Adam Carlisle, vice president of labor relations at Southwest. “Our negotiations continue, with talks resuming this week, and we’ll keep working … to reach an agreement that rewards our pilots.”
This is coming from the same management team that produced the Christmas meltdown. If we do not capitulate and sell ourselves short again, then it's very likely that, unless SWA moves dramatically toward SWAPA's demands, the SAV be part of a process that ends up impacting SWA's ability to take care of its customers.
“We remain confident that an agreement for our pilots is within reach and can be finalized quickly. The finish line is in sight,” said American spokesperson Curtis Blessing. “We understand that a strike authorization vote is one of the important ways pilots express their desire to get a deal done and we respect the message of voting results.”
05-03-2023, 11:21 PM
#2
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2023
Posts: 78
Originally Posted by Lewbronski
FordHarrison seems to be alive and well in this negotiating cycle. Below is an article that bears all the hallmarks of a FordHarrison product placement on the CNN Business site. It's apparently an attempt to weave FordHarrison's paid-for narrative into the news cycle in order to blunt the booking away of passengers that may occur in reaction to the SAV's at AA and SWA. I wonder what CNN's price may have been or what the behind-closed-doors quid pro quo may have looked like?
Why you don’t have to worry about a US airline strike disrupting your summer travel plans
New York
CNN
—
American Airlines pilots voted to go on strike Monday. Southwest pilots are holding a strike vote as well. But none of those union members will be allowed to go on strike anytime soon — if at all — under the labor law that applies to airline workers.
This is definitely true in the case of American Airlines, which hasn't even filed for mediation yet. A strike is impossible under the RLA until the process of mediation has played out. It's also true that it's unlikely, though not impossible, that SWA will be allowed to strike until the second half of next year, at the earliest, because of the time in mediation factors that I've posted about before..
That law is the Railway Labor Act, which, despite the name, covers both rail workers and airline employees. Those are two of the most heavily unionized US industries, and the law places considerable hurdles in the way of any union that wants to strike. The pilots have cleared exactly zero of those hurdles so far.
It's true that the American pilots have cleared none of the regulatory hurdles required to be released to self help yet. However, SWAPA, by entering mediation, has cleared the first and lowest hurdle..
If federally mediated union negotiations reach an impasse, a union can be given permission to strike. But the law allows the president to step in at the last moment and order workers to stay on the job for a months-long “cooling off periods” while a presidential panel comes up with recommendations as to how to settle the deadlock.
The President can, by establishing a Presidential Emergency Board, delay a strike by 60 days. So, technically, yes, that's "months-long," but just barely. Neither side can be forced to accept the recommendations of the PEB. If either side declines the proposed terms of the PEB's settlement plan, then they are released to self-help at the expiration of the PEB..
If the two sides can’t reach a deal during that cooling off period, the union could then go on strike — but only if Congress stays on the sideline and allows the strike to take place. But it’s possible that Congress would act to block a strike. That’s what happened with the freight railroads last December when Congress imposed a contract on the angry rail unions to keep the railroads operating.
It is here that apparent ghostwriter FordHarrison is truly attempting to manipulate the discussion. They seem to be trying to plant the idea that, because Congress intervened in the railroad dispute, they will, ergo, intervene in any possible SWA or AA strike. In reality, that argument is a non sequitur.
The fact of the matter is there is no certainty that Congress will intervene to stop a SWAPA strike. Certainly, Congress can, after the RLA process is completed, intervene in a labor dispute. If they do that, it is called a “Post-PEB Congressional Intervention.” It is accomplished entirely outside of the RLA. For Congress to intervene, they have to pass special legislation to do whatever they dream up to handle the dispute in question: extend the status quo period, impose a settlement, or something else. They can be as creative as they want to be. Like any other law, it requires both houses of Congress and the President to sign off on it for it to become effective.
There is no mandate that Congress intervene in a labor dispute. In fact, Congress has never intervened in an airline dispute. That doesn’t mean they won’t. But to date, they never have. In the nearly 100-year history of the RLA, Congress has intervened only 19 times. To lend some context to that, there have been 250 PEB's in the history of the RLA. The latest intervention was an episode we are all familiar with, having just occurred at the end of last year with the national coalition of freight railroad unions. Prior to that, the last time Congress intervened was in 1994, when it extended the status quo period in a dispute involving the Soo Line Railroad.
