2 (GAC, Chip Hancock, Derek Tate, Kyle Moore)

Today's SWAPA Number is 2. That's the number of pilots that belong on the flight deck. Your Government Affairs Committee is actively engaged on Capitol Hill, informing and educating Congress on this issue along with many others that affect our careers as airline pilots.

Follow us online:
Twitter - https://twitter.com/swapapilots
Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/swapa737

Transcript

Tony Mulhare:

Today's SWAPA Number is 2. That's the number of pilots that belong on the flight deck. Your Government Affairs Committee is actively engaged on Capitol Hill, informing and educating Congress on this issue along with many others that affect our careers as airline pilots.

Amy Robinson:

On today's show, we're talking with Government Affairs Chair Chip Hancock and members Derek Tate and Kyle Moore about what the GAC does in DC, what your PAC dollars are used for, and how you can get involved when needed.

I'm Amy Robinson.

Tony Mulhare:

And I'm Tony Mulhare, and here's our interview with Chip, Derek, and Kyle. Let's start today with a basic but important question for our pilots, especially our newer members that were non-property the last time we recorded a GAC podcast. What is the GAC and why should I care?

Kyle Moore:

As pilots, we work in probably the most regulated profession, and who's making those decisions? Well, the folks in DC are. How many of them are pilots? Well, in Congress right now, there are only two commercial aviators, two Part 121 pilots, and neither of those pilots are on what we call the Committee of Jurisdiction, the committees that directly impact the aviation policy. The folks who are making the decisions are not pilots, and so we need to be there to educate, inform, and advocate on our behalf. Because every aspect of our profession, whether it's safety standards, labor laws, what medical conditions we can have, every aspect of it, those decisions are made in DC, and we have to be there to be part of the conversation to explain the second and third order effects of what those decisions might have. We have to have relationships. We have to have developed those relationships over time, so we have credibility and trust with those decision makers.

When the issue comes up, whether it's part of the FAA Reauthorization or a standalone bill, they look to us, they ask for our input, we offer our input, but we have credibility and trust. In order to advocate for our profession, we have to be there, because if we're not, the opposition is going to be there and they're going to be pushing their agendas.

Tony Mulhare:

What if there was no GAC, who then would be lobbying to Congress?

Chip Hancock:

When we're walking the halls of Congress, it's common for us to walk into a meeting and then the staffer will say, "Well, the Company was just here," or, "The other side was just here." If you're not there, like I say, if you're not at the table, you'll be on the menu, and that's pretty much how it goes in DC. The competition will be out there, the opposition will be out there lobbying, working hard to push their position, and so we've got to have that presence to make sure SWAPA priorities are known and are pursued.

Amy Robinson:

What's the latest thing that the GAC has done that our membership would've necessarily seen or been aware of?

Chip Hancock:

Well, the latest thing and the big thing that we just wrapped up was advocating for the FAA Reauthorization, and the FAA Reauthorization is a five-year funding of the FAA. When that bill comes about, anything tied to aviation will be in that bill. Things that a lot of our members are aware of, or things like aeromedical reform, like waiting to get your physical for months and months on end, or maybe even years, when you have a special issuance. We worked hard to ensure that there'll be reforms to the FAA medical process, we worked hard to make sure that first officer quals would be maintained, the current level of training and all the requirements that we have for first officers to get an ATP would be upheld. All those things were wins in the FAA Reauthorization that our pilot group would know about. If they don't know about them, we'll certainly be impacted by them.

Tony Mulhare:

Along those lines, what is it that we use as our basis for these negotiations in Washington DC? What is that National airline policy? How is it created and approved, and where are we going in 2025 now that the Reauthorization Act has been approved?

Chip Hancock:

Yeah, so each year, as the year draws to a close, Derek and Kyle and I sit down and we take a look at the National Airline Policy. The National Airline Policy is a document that has all the legislative priorities that the GAC has allowed to engage on for the year. We presented at the December board meeting when the new board members are there, we'll show them the NAP, we'll discuss it with them, answer any questions the board has, and that will culminate in the board voting to either approve the NAP or have changes to it. Then once that NAP is approved, then those are our marching orders in Washington DC as we go about the next legislative session, which will begin January 1st. That document enables us to go on the Hill and act to pursue and engage on those SWAPA priorities.

