Hey fella,
Get a loved one to read the interaction and trust them when they tell you that you need to calm down. Nobody is “suing you”, dude. It was a humorous way of saying that you are making outrageous claims that are obviously not true. I’m not happy with some of the known contractual agreements so far. I’m expressing it and that’s okay. Yes, it’s things that I’ve confirmed with my reps. However, what I was really attempting to communicate, but got too fancy with the delivery, is that I suspect that I might be on a merry-go-round. I suppose that the human nature that I’m witnessing, the arguments made, the actions of both union and company, are the same show every ten years or so. It’s my first contract, as mentioned above. I could be wrong but right now I’m believing it. That was my intended message in my post. Disagree if you want. That’s okay. However, find someone else to be your whipping boy. I’m supposing that you’ve got anger problems. That’s not something that I’m interested in dealing with and it’s something that won’t be kind to your own life either. Yes, I find that spectacularly unimpressive.

 

ya, sure. Tell that to airline managers. The numbers don’t lie.

 

Indeed (speaking from experience).

🔥👇

 

aren't the FA's doing a revote. Maybe they weren't standing tall

 

In the very, very unlikely event we made it all the way to a strike, the real issue is: how many of our own pilots and how many outside pilots would come in and scab at SWA for a strike lasting a few hours to a couple of weeks? How many guys would work struck SWA work for a few hours or a couple of weeks in exchange for a lifetime on the scab list?

That's where pilot market dynamics come into play. If the company can break a strike with scabs in this environment, then we ought to settle ASAP. If they can't, then we ought to push forward. Somebody once said, "If it doesn't go until the last couple of days of a Presidential Emergency Board, we're leaving money on the table."

 

Don't know if it was "original" or not, but Tom N made that claim on Dec 12, 2023 while speaking to two upgrade classes at Empire Central. In that same discussion he told the room that the work that done was "an 11 out of 10."



OH yeah, some union reps have vigorously claimed recently that there is no SWAPA "sales job," and aggressivly attacks anyone who dares to doubt or show any skeptisism based on historical precedent from multiple boards who may or may not have all said the SAME WORDS! Well despite the stated position of certain union reps, the union sales pitch started last week!

"I trust them. They've been doing the work. They know better than me. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me ...," are the types of comments that stem from union functionaries telling people what a great product they have and how everybody else will regret leaving. The result is unengaged, apathetic, uneducated voters!

Those are the same type of voters who told me that they voted for the last contract cause "Weaks was voting yes." And now that contract that 84% LOVED in 2016 is raked over the coals daily by the majority of our group due to its deficiencies.

PEOPLE, THINK FOR YOURSELF. "SWAPA SPEAKS FOR ME" IS LAZY AND PROMOTES A MINDSET OF APATHY.
KNOW YOUR WORTH.
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.
DO NOT TRUST ANYBODY ELSE'S SUBJECTIVE DETERMINIATION OF HOW GOOD THE CONTRACT IS FOR YOU!
ANYBODY WHO TELLS YOU THAT THEY'RE NOT SELLING YOU ANYTHING IS SELLING YOU SOMETHING!

 

NEGATIVE!!!!!!!!!!!

 

We're not fighting the NMB! We're fighting for a contract that we believe is equal to our value to SWA. The company doesn't set what I'm worth, the NMB doesn't set what I'm worth, and the market doesn't set what I'm worth either. WE set our own worth and rate with our vote!

"Industry leading" is subjective. The NMB doesn't dictate nor work with any regard to "industry..." ANYTHING. They're only job is to get a deal done. PERIOD.

The NMB does NOT hold power over you for eternity, regardless of how it may feel, or what they may say. The Surpeme Court has already ruled on that! Besides, if the SWAPA sales job, which is already in full swing, is to be believed, the company is NOT basking in the NMBs favor these days!

 

OR, is it possible that they have learned their value and know that the company can't easily replace 20,000 of them on a whim if and when they move down the RLA path?

Nobody seems to consider the possibility that the company may need a deal done worse than the labor groups here.

They MAY very well end up worse. They also may very well end up better if/when the company puts a couple cherries on top just to get it to pass, at the cost of a couple months.

It's POSSIBLE, but fear, uncertainty, and doubt are much easier mindsets to peddle. FUD makes decisions, and the resolve needed for some decisions, much easier handle!

 

The NMB doesn't have any authority to force us to accept any rates or work rules we don't want to accept. The only power they have is a limited power over the clock - with an emphasis on the word "limited." They can not "park" us or "ice" us forever. Yes, of course, they want all of us to believe they can. Haven't you heard the quotes about the NMB's "blarney" and "hoomalimali"? The NMB tries to scare us into thinking we can never get released. And we usually believe them.

Here's the blarney quote for those who haven't read it before:
Here's more FACTUAL information about reasonableness under the RLA (courtesy of Lew in this thread), rather than opinion about what you think the NMB might do:

In a 1971 RLA case (Chicago & North Western Railway Co. v. United Transportation Union, 402 U.S. 570 (1971)) that was heard before the Supreme Court that considered issues of reasonableness, the majority stated:

The Supreme Court is saying that, when it comes down to it, it's not the NMB that determines what is reasonable if that is in question. It is the courts that determine what is reasonable in RLA disputes. Had DL's NC stuck to its guns and maintained that its demands were, in fact, reasonable, then it would have left DL management in the position of deciding to move toward the DL NC's position or not. Eventually, if neither side is moving toward the other's positions and both sides have satisfied the statutory requirements of reasonability by showing up for mediation sessions and demonstrating an openness to and a desire to come to an agreement, then if an agreement cannot be reached, the two sides are at an impasse.

Since the courts, not the NMB, are the arbiters of reasonability in RLA cases, what is considered reasonable bargaining under the RLA according to them? Maybe the best way to communicate the thrust of how the courts have opined on the issue is to simply list quotes from a variety of RLA court cases without comment. If you don't want to read through them, the gist is that courts only concern themselves with determining if the sides have demonstrated a desire to reach an agreement and steer almost entirely clear of ruling on reasonability based on how "extreme" or "greedy" a proposal may seem to the other side or to those outside the dispute.

Given that the courts have jurisdiction over reasonability determinations in RLA disputes, and that the courts have abstained themselves from finding unreasonability except in the most egregious cases, do you think the mediator's comments about the "zone of reasonableness" (referring to Delta's negotiations last year) might not have been a tactic designed to spur negotiations rather than a rightful and binding determination of reasonability in the DL dispute? If DL management had taken DL ALPA to court to obtain some sort of injunction against them for the alleged unreasonability of their demands, DL management likely would have lost the case.