Why has Congress thus far intervened exclusively in railroad disputes? It's important to understand that when freight rail unions bargain, they do so as a massive bloc of unions at all major freight rail companies. They term this "national handling." It's similar to if all the pilot unions, all the flight attendant unions, all the maintainers' unions, all the ramp unions, etc at The Big 3, SWA, Spirit, and JetBlue all banded together to negotiate their contracts and all honored each other's picket lines.
Former Chief Counsel of the Federal Transit Administration and former Senior Counsel for the Union Pacific Railroad, John Brennan III, explains: "[that] Congress has acted in the past to end nationwide rail shutdowns is out of concern that a work stoppage so adversely affects the nation’s economy and military defense capabilities that one cannot be tolerated." Last year's freight railroad dispute, for example, involved 12 railroad unions comprising 110,000 workers. Had they gone on strike, the entire national freight railroad system would have gone down. Towns would have not been able to treat their drinking water. Gas stations would have started running out of gas for your car. Coal-fired power plants would have begun running low on coal. And on and on and on. There is no real viable alternative to the national freight railroad system. Trucking is reportedly already maxed out. Air cargo can't handle the volume nor the types of cargo that travel by rail. Had the railroad unions struck, the economy, already snarled by supply chain issues, would have ground to a halt.
If the pilots strike at an individual airline, even one of the Big 3, it only takes that one airline down. In terms of the threat to interstate commerce posed by one single airline being forced to halt operations due to a strike compared to the threat of all American rail freight traffic coming to a standstill because of a strike (and also a good chunk of rail passenger traffic since the freight rail companies own much of the trackage the passenger rail trains operate on), there really is no comparison. A rail freight shut down is orders of magnitude more significant to the national economy than a single airline shut-down.
The effect of an airline strike is also blunted by the fact that passengers begin booking away from an airline in the run-up to a strike. Business and leisure travelers begin finding ways to accomplish their travels on other carriers. Well before an airline strike begins, this book away phenomena blunts the effect of the possible strike on interstate commerce. A SWA strike, for example, would have nowhere near the impact on passengers' travel plans that SWA's Christmas meltdown had because for the 30-90 days prior to a possible strike, passengers would have had plenty of time to book away from SWA. A SWAPA strike would not come as any kind of a surprise to travelers the way that the meltdown did.
The significance of the hit to commerce is further reduced by competing airlines adding capacity to routes flown by a struck carrier in an attempt to gain market share and increase revenue during a competitor's strike. In the 1998 NWA pilots' strike, for example, American began adding lift to abandoned NWA domestic routes and JAL did the same on some of NWA's international routes. This even further mitigates the impact on interstate commerce of a single airline strike.
For all of the above reasons: 1) the repercussions to the economy of an airline strike are dramatically less than the entire national freight rail system suspending operations, 2) what effect one airline striking does have on commerce is weakened in advance of the strike by passengers booking away on other carriers, and 3) other airlines rush in to fill the void left behind by the struck carrier during a strike. All of these factors make it significantly less likely, though not impossible, that Congress would intervene in an airline strike.
In the case of a railroad strike, there really is no viable "book away" alternative. Where can freight rail customers turn to book their freight? There are no competing rail lines or trucking operations or air cargo services with the ability and excess capacity to step in and fill the void of a freight railroad strike because they cannot match the capabilities of rail freight and/or are already operating at full tilt.
Because so much of our economy depends on the freight rail system, to have the entire national rail freight network taken out by striking workers is something that is a much, much bigger deal to the economy than a single airline going down. That's a headache and hassle for that airline's customers, but it's not paralyzing to the entire economy.
Uncertainty is what gives labor leverage even in the face of a possible congressional intervention after the RLA process is completed. Congress may or may not intervene. But, the truth is no one knows for sure: A) whether Congress will act, and B) if they do act, how they will act. Congress could elect to impose a contract that sides with labor. They could do the opposite. They could simply extend the status quo period as they did when they intervened in 1994.