It's also a great tool for us, because as we go and meet with new staffers... There'll be a lot of change over in the new Congress. New members, lots of new staffers, new members on the professional staff, we'll go and set up meetings with them right away. One of the things we'll do is we'll give them a physical copy of our National Airline Policy and we'll also send it to them electronically, so that they know these are the things that SWAPA cares about. That way, if an issue comes up and they have it, then they'll reach out to us or know that we care about that. The NAP, it's a great tool for us, and it's also our marching orders that provide the direction that the board gives us.

Amy Robinson:

How do you guys go about accomplishing those goals and staying within those frameworks of the NAP?

Derek Tate:

Those are our marching orders in the legislative strategy for the year. Your question is a great one right now, very timely with a new Congress, and Chip alluded to, we're going to have a ton of new members on both sides of the aisle and, in both chambers, a ton of new staff members. We'll take a look at that NAP, and what we try to do is start an information-education campaign with our committees of jurisdiction. Working with our professional lobbying team here in DC, we'll schedule meetings with professional staff, with new and old members of committees of jurisdiction. Get into their office for introductions to make sure that the transportation portfolio staffers in those offices know who we are and know what SWAPA is all about, and we start with a 40,000-foot view of issues that are important to our pilots.

Like Chip talked about, some of those high points that we think that in the new Congress are going to be important for them to know. Whether it's making sure that we keep two pilots on the flight deck, we continue to push for reforms and FAA's aeromedical division, and so on. We distill the NAP into a digestible single page talking paper that we'll work from and leave behind with those staffers, so they know our issues and, when they come up, they know who to contact and that they know that they have a credible, trusted partner with SWAPA. That takes just legwork and, in DC, virtual presence is actual absence. You have to be out there on the Hill and it's a sprint when you start a new Congress. The majority of the policy takes place within the first 100 days, so Chip, Kyle, and I will be on the Hill meeting with those new folks. Anytime Congress is in session, we'll be here meeting with them, telling them about our National Airline Policy and about SWAPA pilots priorities.

Amy Robinson:

I know you three do a lot of that legwork, but do we use any outside consultants or assistants with some of those meetings?

Chip Hancock:

Yeah, we have a professional lobbyist here, Frank McCarthy with McCarthy Advanced Consulting. Frank will also get involved in the working of the NAP for the next year and helps us with our strategic plan for the year. Then just the mechanics of it, physically scheduling the meetings, we'll have discussions with Frank and also his team about which committees we should work with on a particular issue, because it might have tax implications or maybe there are things that involved in other regulatory areas. He will help us map out that strategy and then target the members that we need to meet with to ensure that everyone that's impacted is in the know and understands our position. Lots of times, when we're lobbying on something, it's not as cut and dry as you might think. For instance, there may be a member who is in the district, he may not be on the committee, but that airport's in their district. Well, they're going to care very much whether they're on the committee or not, so you've got to go and meet with them and let them know what you're working on, so they're not surprised.

Yeah, we use Frank McCarthy, and he is a very highly respected lobbyist here in Capitol Hill. We've been with Frank for probably 14 years now, and he just does a phenomenal job for us, is respected on both sides of the aisle and just is a great leader for us.

Tony Mulhare:

We know that single pilot and medical reform have been big emphasis items for us in 2024. What else was on the NAP from this last year in DC, much of that changing, going into 2025?

Chip Hancock:

Well, a lot of things on the NAP, maybe not wholly, but parts of them were touched in the FAA Reauthorization. For instance, air traffic controller staffing. That's been a major issue over the past couple of years. You've seen it in New York, you've seen it in Florida, all up and down the East coast. How that's impacted Southwest made us reduce our flight schedule or incur significant delays, so ensuring that the air traffic control facilities are properly staffed, that we have a training facility that can produce the number of controllers that the nation needs. Right now, we have a shortage about 3000 air traffic controllers, so we've been lobbying in conjunction with the lobbyists from the National Air Traffic Controller Association, the Air Traffic Controller Union, working hand in hand with them to see that the things they need to put in place are going to be there to help them deal with this controller shortage.

