Our supply chain problem is a direct result of leftist policies. 

Please explain.

There are almost 200 ships, with over 500 million shipping containers, just waiting off the coast of California because of personal shortages caused by welfare and lockdowns that were carried on for far too long. If we had our shipping industries properly staffed, we would not be having half of the problems we are about to experience.  

Nearly half a million shipping containers are stuck off the coast of Southern California as the ports operate below capacity (msn.com)

It's not an accident that California is the main culprit. I am not claiming they are doing it for some nefarious purpose. I just think this is another facet of their short-sightedness. The dude can't open the LA port 24/7, but he can make sure there are gender neutral toy stores. The priorities of democrats are bass-ackwards. The regulations by Newsome have directly contributed to this backlog, and they aren't taking significant steps to solve it. When you get a wrench in the supply chain, it creates cascading effects, and we are seeing the result of that now. If people start a run on food and start hording, things could get ugly.

---

Please explain.

There are almost 200 ships, with over 500 million shipping containers, just waiting off the coast of California because of personal shortages caused by welfare and lockdowns that were carried on for far too long. If we had our shipping industries properly staffed, we would not be having half of the problems we are about to experience.  

Nearly half a million shipping containers are stuck off the coast of Southern California as the ports operate below capacity (msn.com)

It's not an accident that California is the main culprit. I am not claiming they are doing it for some nefarious purpose. I just think this is another facet of their short-sightedness. The dude can't open the LA port 24/7, but he can make sure there are gender neutral toy stores. The priorities of democrats are bass-ackwards. The regulations by Newsome have directly contributed to this backlog, and they aren't taking significant steps to solve it. When you get a wrench in the supply chain, it creates cascading effects, and we are seeing the result of that now. If people start a run on food and start hording, things could get ugly.

This is all correct, they are simply incompetent.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

FSG... dude. SW makes a mandate. Then they have several cancellations. They blame the weather. There's speculation there was a walkout. SW denies it. Some pilots come out encouraging other pilots to take a stand. Then the CEO sites absenteeism instead of weather. Well, there's one lie. It's not unreasonable to assume there's more. So, now the CEO has lied, some pilots are claiming the had a sick out. If, like you suggested, pilots staged a sick out to avoid flying with the unvaccinated, it would be on every news station. I know it was an attempt at humor, but it's just another example of you burying your head in the sand. People don't like mandates. They will quit. It will cause problems.

Right now, no one can say for certain that the mandate caused the problems, but I can say for certain the CEO is lying. I can say for certain there is a subset of the people that don't like the mandates. Your snarky remark about them not wanting to fly with the unvaccinated, even if said in jest, is just illogical. At least Stroud is drawing a reasonable conclusion. Why can't you just acknowledge the possibility that the mandate is causing problems? Oh that's right....

Lol, could it be? Sure. Jumping to conclusions? Of course, that's all the rage these days. My example was merely the opposite conclusion reasonably drawn from the same limited information. The other position is "reasonable" to you because it's your cause, but it's very important that everyone makes sure that anything adverse that happens is because of or in response to their personal positions.

---

Of course. We all have blind spots. The question is whether one wants to have blinders. I can be stubborn, but I don't want to have blinders on. When I'm wrong, just show me. I'll try to move that way to the degree that I am able. Maybe I can't see it still, but it won't be for a lack of trying. FSG does not appear to be open to movement on this position. At least that's how it seems. Covid is his Urban Myer for the political section. At least he has a chance to be right with Urban. He's already been wrong way too often when it comes to Covid.

That's certainly your opinion.

---

CEOs have had to make family destroying decisions with this mandate that will likely lead to suicides. I think those who agree with the mandates are trying to see the best in these CEOs while those who oppose the mandates see the worst in them.

Or they could, you know, get the shot. But no, gird your loins and call out your lawyers. Attack the economy and the health of your friends and neighbors to get your way.

If my neighbors and friends are vaccinated, their health shouldn't be a concern as far as COVID is concerned,  correct?