Depending on the political climate at the time of a possible congressional intervention, Congress may not be able to whip up the votes to pass any legislation at all. Even if they are able to get the votes needed, as indicated above, that legislation could just as easily favor labor as it might favor management. Does management want to take that risk when they aren’t guaranteed a favorable outcome? As Brennan and Railway Age contributing editor Frank Wilner described last summer regarding some of the aspects of the uncertainty around a possible congressional intervention in the freight railroad dispute, "... any one of 535 members of Congress, each skilled in the dark arts of politics, can slow or halt the process by opposing even a single word in a proposed back-to-work order, or by offering an amendment—such as a requirement for two-person crews assigned to the locomotive cab. Absent [unanimous consent], the congressional process—and a nationwide rail shutdown—could extend for weeks."
Management will be facing the uncertainty of whether Congress will act and, if they do, how they will act, all the way through the build up to a release from mediation and then, all the way through the 30-day cooling off period and 60-day PEB.
Along with management, SWA customers will not know for certain if Congress will step in to save the day for them or not. As a result, during that entire time, in the words of Acting Director, NMB Office of Mediation Services, John Livingood, “passengers with today's technology and access to reservation systems have the potential, en masse, to immediately reschedule their flights to try to avoid possible disruptions to their travel plans, thereby causing a potentially substantial loss of revenue/business that precedes the PEB, its report, or the potential for any work stoppage.”
Especially in the case of an impending airline strike, if there’s a chance of a particular airline going on strike in X days or Y weeks, news stories will circulate reporting on that risk. Airline unions can help to amplify that risk in the public’s mind with picketing and press relations. Even if some members of Congress are suggesting that an intervention may occur to head off a possible strike, passengers will still book away from that airline so as to avoid the possibility of their travel plans being spoiled if Congress doesn’t intervene and a strike actually does end up occurring. Will potential SWA customers be so certain that Congress will intervene in a strike that may occur that they will continue buying tickets on SWA for weddings, important business meetings, graduations, and other important life events when they could just as easily purchase their tickets on a competing carrier?
If your son's or daughter's wedding was scheduled for immediately after SWAPA's 30-day cooling off period or it's PEB expiring in a big SWA city with lots of SWA flights between your city and their wedding location, would you be so certain that Congress would thwart a SWAPA strike that you'd go ahead and buy tickets on SWA for you and all of your attending family members as your one and only avenue for attending your son's or daughter's big day? If your answer is no, why not? If your answer is yes, do you honestly think most of the traveling public would embrace your same mindset?
Does management want to take the loss of revenue and the brand injury that may occur during 90+ days of passengers booking away? Do they want to take the chance that Congress won't intervene? Do they want to take the chance that Congress might write into law a more costly contract than they anticipated or a contract that hamstrings them in ways they did not expect?
The recent railroad unions' dispute helps illustrate another reason why the threat of a congressional intervention is not the RLA-as-leverage killer that some people attempt to portray it as. While Congress can intervene, senators and representatives are loathe to actually come out and state that they will intervene or propose legislation to do so until very late in the game. For example, even in this most recent case of the potential national freight railway strike that posed a geometrically more serious threat to the nation's livelihood and national security concerns than a strike at SWA would pose, GOP senators Burr and Wicker didn’t even introduce a resolution to block the rail unions' strike until day 56 of the 60-day PEB process. Then, however, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont objected to their resolution, forcing it to meet a 60-vote threshold for passage in the Senate, effectively killing the resolution until two-and-a-half months after the PEB ended.
All of this boils down to the fact that there will always be so much uncertainty around whether or not Congress will intervene, up until the moment a bill is signed into law, that airline unions still retain tremendous leverage in the face of a possible congressional intervention.
A congressional intervention can occur but to insinuate that it therefore removes leverage from unions under the RLA is a Chicken Little way to neuter yourself because a congressional intervention, if it occurs at all, will never be a certainty until very late in the game, after or almost after the near entirety of the RLA process has been played out to exhaustion..
Why pilots voted to strike
This doesn’t mean that the airline unions and their members aren’t serious about going on strike if given the chance. Most airline employees have gone years without pay raises, and they have endured extremely difficult working conditions during the pandemic.