Pilot supplies is another one. FAA medicals continues to be an ongoing piece that will remain in the NAP, and a lot of things that were in the NAP for this current year will remain in the NAP for the new Congress, because while we made gains on them in some areas, we'll continue to work to make even further improvements. It's also important, because Congress will direct things through the FAA Reauthorization, but then you have to continue to... I hate to use the word "Ride," but you have to continue to monitor how the FAA is doing and actually implementing what Congress told them to do in the FAA Reauthorization. I'll give you an example, the last FAA Reauthorization, which was done, I believe, in 2016, there are still things from that FAA reauth that have not been implemented. We will work aggressively this year in the new Congress with members to ensure that those important items that we achieved in the FAA Reauthorization are actually being acted upon by the FAA.

I don't mean to beat up the FAA there. A lot of times, they're constrained by resources or have issues over their priorities, so we'll actually work with them as well to see if there's pressure we can put on Congress to help get them the staffing or the monetary support, or whatever it is they need to make sure they can do what it is Congress has told them to do.

Amy Robinson:

One of the things that's in the NAP that I think comes up pretty regularly, and I hate to put you on the spot with this, but age 65, we've heard this from the membership pretty regularly. Few people complaining about it, that kind of thing. Can you speak to that a little bit, as to why we keep that in there and what our position is?

Chip Hancock:

Yeah, absolutely. Well, the SWAPA position for years has been that we do not support any change to the current retirement age, and that remains in place. It's on the NAP, changing the retirement age was eliminated in the current Congress, so we will wait and see in the new Congress, if that becomes something that Congress wants to pursue or not. As of now, it's a dead issue on Capitol Hill and something that we will be waiting to see how the new Congress... If they choose to address it or leave it alone.

Derek Tate:

If I could just jump in on that to add some additional background. There were a number of issues that were proposed in the last FAA Reauthorization, age 67 got a lot of attention, obviously, but I think Chip talked about it earlier, changing first officer qualifications and diluting the experience level of our flight deck. There were proposals of the last Congress, or this Congress rather, to change those, and we were able to successfully defend our experience levels, but we turned the page on this Congress with a new Congress, and a lot of those issues that have to do with regulatory changes, whether they're safety-related or otherwise, we expect to see them brought back up again. Like Chip said, there's a whole lot in that National Airline Policy that is decided upon in December. 65 and 67 is just one slice of them, but there are a number of issues in there that impact our profession that we'll be continuing to keep an eye out for.

Tony Mulhare:

You just mentioned safety there, and that's obviously a huge emphasis item for most airline unions. How do we cooperate with the other airline unions on major issues? Are we generally in agreement or do we sometimes take a different position from other unions?

Chip Hancock:

Yeah. No, that's a great question, Tony. We are in constant contact with the other aviation unions, whether it's ALPA or APA or the pilots of NetJets or CAPA, whatever the case might be. We see them here in DC, and that's why it is so important to be present here in Washington DC, because we all go to the same events. We'll see them all there, we can have one-on-one conversations with them. I communicate via phone and email with the leaders of those GACs all the time regularly. Literally, when the new Congress rolls around, I'm sure I'll have the conversation with ALPA, APA, NJ, SAP, all of our brethren. I say the pilot unions, we also talk to the other labor groups within aviation, whether it's flight attendants or mechanics, whatever the case might be, as that becomes necessary. We'll coordinate and say, "Okay, what are you all working on for 2025?"

We'll compare notes and make sure nothing's slipping through the cracks. The goal will be that we're all rowing the boat in the same direction, and to be honest with you, it's very difficult to move an issue in Washington DC if we're not united in the effort. As I sit here and think about it, have we ever differed on an issue? I can't think of a major issue that we've taken a different position on. We've all been aligned on the pilot training requirements, certainly on making sure they're two fully-trained, rested, and qualified pilots on the flight deck. I can't think of a major issue we've ever not been aligned with the other labor groups. Perhaps there's been a minor issue over the years where one side might say, "We're not engaging on that right now, we're putting all of our energy into this," but I don't know. Kyle, Derek, can you think of anything that we actually haven't been aligned on?