It isn't the unvaccinated attacking the economy.  It is the tyrants trying to force everyone to be vaccinated with the threat of taking away their livelihoods.

---

Lol, could it be? Sure. Jumping to conclusions? Of course, that's all the rage these days. My example was merely the opposite conclusion reasonably drawn from the same limited information. The other position is "reasonable" to you because it's your cause, but it's very important that everyone makes sure that anything adverse that happens is because of or in response to their personal positions.

---

That's certainly your opinion.

---

Or they could, you know, get the shot. But no, gird your loins and call out your lawyers. Attack the economy and the health of your friends and neighbors to get your way.

If my neighbors and friends are vaccinated, their health shouldn't be a concern as far as COVID is concerned,  correct?

It isn't the unvaccinated attacking the economy.  It is the tyrants trying to force everyone to be vaccinated with the threat of taking away their livelihoods.

One last time, 50% vaccination rate and 90% efficacy. Yes, they still have to be concerned. Why don't you understand this simple statement? I just don't get it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

FSG... dude. SW makes a mandate. Then they have several cancellations. They blame the weather. There's speculation there was a walkout. SW denies it. Some pilots come out encouraging other pilots to take a stand. Then the CEO sites absenteeism instead of weather. Well, there's one lie. It's not unreasonable to assume there's more. So, now the CEO has lied, some pilots are claiming the had a sick out. If, like you suggested, pilots staged a sick out to avoid flying with the unvaccinated, it would be on every news station. I know it was an attempt at humor, but it's just another example of you burying your head in the sand. People don't like mandates. They will quit. It will cause problems.

Right now, no one can say for certain that the mandate caused the problems, but I can say for certain the CEO is lying. I can say for certain there is a subset of the people that don't like the mandates. Your snarky remark about them not wanting to fly with the unvaccinated, even if said in jest, is just illogical. At least Stroud is drawing a reasonable conclusion. Why can't you just acknowledge the possibility that the mandate is causing problems? Oh that's right....

Lol, could it be? Sure. Jumping to conclusions? Of course, that's all the rage these days. My example was merely the opposite conclusion reasonably drawn from the same limited information. The other position is "reasonable" to you because it's your cause, but it's very important that everyone makes sure that anything adverse that happens is because of or in response to their personal positions.

No. It's more logical because conclusion follows more closely from the premises. You response doesn't. 

Let's look at the evidence that makes up the premises for the conclusion: We know the CEO instituted a vaccine mandate. We know SW pilots have claimed they were taking a stand against the vaccine mandate. We know people not showing up caused the problem. We know the CEO lied. Given those facts, your proposition makes no sense. I understand that you were trying to make a point with your post, but it doesn't really make the point you think it does, because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It's illogical. Stroud's isn't. 

So, if this were a logic test, given the above facts, which of the following would be the most likely answer? 

A) The CEO lied about the cause of cancellations because he didn't want to admit that his mandate hurt his bottom line
B) The CEO wants to hide the fact that his pro-vaccine employees are bullying his anti-vax employees
C) The CEO lied because he was being hit on by Urban Myer at his restaurant in Ohio
D) The CEO doesn't need to tell the truth because he can

The answer is obvious. It's logic 101. You're just too stubborn to admit it because you actually have a reason that hits pretty close to home. 

Of course, a new, true variable could present itself at any time to make Stroud's position less logical, but it isn't at this moment in time. I want to be clear I am not saying his conclusion is FACT. Just saying you're more likely incorrect based on the data given, which is pretty much how I've felt about your position on this matter from the get-go. You have a blind spot here. 

I have laid out the logic for my statement. Do the same for yours. If you can make your position equally as clear, I'll admit you have a valid conclusion and back off. Or if it's easier, show me where I have incorrect statements of truth. I just don't think you can... not without speculation or adding variables to what we know.

---

If my neighbors and friends are vaccinated, their health shouldn't be a concern as far as COVID is concerned,  correct?

It isn't the unvaccinated attacking the economy.  It is the tyrants trying to force everyone to be vaccinated with the threat of taking away their livelihoods.