Many unions have had members participate in informational pickets at major airports, at American pilots did Monday.
“Membership has spoken. We will strike if necessary to secure the industry-leading contract that our pilots have earned and deserve,” said Capt. Ed Sicher, president of the Allied Pilots Association, the union that represents American pilots. “Our pilots’ resolve is unmistakable. We will not be deterred from our goal.”
A history of airline strikes
There have been airline strikes in the past, but because of the hurdle, they are very rare and generally with relatively small carriers.
Spirit Airlines pilots struck for a week in 2010, but the airline was much smaller then - with only about 1% of domestic air traffic at that time.
The last time a major airline was grounded by a strike was 25 years ago when Northwest Airlines pilots went on strike for two weeks. Northwest was then the fourth largest US airline, but back then there was far less consolidation in the industry.
Since 1998, the 11 largest US airlines have merged to become the four largest carriers today, including Southwest and American. Those two, along with Delta and United, carry 80% of US air traffic between them.
Why a strike is unlikely
It’s unlikely that Congress would allow any of the four major carriers to go on strike. When Southwest had a service meltdown over the holidays that forced it to ground more than half its scheduled flights, it sparked a Congressional hearing to look into the problem.
This was a very different scenario, as described above, than if SWAPA were to strike. The Christmas meltdown occurred without any warning and resulted from management malfeasance. There were questions as to the way management treated passengers and as to what management did with all the bailout funds they had been given. A strike under the RLA, by contrast, is preceded by 30-90 days of warning to the general public that the airline may go on strike. And it is entirely legal and ethical, as opposed to any laws or ethical boundaries that may have been violated by SWA management in the way they handled recompensing affected passengers and in the way they spent public bailout funds they were granted by Congress..
And strike votes, in and of themselves, don’t mean that a union is going to go on strike.
Strike votes are a common negotiating tactic taken during talks. They virtually always pass by an overwhelming margin. But most negotiations are settled, even after a strike vote, without a work stoppage. Delta’s pilots approved a strike vote last year, and quickly reached a lucrative deal that gave them a 34% average raise.
American and Southwest both said this week that they are not particularly concerned about the strike vote by its pilots.
Of course they said that. And American's exec's said it with good reason due to the lack of a filing for mediation from APA..
The Southwest Airlines Pilots Association’s “authorization vote will not affect Southwest’s operation or our ability to take care of our customers,” said Adam Carlisle, vice president of labor relations at Southwest. “Our negotiations continue, with talks resuming this week, and we’ll keep working … to reach an agreement that rewards our pilots.”
This is coming from the same management team that produced the Christmas meltdown. If we do not capitulate and sell ourselves short again, then it's very likely that, unless SWA moves dramatically toward SWAPA's demands, the SAV be part of a process that ends up impacting SWA's ability to take care of its customers..
“We remain confident that an agreement for our pilots is within reach and can be finalized quickly. The finish line is in sight,” said American spokesperson Curtis Blessing. “We understand that a strike authorization vote is one of the important ways pilots express their desire to get a deal done and we respect the message of voting results.”
Why you don’t have to worry about a US airline strike disrupting your summer travel plans
New York
CNN
—
American Airlines pilots voted to go on strike Monday. Southwest pilots are holding a strike vote as well. But none of those union members will be allowed to go on strike anytime soon — if at all — under the labor law that applies to airline workers.
This is definitely true in the case of American Airlines, which hasn't even filed for mediation yet. A strike is impossible under the RLA until the process of mediation has played out. It's also true that it's unlikely, though not impossible, that SWA will be allowed to strike until the second half of next year, at the earliest, because of the time in mediation factors that I've posted about before.
That law is the Railway Labor Act, which, despite the name, covers both rail workers and airline employees. Those are two of the most heavily unionized US industries, and the law places considerable hurdles in the way of any union that wants to strike. The pilots have cleared exactly zero of those hurdles so far.
It's true that the American pilots have cleared none of the regulatory hurdles required to be released to self help yet. However, SWAPA, by entering mediation, has cleared the first and lowest hurdle.