Derek Tate:

Yeah, no, I can't. I think, like Chip said, all the major issues, we're pretty well in lockstep. I think one of the great things about being an independent association that only represents pilots at Southwest Airlines is that, while we agree on issues, sometimes I think we can take different tactics, and there's different techniques to get our message across. While we're in agreement, as Chip said, all those issues, I think sometimes the way that we also get our message out can be different, and I think they can complement each other. One difference might be just in the way that we engage and how we do that. I think the neat thing about our association is that Chip, Kyle, and I are all active line pilots and we fly and we're advocating on behalf of SWAPA pilots. When we're asked about these issues on Capitol Hill, we can respond with firsthand experience about what it's like out on the line. In some cases, that's a little different than others, and I think that that difference actually is a strength for, collectively, our issues.

Chip Hancock:

I'll add one more piece there, Tony. Not only are we talking to other aviation labor groups, we're also talking with the Company's government affairs team, with Airlines for America, if they're involved, and also, with the opposition. Because whenever we go into a meeting, literally one of the first questions the staff will ask is, "Where's Southwest on this?" Or, "Who's opposed to this?" We go in there, we're an open book. We'll tell them, "Here are the groups that oppose it, here's why they're opposing it, here's why we think they're wrong," or, "Here's why we think our point is the correct point." But it's important for us to have credibility to be able to speak on the opposition, but also, when we can, to go in there with the support of the Company, because we're always, always asked, "Where is Southwest on this?"

The flip side is true as well. When they go on the Hill and lobby, they'll be asked, "Where's SWAP on this?" To the Company's credit, when it comes to government affairs, normally, things that matter to us matter to them, because the things that we care about or having a growth for the pilots and a career that is not in jeopardy are things that are important to the Company. Running a strong successful Company. It's been very helpful to us over the years, to have the Company's support on the key issues that we've fought for.

Tony Mulhare:

As pilots, we often think of as the FAA as being our adversary when it comes to maintaining our medicals, and things like that, on a personal level, but sometimes the FAA can be an ally. What does that look like and what's this relationship like at the federal level, and how do we work together?

Chip Hancock:

The FAA definitely can be an ally of ours, and has been over the years on issues. One key issue that the FAA is in complete agreement with pilot labor on is the fact that there needs to be two pilots on the flight deck at all times. Administrator Whitaker made that statement, he's made that statement publicly several times. He introduced or opened our conference this year with a personal video where he highlighted that very fact. That's an issue that we will not only use the FAA administrator's own words, but we will partner with them to try and strengthen that position and make sure that, legislatively, we keep that as the standard here in the US. There have been other times in the past where things like, several years ago, our ASAP program was in jeopardy, and we had some FAA reps in Dallas that were not behaving nicely with regards to ASAP.

We brought our president to town and we set up meeting with the FAA Administrator, and we discussed how important ASAP was and what was going on, and he immediately acted on the issues that we were having with regards to that individual, the FAA member, and with regards to ASAP. When the administration changes over, Administrator Whitaker may or may not remain in that role. He may choose to move on or the new administration may choose to replace them, but regardless, we will reach out to the new team or to Administrator Whitaker if his team remains in place, and make sure that we have open lines of communication and that we can work together when we're in agreement, or when we're not in agreement, that we can speak with them and work with them them and explain our position to them.

Tony Mulhare:

Okay. Let's talk about the process for a minute. What does our interaction with legislators and their staffs look like? When do we get involved in the process, and are we involved at the beginning as they start working on a particular issue?

Chip Hancock:

Yeah, it does happen like that. A lot of times, and I drive Amy crazy with these, but we'll get requests from a member saying, "Hey, this is an issue that's important to me and I'm going to generate this letter. We'd like SWAPA to sign onto it," and then they're going to circulate it and get other members of Congress to sign on. That issue might be pilot mental health or physicals, or whatever the issue might be. Yeah, it does happen that way, that the member or the staffer will reach out to us usually on the big issues. We're on the offense there, we're going to them, but we do also get that from members who decide that... Either through someone in their district experiences personally, and let them know, so now they want to get involved. Tragically, we had a young pilot, I think it was a student pilot, commit suicide in his district, and he found out about. Now he's very much engaged and involved in pilot mental health and what we can do to make sure that pilots feel safe coming forward, talking about mental health issues.

