hoover

I'm showing this to my wife. Honey see, I am right sometimes

ElonMusk

It will be an act of Congress, but it will happen so telling the company “good luck finding replacement pilots” is an empty threat. They know it and deep down so do we. The damage is on the PR front, like I noted many times before.

To me just bypass the empty threats and just damage the reputation of the company. Do everything in our power to persuade passengers to fly someone else. It’s all perfectly legal, heck I think SWAPA could put out an ad in the WSJ telling passengers to book on AA next CMas unless you really don’t want to see your family over the holidays, and that would be legal.

I drink hard liquor instead of a beer because oz for oz it’s the most efficient method to get me where I want to be. I feel the same should be done during contract talks. But like I said before I am a burn it to the ground kind of guy. They had 24 months to play nice, my patience is done.

I’ll support working within the bounds of the RLA but I don’t expect it to get anywhere. In a few years look me up, I still have my old playbook on how to destroy a reputation of a company.

Lewbronski

I don't have time to write out a super cogent response to your idea that leveraging the RLA is essentially useless because you think after the RLA has played itself out to exhaustion, it is a guaranteed certainty that Congress will intervene to stop a potential strike by SWA pilots. Below is not my best work, but I have a ton of sh** to do and I think, though kind of scattered, it creates a pretty good picture of why the possibility of Congress intervening does not kill our leverage.

************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** *****************************

The fact of the matter is there is no certainty, just because you or anyone else think so, 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 last month 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? 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 4, 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 almost 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.

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. You, in fact, could be right or wrong about your perception that congress will 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 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 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.

It’s like refusing to ever eat a big, juicy hamburger because some scientist asserted you would definitely get cancer from eating charbroiled red meat or refusing to buy a gun to protect your home because you've read some stories and heard from some people who swear your home is actually less safe with a firearm in the house.

FlySAFT

There is one of you in every pilot group. I'll never understand why some pilots think it gives them a better negotiating position to damage the company they work for. Why would anyone want to give YOU a raise? If you actually act in the manner you present in this post, the best thing for the company and your fellow pilots is for you to leave. I mean who do think you are "Tulsa King?" Pay me or else?

There is nothing worse than being trapped in a cockpit for days with a visceral prick. Don't be that guy.

ElonMusk

First of all what is a strike? Seriously what does a strike due to the company? It’s damage to the company, end of story. The lead into a strike, if the flying public believes it will lead to book always. The actual strike will be revenue lost. So following the RLA, which I already said I will support, leads us to the same conclusion but just drags it out. I am just saying bypass the stupid crap that takes years to do and just publicly embarrass the company.

Does it work? Yea it does. I give you 2009-2015 NetJets pilot contract issues. They were no closer in 2015 to strike than they were in 2009. What got them the 40 percent pay raise? It was publicly embarrassing the company. It was the 900 pilots outside of Berkshire Hathaway yearly meeting that were protesting. They surrounded the building. It was the weekly ads in the WSJ lambasting the management at NetJets. It was the social media campaign beating down the company. Publicly airing the dirty laundry. The CEO and the entire C suite were cleared out. The new CEO and union cut a deal within 90 days.

You can argue how you get there via the RLA or other means it still leads to the same conclusion. The ONLY thing that will get you a new contract is financial pressure placed on the company. It’s sad it’s like this but with this current management team I just don’t see any other way.

WHACKMASTER

The enemy is not him (or her). It’s the RLA, our company that chooses to drag negotiations out because the RLA ties our hands for years and years and the apathetic and uneducated amongst our pilot group that only serve to help the company drag it out for years and years.

Unfortunately, when airline management chooses to insult you by stalling, playing games, etc. at the table, what are you choices? Are you gonna simply let them drag it out for six years or maybe even eight years as was the case with Republic back in the 2010s?

Seriously, we’re all ears Einstein. Tell us what’s going to move them at the table? Should we be extra, extra nice? Perhaps our NC needs to grovel harder. Maybe that will get Carl to stop with the shenanigans. Come on. We want to hear it. What do you suggest?

I’d rather fly with a radical prick than an apathetic weakling any day, because I have little respect for the latter.

ElonMusk

I do have to add this…. You stated “Why would anyone want to give YOU a raise”. Are you really that obtuse and not understand management never WANTS to give you a raise. There has never been an instance in union/labor relations where a company WANTS to give workers a raise. You really need to get educated on how companies work and what their financial responsibilities are to their shareholders.

We get a raise when we demand it. There is no ambiguity in this statement, it is fact. Let me repeat that, we get a raise when we demand it. Not when you deserve it, because that would have been in 2019 when we were the most productive and the company the most profitable. It is when we demand it.

MudhammedCJ

Looks like we found the last Dallas north 40 pollyanna.. I'm so happy I never have to fly with you idiots anymore. It was really mind numbing to listen to your abject stupidity leg after leg.

Mozam

From someone who loves peppers , that is dam funny

ZapBrannigan

Thats how I felt when somebody would (speaking about the short upgrade times at Brand X) say "yeah but you have to be based in New York!" In a tone dripping with disgust.

I'd be thinking "So?! At least they have the CHOICE. Oakland is equally undesirable but at least you can GET to New York from anywhere in the country!"

Pilots are our own worst enemies.