If federally mediated union negotiations reach an impasse, a union can be given permission to strike. But the law allows the president to step in at the last moment and order workers to stay on the job for a months-long “cooling off periods” while a presidential panel comes up with recommendations as to how to settle the deadlock.
The President can, by establishing a Presidential Emergency Board, delay a strike by 60 days. So, technically, yes, that's "months-long," but just barely. Neither side can be forced to accept the recommendations of the PEB. If either side declines the proposed terms of the PEB's settlement plan, then they are released to self-help at the expiration of the PEB.
If the two sides can’t reach a deal during that cooling off period, the union could then go on strike — but only if Congress stays on the sideline and allows the strike to take place. But it’s possible that Congress would act to block a strike. That’s what happened with the freight railroads last December when Congress imposed a contract on the angry rail unions to keep the railroads operating.
It is here that apparent ghostwriter FordHarrison is truly attempting to manipulate the discussion. They seem to be trying to plant the idea that, because Congress intervened in the railroad dispute, they will, ergo, intervene in any possible SWA or AA strike. In reality, that argument is a non sequitur.
The fact of the matter is there is no certainty that Congress will intervene to stop a SWAPA strike. Certainly, Congress can, after the RLA process is completed, intervene in a labor dispute. If they do that, it is called a “Post-PEB Congressional Intervention.” It is accomplished entirely outside of the RLA. For Congress to intervene, they have to pass special legislation to do whatever they dream up to handle the dispute in question: extend the status quo period, impose a settlement, or something else. They can be as creative as they want to be. Like any other law, it requires both houses of Congress and the President to sign off on it for it to become effective.
There is no mandate that Congress intervene in a labor dispute. In fact, Congress has never intervened in an airline dispute. That doesn’t mean they won’t. But to date, they never have. In the nearly 100-year history of the RLA, Congress has intervened only 19 times. To lend some context to that, there have been 250 PEB's in the history of the RLA. The latest intervention was an episode we are all familiar with, having just occurred at the end of last year with the national coalition of freight railroad unions. Prior to that, the last time Congress intervened was in 1994, when it extended the status quo period in a dispute involving the Soo Line Railroad.
Why has Congress thus far intervened exclusively in railroad disputes? It's important to understand that when freight rail unions bargain, they do so as a massive bloc of unions at all major freight rail companies. They term this "national handling." It's similar to if all the pilot unions, all the flight attendant unions, all the maintainers' unions, all the ramp unions, etc at The Big 3, SWA, Spirit, and JetBlue all banded together to negotiate their contracts and all honored each other's picket lines.
Former Chief Counsel of the Federal Transit Administration and former Senior Counsel for the Union Pacific Railroad, John Brennan III, explains: "[that] Congress has acted in the past to end nationwide rail shutdowns is out of concern that a work stoppage so adversely affects the nation’s economy and military defense capabilities that one cannot be tolerated." Last year's freight railroad dispute, for example, involved 12 railroad unions comprising 110,000 workers. Had they gone on strike, the entire national freight railroad system would have gone down. Towns would have not been able to treat their drinking water. Gas stations would have started running out of gas for your car. Coal-fired power plants would have begun running low on coal. And on and on and on. There is no real viable alternative to the national freight railroad system. Trucking is reportedly already maxed out. Air cargo can't handle the volume nor the types of cargo that travel by rail. Had the railroad unions struck, the economy, already snarled by supply chain issues, would have ground to a halt.
If the pilots strike at an individual airline, even one of the Big 3, it only takes that one airline down. In terms of the threat to interstate commerce posed by one single airline being forced to halt operations due to a strike compared to the threat of all American rail freight traffic coming to a standstill because of a strike (and also a good chunk of rail passenger traffic since the freight rail companies own much of the trackage the passenger rail trains operate on), there really is no comparison. A rail freight shut down is orders of magnitude more significant to the national economy than a single airline shut-down.
The effect of an airline strike is also blunted by the fact that passengers begin booking away from an airline in the run-up to a strike. Business and leisure travelers begin finding ways to accomplish their travels on other carriers. Well before an airline strike begins, this book away phenomena blunts the effect of the possible strike on interstate commerce. A SWA strike, for example, would have nowhere near the impact on passengers' travel plans that SWA's Christmas meltdown had because for the 30-90 days prior to a possible strike, passengers would have had plenty of time to book away from SWA. A SWAPA strike would not come as any kind of a surprise to travelers the way that the meltdown did.
