One might argue that all labor contracts that have ever been voted in are probematic. Otherwise there would be no grievences and no need to renegotiate anything other than payrates and benefits when they become amendable.

True. This time could prove to be the exception. This time could be different.

Even though we have plenty of evidence indicating that's probably not the case. It could be different this time.

Vote no because this pilot group votes in bad contracts.

Vote no because the people involved are the same or too similar to last time.

Vote no because the board/NC didn’t play the RLA game well enough.

Vote no because the company won’t follow the new language anyway.

Vote no because you have a streak to continue.



Those are all illogical arguments that have no bearing on the product before you. If the product itself doesn’t meet your threshold, then certainly vote no. Compensation, hotels, transportation, etc. being inadequate, then it deserves a no vote…that’s logical, and something you should do whether this is the first or tenth TA.



There are quite a few areas that I don’t care for at all. I took a break from forums and read every page of it, asked questions to the NC, and watched Q&A at several of the roadshows. I started as a no, and that softened over time. All my line in the sand items are fixed, with a mixed bag after that. For the career compensation piece, I’d encourage everyone to take their rate, multiply it by min guarantee to find their minimum monthly income, and then compare that to peer airlines using each’s min guarantee. Then do it with average line values at each, and again with player status to see where you come out. When I did it using info from friends at AA, UA, and DL for the min guarantee, avg, and player levels, I calculated effective parity with their 321XLR/757/767-300 for monthly income (will slide slightly with what you consider mid time and high time flyers). Oh, and I didn’t include our 1% and later 2% higher retirement contributions, or wildly different health insurance premiums in that either.

I’m not a fan of seat based compensation for pilots, but looking at pay bands at the other carriers gives a good idea of the breakdown of their pilot groups. Using the possibly outdated data I have, DL and AA have mid teens percentage of their CA on true wide body pay over the 75/76/321XLR band, and United is probably over 20%. The big three also have between mid 60% and mid 80% of their captains below that (75/76) pay band. Bottom line is that comparing career compensation isn’t just the TFP conversion. It gets real complicated and requires making some assumptions around hire date/aircraft choices/base/commute/etc that will wildly swing the results. Early upgrade and equipment changes based on pay tables will certainly beat SW if you’re young enough to hold CA on the highest band at the other guys. Hanging out one rung down on the ladder flying 75/76/321XLR, or worse yet 737/320 for QOL or domicile? This contract changes the calculus quite a bit.

Logic and reasoning have no place here. We are bitter and hold onto grudges from years past.

Great post obviously.

I'm curious what JR meant when he explained, "I'm about pushing it as far as I think I can push them. And I, I feel like that's where we're at." What makes him feel like that? On what basis did he come to that determination?

He prefaced that remark by seeming to offer somewhat of an explanation, reporting that the mediator said something like, "This is crazy and this is great you guys. I can't believe it," regarding the company's offer that we ended up agreeing to. When the mediator made those remarks did he understand them with the awareness in mind that the mediator can and does use "blarney" and "hoomalimali" as a mediation tactic in order to spur on one or both sides toward an agreement?

If JR is aware of how NMB mediators often operate with regards to "blarney" and "hoomalimali" shouldn't he have caveated his remarks to the pilot group by adding some sort of subtext like, "Now, I'm aware that the mediator will try to flatter us and blow smoke ... But I still think this is the best deal becaue ..."? Or does JR know how the mediator operates but not want to explain the possible motivations behind what the mediator said to the pilot group because he wants this deal to get ratified? Or does he believe that what the mediator says should simply be taken at face value? Or is he just not aware of what the RLA case law says about tactics employed by NMB mediators?

It seems like all of the options leave open the possibility that there was something problematic about the way SWAPA agreed to this TA and/or is selling it to the pilot group.

Or how about this report of some problematic legacy SWAPA behavior from the days of Herb (as reported by Herb himself)? SWAPA's relationship with SWA has been "quite unusual" from the beginning. If you think that DNA has been entirely bred out of this pilot group somehow, you're living in denial.

Source (starts at about 19 minute mark):

At least in regard to that last part about Herb, wasn’t that like 20+ years ago? At some point you got let that go.

This sort of argument is used as a counter to those who say something like since, for example, "I haven't come across a no vote yet," the TA must be worth voting yes for. That's bandwagoning and is fallacious. It has been used more than once in posts on this forum in one way or another. Pointing this out is bringing to mind that more often than not in the past, the majority of this pilot group has voted for lagging contracts. That didn't make those contracts good.

Let's say you broke up with your partner because they were physically abusive. You get back together with them because they said they won't do it again. Would it be logically fallacious for that person's friend to believe that the abuse would be likely to repeat?

Let's say a certain MMA fighter had a record of 0-10 against the same opponent. Would it be logically fallacious to believe that fighter would probably also lose the eleventh fight against that opponent?

Boeing's management of the 737 MAX program, it turns out, deviated from the traditional processes that had brought Boeing success over the past century. Would it be logically fallacious to think that problems might later crop up in 737 MAX aircraft?

I specifically said that wasn't near the top of the list of my reasons for voting no. It's sort of a red herring and a piling-on argument to throw that on to your list.

That's mind-reading on your part and sort of an attempt at a sly ad hominem, both of which are fallacious.

I've repeatedly explained that because we stopped in the RLA process far short of having developed maximum leverage, we have also left significant gains on the table. As such, the pay rates, the retirement, the work rules, the implementation schedule, the various "minor" concessions, and most of the benefits package (with the exception of disability) are short of what I would vote yes for. I have said that over and over. It's not accurate for you to imply that I am voting no simply because we did not follow the RLA process or simply because most of the same players are in place from last time. All of those things and the other points I have explained in detail in other posts paint a picture to me of a TA that could have been so much better than it is.

Cyio, I've been respectful to you here on APC because, for the most part up until now you've been respectful to me. This post from you was not respectful. It was patronizing.

I prefaced the interaction with Herb by explaining, "Or how about this report of some problematic legacy SWAPA behavior from the days of Herb (as reported by Herb himself)? SWAPA's relationship with SWA has been "quite unusual" from the beginning. If you think that DNA has been entirely bred out of this pilot group somehow, you're living in denial." It's highlighting that this is where we have come from and, IMO, though many want to deny it, it is still embedded deep in our collective souls. You can disagree with that. Fine. But please don't patronize me.

No disrespect intended, my apologies.

I think I have given my opinion on all of this so it’s time to let the chips fall where they may. Be well.

Straight from an experienced organized laborer.
What regional again?