I’ve started asking captains like that if this was their first airline or even their second job ever after hearing their industry options. I then blow their mind when I tell them we’re the only place that says “landing gear.” Idiots

Had we filed for mediation earlier, we would have started the "mediation clock" earlier. Time in mediation matters significantly more than time in negotiations.

The objective of labor during an RLA dispute is to create the credible threat of a legal strike. Without that, labor possesses virtually no leverage.

There is no way under the RLA for labor to generate that threat without entering into and spending time in mediation. A dispute cannot be released from mediation into a cooling off period before a strike without undergoing mediation. The thing a dispute is released from is mediaton.

Before the NMB begins to feel pressure based on time to release a dispute from mediation, it has to have exceeded the average amount of time in mediation of all cases currently before the NMB. What is the "average amount of time in mediation" these days? Recently, it has been approximately 700 days.

Since SWAPA waited 30 months to file for mediation, we would have exceeded 700 days in mediation right about now. The 700-day clock didn't start for us until 30 months after opening negotiations. Therefore, during our entire period of negotiation and mediaton, the NMB was under no pressure to release based on our amount of time in mediation because we never exceeded 700 days in mediation.

Had we waited, say, nine months to file for mediation instead of 30 months, we would have instead the hit the 700-day point in late 2022. So, in late 2022, the NMB would have begun to feel pressure to release us based on time in mediation.

Time is not the only factor considered in a release decision but it is an important factor. The railroad unions consortium, for example, was released from mediation in 2023 after only 134 days in mediation. They pulled the right levers to obtain a release in much less time than the average amount of time in mediation. They knew what they were doing.

Like the railroad unions, SWAPA would have had to also play it's cards right, but had they filed for mediation without waiting an extraordinary of time like they did, the NMB would have begun to feel more and more pressure to release us the longer we remained in mediation past the average amount of time in mediation. That all would have played out well over a year earlier than when we agreed to our contract.

Of course, if SWAPA did not play it's cards right - had they given the NMB reasons to keep us in mediation - the NMB would have been more than happy to oblige us. The NMB will not release a dispute based on time in mediation alone.

So, if SWAPA filed for mediation only six or nine months after opening negotiations instead of 30 months AND had SWAPA otherwise played the RLA game correctly between March 2020 and late 2022, we would have likely approached a release from mediation nearly two years ago with much more leverage than we ever actually generated in reality. In all likelihood, that would have netted us all a significantly better contract.

I can go, and have in the past, gone into much, much greater detail with references and sources for everything I'm asserting. Search my username for past posts if you'd like to read more.

None of this will matter again until next cycle. My guess is we'll keep making the same mistakes and keep believing the same myths that have held us back forever.

Personally, I don't feel 'held back'. My QoL has improved dramatically with the new contract.

IMHO, continually posting, we did it wrong alienates you and mutes your message. It would be great if you had something to contribute to the conversation in this thread that wasn't lamenting the past.

While I don't disagree with the notion that we should have filed for mediation sooner, let's not forget COVID and the irrational hysterics surrounding COVID. Sure, Lewbronski does have a point in that we'd be getting close to getting released right during the prime hiring days and it would have been the max leverage had we filed for mediation and started down the RLA path much sooner. At the same time, I also remember all the whining about how we got leapfrogged the last time, and how we wanted to wait and see how others do first rather than blaze trails and setting the industry ourselves.

Whether it was the right or wrong approach can be debated, but to me, it's water under the bridge. I also think voting down our contract would have been monumentally dumb especially given that we've already hired thousands of new pilots, MAX 7's still not having been certified, -700's getting timed/cycled out and things starting to slow down in general. See the FedEx pilot plight these days....

I voted yes. Am I happy? Generally yes. Are there things I don't like? Absolutely. Would those things be worth nuking the whole deal? Not to me. Some things are nice to have, others are must have. My "must haves" have been addressed, and also a chunk of "nice to haves." Nuking the whole deal over not getting some more "nice to haves" just doesn't make any sense to me.

I really think some perpetually angry people just miss the negotiations drama and the anger associated with it.

I voted NO knowing full well that it would pass and wanting it to pass as close to 50.1% as possible. I’m glad I did and am making the most out of the new contract.

It’s definitely not perfect but giving the overall environment I’m glad it passed. We definitely should have filed for mediation much sooner without a doubt.

Now we (SWAPA) need to focus heavily on enforcing the contract and fight against shenanigans like the STD/sick usage policy that a certain company shill has changed.

While I agree in general the United pilot negotiation never entered mediation. The Covid pandemic, the government bailout and the pilot shortage changed everything and we had to deal with a rogue MC/MEC. The old salty negotiators will tell you that leverage shows up in a myriad of ways and you have to be ready to take advantage of it.

That's fine and is a predictable response. I personally don't care if a random person on an internet forum feels like "my message" is "alienating" because I didn't couch it in terms gentle or just right enough to not offend them. I'm putting out there what I know. We could have achieved significantly more and here's why. We can learn from our own and other's history - or not. My guess is not.

This is why I don’t care about the pass rate of a contract. So many people vote no just to make a statement that the end number is insignificant. If you told every pilot that their vote was the only vote that mattered as to whether the contract passed or not, you would see a lot more contracts pass closer to 99%.

I've read most of your stuff months ago. You know this stuff like no one I've ever come across. I'm not disputing any of it. My only point was that since we didn't do what you described and given everything that's happened since January 2024, I don't think we'd find ourselves better than what we currently signed (warts and all). Had we voted that TA down I think TA2 would just have been a rearrangement of the money. If our margins were different. If the economy was obviously going gang busters. If we had guys leaving in droves (think ten times what we actually had). I just don't think we had the leverage to push further, given the surrounding environment.

It all needed to start earlier by filing sooner, and I hope the NC has learned that lesson. That one issue aside, I'm not sure what more could have been done. I think the messaging was pushed to the brink of wildcat actions and guys were ready to walk, I know I was. Don't give up hope, and I hope you're around for the next go to continue educating, because I know you helped many of us understand this stuff better. Personally, I wish SWAPA would bring you in to help build a model for the next cycle.

How bout you finally step up and admit you're glad we have a contract now? You don't have to like the contract, but you're kidding yourself and everyone here if you say otherwise. I suspect you'll dodge the question again.