He reached out and we'll start to seek labor support, and labor's helping in getting the word out on the Hill and explaining why that's important. Yeah, it goes both ways. The members will reach out to us or we'll engage, we'll take the offense on issues that are important.

Tony Mulhare:

I'm assuming that's an ongoing process. There are different drafts of legislation then?

Chip Hancock:

Yeah, absolutely. It's ongoing, the member will reach out and then that's... What'll initially happen is the member will reach out and just say, "I'm concerned this," and sometimes they'll present us with language. You got to remember, this member of Congress might be a dentist or have a car dealership, whatever, and they'll write some piece of legislation. They'll send it to us to look at it and say, "Hey, is this something you all could get behind?" Or, "Is this something that you all care about?" We're like, "Yeah, it's something we care about, but this piece of your bill, your language is problematic, let me do some edits and send it back to you." We get that sort of request often as well, as members are writing language, or their staff is writing the language. They'll seek our help to make sure that, one, they're technically correct if it's a technical issue. Like when the MAX was going through all of its issues, a lot of discussions with us about the technical side of it, or, "Is this language problematic to labor or is it problematic to your pilot group?" That kind of thing.

Tony Mulhare:

Do they come to you, those same types of questions, when they're preparing for some sort of a hearing? For instance, when Senator Cruz and Senator Cantwell had the hearing after Elliot, was their prep involved from their staff? Did they come to you for inputs on those things before they get their questions drafted?

Chip Hancock:

Yeah. Derek, you can tell them about that as you did the lion's share of that work, about your interaction with the staff as they were reaching out, leading up to the hearing?

Derek Tate:

Yeah, that's a great example of... Chip was talking about the real connective tissue between the members and SWAPA and the Government Affairs Committee is through the staff and the staff relationships. As the meltdown was happening, we were getting texts and phone calls, really, around the clock from congressional staffers on both sides of the aisle in both chambers, both on committees of jurisdiction and off, about what was happening and what our perspective was. As things unfolded and developed, and it was as bad as it was, it was clear that Congress was not going to just sit idly by while two million passengers were stranded over the holidays without further inquiry. Like Chip talked about before, the staffers, they came to us, they came to the Company, our perspectives on what was going on may have differed, and I think that led to more questions.

Eventually, the amount of information and detail that SWAPA was providing to Congress, backstopped by our great analysis folks at SWAPA, led to an invitation to Casey Murray to testify, because they realized our data and our analysis was, in a lot of cases, superior to what they were receiving elsewhere. Because of what SWAPA provided to the staffers, who were being asked questions by their boss, senators, committee chair, and ranking members, we were able to help the staffers provide a decision advantage to their bosses about what was going on. Those relationships between the staff and SWAPA are really... That's the engine that drives a lot of our input, and the credibility that we established during the winter storm and in meltdowns previous to that led up to the invitation for Casey to testify. Hopefully, that answers the question, but really, at the heart and soul of everything that happens on Capitol Hill is the staff.

Tony Mulhare:

It's fair to say that Casey Murray would never have been invited to testify unless you guys had established those relationships for the last several years, right?

Chip Hancock:

No, I think that's totally safe to say. It just goes also to that time that we spend building these relationships with staffers and the members. The deliverable is credibility, right? We come to them as a known entity and they know that when we go and speak with them, one, if there's data involved, that we're going to come with the data, and we're going to come with credibility, because they've known us, they trust us, they've dealt with us for a long time. As Derek pointed out, during the MAX, there was a lot of misinformation out there, a lot of different sources making claims, making statements, so we spent a lot of time with staffers. Talking them through what happened in the MAX incidents, what technically was happening, what was happening with the pilots, all those things, and helping them understand that, these staffers, they want their boss, when they go to these hearings...

We use Casey's testimony as an example, but there are many, many hearings throughout the year, most of them usually involving the FAA or DOT, or one of those organizations. Those staffers have to prepare their boss to go and ask questions during the testimony or to understand what they're going to be told, so we help those staffers answer questions for them, help them prepare their bosses for whatever the current hearing might be about, and then they come back and turn and appreciate that and know that we're a trusted agent that they can rely on. In turn, we'll feel some desire to help us when we have something going on.

