Originally Posted by rg16 (Post 3739286)

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!

Originally Posted by Opakapaka (Post 3739272)

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

Originally Posted by FleetSnarl (Post 3739273)

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."

Originally Posted by WHACKMASTER (Post 3739321)

Scabs are DEFINITELY NOT something we need to worry about. Things have changed with social media. If someone would be dumb enough to cross nowadays, they’d be “famous”.

Second, we have 11,500 pilots and 800 airplanes. Even if a hundred scab it’s not enough to make a dent that would matter.

Scabs are the least of our concerns.

🔥👇

Originally Posted by WHACKMASTER (Post 3739321)

Scabs are DEFINITELY NOT something we need to worry about. Things have changed with social media. If someone would be dumb enough to cross nowadays, they’d be “famous”.

Second, we have 11,500 pilots and 800 airplanes. Even if a hundred scab it’s not enough to make a dent that would matter.

Scabs are the least of our concerns.

🔥👇

Originally Posted by FleetSnarl (Post 3739303)

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.

Originally Posted by e6bpilot (Post 3739368)

This writing style and subject matter seem very familiar. Could it be? Has the prodigal son returned?

Originally Posted by rg16 (Post 3739283)

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!

Originally Posted by Profane Kahuna (Post 3739310)

2/3 of them stood tall and voted NO on what they considered a turd offer from the company.

Their union leadership is terrible (as is well known) and has tried to claim voting irregularities. The election contractor has countered those claims and stated the vote counts are accurate.

Originally Posted by rg16 (Post 3739284)

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