The significance of the hit to commerce is further reduced by competing airlines adding capacity to routes flown by a struck carrier in an attempt to gain market share and increase revenue during a competitor's strike. In the 1998 NWA pilots' strike, for example, American began adding lift to abandoned NWA domestic routes and JAL did the same on some of NWA's international routes. This even further mitigates the impact on interstate commerce of a single airline strike.
For all of the above reasons: 1) the repercussions to the economy of an airline strike are dramatically less than the entire national freight rail system suspending operations, 2) what effect one airline striking does have on commerce is weakened in advance of the strike by passengers booking away on other carriers, and 3) other airlines rush in to fill the void left behind by the struck carrier during a strike. All of these factors make it significantly less likely, though not impossible, that Congress would intervene in an airline strike.
In the case of a railroad strike, there really is no viable "book away" alternative. Where can freight rail customers turn to book their freight? There are no competing rail lines or trucking operations or air cargo services with the ability and excess capacity to step in and fill the void of a freight railroad strike because they cannot match the capabilities of rail freight and/or are already operating at full tilt.
Because so much of our economy depends on the freight rail system, to have the entire national rail freight network taken out by striking workers is something that is a much, much bigger deal to the economy than a single airline going down. That's a headache and hassle for that airline's customers, but it's not paralyzing to the entire economy.
Uncertainty is what gives labor leverage even in the face of a possible congressional intervention after the RLA process is completed. Congress may or may not intervene. But, the truth is no one knows for sure: A) whether Congress will act, and B) if they do act, how they will act. Congress could elect to impose a contract that sides with labor. They could do the opposite. They could simply extend the status quo period as they did when they intervened in 1994.
Depending on the political climate at the time of a possible congressional intervention, Congress may not be able to whip up the votes to pass any legislation at all. Even if they are able to get the votes needed, as indicated above, that legislation could just as easily favor labor as it might favor management. Does management want to take that risk when they aren’t guaranteed a favorable outcome? As Brennan and Railway Age contributing editor Frank Wilner described last summer regarding some of the aspects of the uncertainty around a possible congressional intervention in the freight railroad dispute, "... any one of 535 members of Congress, each skilled in the dark arts of politics, can slow or halt the process by opposing even a single word in a proposed back-to-work order, or by offering an amendment—such as a requirement for two-person crews assigned to the locomotive cab. Absent [unanimous consent], the congressional process—and a nationwide rail shutdown—could extend for weeks."
Management will be facing the uncertainty of whether Congress will act and, if they do, how they will act, all the way through the build up to a release from mediation and then, all the way through the 30-day cooling off period and 60-day PEB.
Along with management, SWA customers will not know for certain if Congress will step in to save the day for them or not. As a result, during that entire time, in the words of Acting Director, NMB Office of Mediation Services, John Livingood, “passengers with today's technology and access to reservation systems have the potential, en masse, to immediately reschedule their flights to try to avoid possible disruptions to their travel plans, thereby causing a potentially substantial loss of revenue/business that precedes the PEB, its report, or the potential for any work stoppage.”
Especially in the case of an impending airline strike, if there’s a chance of a particular airline going on strike in X days or Y weeks, news stories will circulate reporting on that risk. Airline unions can help to amplify that risk in the public’s mind with picketing and press relations. Even if some members of Congress are suggesting that an intervention may occur to head off a possible strike, passengers will still book away from that airline so as to avoid the possibility of their travel plans being spoiled if Congress doesn’t intervene and a strike actually does end up occurring. Will potential SWA customers be so certain that Congress will intervene in a strike that may occur that they will continue buying tickets on SWA for weddings, important business meetings, graduations, and other important life events when they could just as easily purchase their tickets on a competing carrier?
If your son's or daughter's wedding was scheduled for immediately after SWAPA's 30-day cooling off period or it's PEB expiring in a big SWA city with lots of SWA flights between your city and their wedding location, would you be so certain that Congress would thwart a SWAPA strike that you'd go ahead and buy tickets on SWA for you and all of your attending family members as your one and only avenue for attending your son's or daughter's big day? If your answer is no, why not? If your answer is yes, do you honestly think most of the traveling public would embrace your same mindset?