Amy Robinson:

We've mentioned the PAC, but we haven't really talked about it. For our listeners who may not be as familiar with all of these things, can you explain the difference between the GAC and the PAC?

Derek Tate:

The way that we explain this is like this. The GAC, the Government Affairs Committee, we work inside the government, we work inside the buildings on Capitol Hill and the legislative offices, we work inside the three-letter agencies, Department of Transportation, FAA, Department of State, and so on. That's our boots-on-the-ground, working with the government action. Whether that's elected officials, staffers, or bureaucrats and policymakers in those agencies. That's the committee work that we do funded by SWAPA dues. The PAC, the Political Action Committee, is different. The PAC is solely funded by voluntary pilot contributions, and that allows us to build and establish strong lasting relationships with candidates for federal office by supporting candidates who are aligned on our issues, who have a strong constituency of SWAPA pilots or a Southwest presence who are get-things-done leaders, who may be on committees of jurisdiction for us.

The PAC allows us to get to know them and develop those relationships with them, so when they have a question or an issue, they think of SWAPA pilots first. They're two very distinct things, but they're critically important when they work together to further the goals and protect the careers and livelihoods of our pilots.

Tony Mulhare:

What successes and accomplishments have we achieved this year? What are some concrete examples of our dues money, our PAC contributions making a difference in Washington?

Derek Tate:

I think it's important to understand that political action committee activities are governed by federal law, and everything that we do with the PAC is reported to the Federal Election Commission. We have to do that on a quarterly basis. What the PAC does is allows us to build relationships, but what it doesn't do, we never talk about specific legislation at a political action committee event. We never talk about pending bills, it is an important distinction that PAC events allow candidates to get to know SWAPA and they get to know what our jobs are like, and they get to ask questions about how things are out on the line or perhaps, "Hey, what's going on with your Company? Have they solved the technology challenges or the operational issues? What's your perspective as a pilot?"

Those are the type of things that the PAC allows us to do, and to establish credibility, like I said, we never use those PAC events to bring up active pieces of legislation. That's against the law. We don't ever talk about PAC events as buying influence or access. That's, again, expressly forbidden by law. The challenge is, well, we never relate any of the legislative work to the PAC work. Where it does show dividends for us is when they do have questions or... I think one of the things that we can point to, where those PAC-built relationships work were was during the Southwest winter meltdown during winter storm Elliott. Because of the relationships that we had, there wasn't any legislative question there. There were questions that came out of those relationships about, "Hey, what's going on with Southwest? What are you guys seeing?" I think it's important to not ever tie anything that we do with the PAC.

You never tie that to legislative victories or legislative asks, I think we only tie the PAC to relationship building. As was mentioned before, Kyle mentioned that we've only got two members of Congress with any Part 121 experience. There's a lot of members who know nothing about the airline world, and there's a lot more, come January of 2025. The real value in the PAC is giving us an opportunity to tell them about what we do and what's important to our careers and establish that long-term lasting relationship, because we all know that the negotiation cycle will be here quickly again, and there's a whole lot of folks who don't know what the RLA is or how it even applies to the airlines. That's a great avenue to just talk about an existing piece of law that, "By the way, did you know that that applies to the airlines in the Part 121 world?"

Amy Robinson:

I think one question that comes up pretty regularly is, do pilots PAC dollars support one side of the aisle versus the other?

Kyle Moore:

That's a great question, Amy, and our PAC is very bipartisan. If you look and see where we contribute and what our pack strategy is, you'll see that we contribute to both sides of the aisle relatively evenly, and that's important, because most of the things that we're addressing and where we need to educate and form and advocate on in the transportation field are very bipartisan in nature. Overall, we have a very balanced bipartisan strategy.

Amy Robinson:

We have done some GAC events and some calls-to-actions and things in the past. One of the things that comes to mind is denying NAI rally that we had several years ago. Does that actually put pressure on the legislation to be passed or to go forward, and is it effective?