Does management want to take the loss of revenue and the brand injury that may occur during 90+ days of passengers booking away? Do they want to take the chance that Congress won't intervene? Do they want to take the chance that Congress might write into law a more costly contract than they anticipated or a contract that hamstrings them in ways they did not expect?
The recent railroad unions' dispute helps illustrate another reason why the threat of a congressional intervention is not the RLA-as-leverage killer that some people attempt to portray it as. While Congress can intervene, senators and representatives are loathe to actually come out and state that they will intervene or propose legislation to do so until very late in the game. For example, even in this most recent case of the potential national freight railway strike that posed a geometrically more serious threat to the nation's livelihood and national security concerns than a strike at SWA would pose, GOP senators Burr and Wicker didn’t even introduce a resolution to block the rail unions' strike until day 56 of the 60-day PEB process. Then, however, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont objected to their resolution, forcing it to meet a 60-vote threshold for passage in the Senate, effectively killing the resolution until two-and-a-half months after the PEB ended.
All of this boils down to the fact that there will always be so much uncertainty around whether or not Congress will intervene, up until the moment a bill is signed into law, that airline unions still retain tremendous leverage in the face of a possible congressional intervention.
A congressional intervention can occur but to insinuate that it therefore removes leverage from unions under the RLA is a Chicken Little way to neuter yourself because a congressional intervention, if it occurs at all, will never be a certainty until very late in the game, after or almost after the near entirety of the RLA process has been played out to exhaustion.
Why pilots voted to strike
This doesn’t mean that the airline unions and their members aren’t serious about going on strike if given the chance. Most airline employees have gone years without pay raises, and they have endured extremely difficult working conditions during the pandemic.
Many unions have had members participate in informational pickets at major airports, at American pilots did Monday.
“Membership has spoken. We will strike if necessary to secure the industry-leading contract that our pilots have earned and deserve,” said Capt. Ed Sicher, president of the Allied Pilots Association, the union that represents American pilots. “Our pilots’ resolve is unmistakable. We will not be deterred from our goal.”
A history of airline strikes
There have been airline strikes in the past, but because of the hurdle, they are very rare and generally with relatively small carriers.
Spirit Airlines pilots struck for a week in 2010, but the airline was much smaller then - with only about 1% of domestic air traffic at that time.
The last time a major airline was grounded by a strike was 25 years ago when Northwest Airlines pilots went on strike for two weeks. Northwest was then the fourth largest US airline, but back then there was far less consolidation in the industry.
Since 1998, the 11 largest US airlines have merged to become the four largest carriers today, including Southwest and American. Those two, along with Delta and United, carry 80% of US air traffic between them.
Why a strike is unlikely
It’s unlikely that Congress would allow any of the four major carriers to go on strike. When Southwest had a service meltdown over the holidays that forced it to ground more than half its scheduled flights, it sparked a Congressional hearing to look into the problem.
This was a very different scenario, as described above, than if SWAPA were to strike. The Christmas meltdown occurred without any warning and resulted from management malfeasance. There were questions as to the way management treated passengers and as to what management did with all the bailout funds they had been given. A strike under the RLA, by contrast, is preceded by 30-90 days of warning to the general public that the airline may go on strike. And it is entirely legal and ethical, as opposed to any laws or ethical boundaries that may have been violated by SWA management in the way they handled recompensing affected passengers and in the way they spent public bailout funds they were granted by Congress.
And strike votes, in and of themselves, don’t mean that a union is going to go on strike.
Strike votes are a common negotiating tactic taken during talks. They virtually always pass by an overwhelming margin. But most negotiations are settled, even after a strike vote, without a work stoppage. Delta’s pilots approved a strike vote last year, and quickly reached a lucrative deal that gave them a 34% average raise.
American and Southwest both said this week that they are not particularly concerned about the strike vote by its pilots.
Of course they said that. And American's exec's said it with good reason due to the lack of a filing for mediation from APA.