Chip Hancock:

Yeah, and specifically with the denying NAI rally. It was highly effective, because we had been on the Hill along with our labor partners, pressing for the administration to take action against the Middle Eastern 3 carriers against what we viewed as unfair subsidies. We had been advocating on the Hill for quite some time, and we just needed the extra bump, if you will, to get the administration to act. That rally, having 200 pilots stand on the ellipse in front of the White House, showing that they were concerned and just what an important issue this was for our pilots, and the media attention that came about from that rally absolutely helped move the administration, and ultimately, the administration through the Department of State Secretary, I believe Pompeo at the time, reached out to the Middle Eastern 3 carriers, called them all to Washington DC, and basically said, "You're going to have to stop these subsidies." That was a huge win for us, a huge success story, and the rally was a big part of getting that done.

Amy Robinson:

We've done calls to action where we've asked people to click through and send letters to their senators, and things like that. Do you think that actually has a good impact as well? Because I know a lot of pilots are like, "Well, my signing that doesn't do any good."

Chip Hancock:

Yeah. Amy, that's a great question. I get this question a lot from pilots. A lot of times, it's pilots going, "Why didn't we do a call to action? You should have done a call to action." Derek and Kyle and I'll have many discussions about this. The call to action is a great tool, but it is very specific in when you might want to use a call to action. For instance, we're dealing with an issue that's very well known within the committees of jurisdiction, because it's something that they're familiar with, it's an aviation-focused issue, but we need that message to go out on broad scale, because now, let's say we're working through an issue, but the message is not making it beyond the committees of jurisdiction that we need more support or we're trying to push for broader support, or to highlight how important this issue is to our pilot group, which the NAI rally did on that particular issue.

Those are the times that we use a call to action. To be honest with you, we're pretty judicious about the use of calls to action. I know we ask a lot of our membership, right? Years of negotiations, that takes a toll on the membership. Things that we need the membership to focus on, to act on. The GAC, the three of us are careful about when we seek a call to action from the membership, so you know that, when we make that call to you ,that we need you to do this, it's important, and it's going to serve a very specific purpose. Yes, when used appropriately, call to actions can be very effective.

Amy Robinson:

You hosted the SWAPA Touch and Go event in September, and you do that annually. Can you tell the membership exactly what that is and how it helps our cause on Capitol Hill?

Chip Hancock:

Absolutely. As you mentioned, each year we host the SWAPA Touch and Go, and the entire purpose of that event is to bring our execs to town and have them meet and interact with the members of Congress that Kyle and Derek and I are interacting with when we're in DC. It's important for several reasons. One, it gives a chance for the members to meet Casey and the other execs, and to have some level of personal interaction with them, so that if there is a hearing coming up or there is something that requires Casey's involvement, they're not meeting Casey, or whoever the SWAPA president is, for the first time. That's important. The other great thing, and one of the things that I greatly appreciate about the Touch and Gos is it is very much a bipartisan event.

At this year's Touch and Go, the ranking member of the Transportation Infrastructure Committee sat down, and he and a Republican member of the committee sat there for probably 15 minutes and just had a great discussion with Casey and myself. To me, that is a great example of why bipartisanship is so important in those relationships. Not just with us and the members on either side of the aisle, but with the members themselves. The Touch and Go is a great opportunity for those members to come, interact with one another, but more importantly, just to meet our execs here, SWAPA priorities or what's happening in SWAPA directly from the execs. They really appreciate and enjoy the chance to have a very casual conversation with our leaders and hear about what's going on at SWAPA and to ask them questions about things that they want answers to straight from the horse's mouth, if you will.

Amy Robinson:

We'd like to thank Chip, Derek, and Kyle for taking the time to speak with us today. If you have any feedback for us on this or any other podcast, please drop us a note at comm@swapa.org. We really would like to hear your feedback.

Tony Mulhare:

Today's bonus number is 218, that's the number of seats required for a majority in the house. Once the political party in the majority has been decided, the new Congress will begin to name committee chairs and committee members. Your GAC aims to be among the first people that new representatives and senators meet with as they get themselves set up in DC, as establishing those relationships early is imperative to your GAC's role as your advocates in Washington.