The Southwest Airlines Pilots Association’s “authorization vote will not affect Southwest’s operation or our ability to take care of our customers,” said Adam Carlisle, vice president of labor relations at Southwest. “Our negotiations continue, with talks resuming this week, and we’ll keep working … to reach an agreement that rewards our pilots.”
This is coming from the same management team that produced the Christmas meltdown. If we do not capitulate and sell ourselves short again, then it's very likely that, unless SWA moves dramatically toward SWAPA's demands, the SAV be part of a process that ends up impacting SWA's ability to take care of its customers.
“We remain confident that an agreement for our pilots is within reach and can be finalized quickly. The finish line is in sight,” said American spokesperson Curtis Blessing. “We understand that a strike authorization vote is one of the important ways pilots express their desire to get a deal done and we respect the message of voting results.”
05-03-2023, 11:31 PM
#3
READY TO STRIKE
Joined APC: Jul 2015
Position: 737
Posts: 330
Excellent post, as usual.
One additional caveat about the difference between a potential strike within the next 18 months and the railroad strike of last December: we have a split congress.
Of course it is politically feasible that bipartisan support will manifest itself across both houses of congress and extend itself to the president, but especially as we near an election, that feasibility becomes less and less likely.
One additional caveat about the difference between a potential strike within the next 18 months and the railroad strike of last December: we have a split congress.
Of course it is politically feasible that bipartisan support will manifest itself across both houses of congress and extend itself to the president, but especially as we near an election, that feasibility becomes less and less likely.
05-04-2023, 02:44 AM
#4
Gets Weekend Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,150
Good writeup Lew.
I agree with Waterski... no way Congress gets involved. Frankly, I could MAYBE see a PEB happening,, but no way Congress gets involved in any airline dispute. We are talking single carriers, not the entire industry. But I'm of the opinion that it'll be the Wall Street and the institutional investors that will say "Enough. Let's settle."
I agree with Waterski... no way Congress gets involved. Frankly, I could MAYBE see a PEB happening,, but no way Congress gets involved in any airline dispute. We are talking single carriers, not the entire industry. But I'm of the opinion that it'll be the Wall Street and the institutional investors that will say "Enough. Let's settle."
05-04-2023, 03:37 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2022
Position: pilot
Posts: 138
Lew - just a small point - if FH had paid for that content, CNN would have labeled it as such. It's part of their policy.
Doesn't mean they weren't a background source, though.
I'm pulling for you guys and hope you get everything you want.
Doesn't mean they weren't a background source, though.
I'm pulling for you guys and hope you get everything you want.
05-04-2023, 03:38 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Position: DOWNGRADE COMPLETE: Thanks Gary. Thanks SWAPA.
Posts: 5,954
Originally Posted by RJSAviator76
Good writeup Lew.
I agree with Waterski... no way Congress gets involved. Frankly, I could MAYBE see a PEB happening,, but no way Congress gets involved in any airline dispute. We are talking single carriers, not the entire industry. But I'm of the opinion that it'll be the Wall Street and the institutional investors that will say "Enough. Let's settle."
I agree with Waterski... no way Congress gets involved. Frankly, I could MAYBE see a PEB happening,, but no way Congress gets involved in any airline dispute. We are talking single carriers, not the entire industry. But I'm of the opinion that it'll be the Wall Street and the institutional investors that will say "Enough. Let's settle."
Btw, how are you guys able to reply without having to quote somebody with this new format?
05-04-2023, 04:14 AM
#7
READY TO STRIKE
Joined APC: Jul 2015
Position: 737
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by WHACKMASTER
With how p!ssed the gubment is at SWA right now, at least there was something positive that came out of the meltdown.
Btw, how are you guys able to reply without having to quote somebody with this new format?
Btw, how are you guys able to reply without having to quote somebody with this new format?
05-04-2023, 07:44 AM
#8
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2018
Posts: 41
Originally Posted by killbilly
Lew - just a small point - if FH had paid for that content, CNN would have labeled it as such. It's part of their policy.
Doesn't mean they weren't a background source, though.
I'm pulling for you guys and hope you get everything you want.
Doesn't mean they weren't a background source, though.
I'm pulling for you guys and hope you get everything you want.
Spoiler
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