One last time, 50% vaccination rate and 90% efficacy. Yes, they still have to be concerned. Why don't you understand this simple statement? I just don't get it.

I am actually careful and responsible around other peiple and wear a mask indoors still. The 90,000 person filled football stadiums of maskless people every weekend , half of which are likely not vaxxed should be a bigger concern. Our government has caused resentment amongst the people, thus the "we love Brandon" chants every weekend.

---

If my neighbors and friends are vaccinated, their health shouldn't be a concern as far as COVID is concerned,  correct?

It isn't the unvaccinated attacking the economy.  It is the tyrants trying to force everyone to be vaccinated with the threat of taking away their livelihoods.

One last time, 50% vaccination rate and 90% efficacy. Yes, they still have to be concerned. Why don't you understand this simple statement? I just don't get it.

By the CDC's own admission we are up to 85% of the population that has either been infected or vaccinated. Those who have natural immunity are better protected. Which 15% of the population isn't vaccinated. What is their likelihood of dying to Covid. Oh, that's right, we don't know. Because the "tyrants" won't release that data. It should be clear, but it's not. Even if they aren't tyrants, they are bumbling morons.

---

Lol, could it be? Sure. Jumping to conclusions? Of course, that's all the rage these days. My example was merely the opposite conclusion reasonably drawn from the same limited information. The other position is "reasonable" to you because it's your cause, but it's very important that everyone makes sure that anything adverse that happens is because of or in response to their personal positions.

No. It's more logical because conclusion follows more closely from the premises. You response doesn't. 

Let's look at the evidence that makes up the premises for the conclusion: We know the CEO instituted a vaccine mandate. We know SW pilots have claimed they were taking a stand against the vaccine mandate. We know people not showing up caused the problem. We know the CEO lied. Given those facts, your proposition makes no sense. I understand that you were trying to make a point with your post, but it doesn't really make the point you think it does, because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It's illogical. Stroud's isn't. 

So, if this were a logic test, given the above facts, which of the following would be the most likely answer? 

A) The CEO lied about the cause of cancellations because he didn't want to admit that his mandate hurt his bottom line
B) The CEO wants to hide the fact that his pro-vaccine employees are bullying his anti-vax employees
C) The CEO lied because he was being hit on by Urban Myer at his restaurant in Ohio
D) The CEO doesn't need to tell the truth because he can

The answer is obvious. It's logic 101. You're just too stubborn to admit it because you actually have a reason that hits pretty close to home. 

Of course, a new, true variable could present itself at any time to make Stroud's position less logical, but it isn't at this moment in time. I want to be clear I am not saying his conclusion is FACT. Just saying you're more likely incorrect based on the data given, which is pretty much how I've felt about your position on this matter from the get-go. You have a blind spot here. 

I have laid out the logic for my statement. Do the same for yours. If you can make your position equally as clear, I'll admit you have a valid conclusion and back off. Or if it's easier, show me where I have incorrect statements of truth. I just don't think you can... not without speculation or adding variables to what we know.

You forgot E. There was an issue unrelated to Covid or the Mandate. And just for argument's sake my position on this being about the unvaxxed was facetious, but you knew that. My position, as noted in the article I posted, is that everyone in Labor at SWA is saying this was a systemic problem cause by their IT system and that the problems last weekend were not a result of a sick out. Some of the delays and cancellations were in fact weather related as other carries also experienced small problems there as well. The CEO is clearly lying to cover up his company's incompetence. And as the Union guy said, their absentee rate was not out of the norm, so there's that "new, true variable" you mentioned that should put this whole thing to bed. But it probably won't because you guys need this to be about Covid even though it's not, which is the only real blind spot at work here.

---

One last time, 50% vaccination rate and 90% efficacy. Yes, they still have to be concerned. Why don't you understand this simple statement? I just don't get it.

By the CDC's own admission we are up to 85% of the population that has either been infected or vaccinated. Those who have natural immunity are better protected. Which 15% of the population isn't vaccinated. What is their likelihood of dying to Covid. Oh, that's right, we don't know. Because the "tyrants" won't release that data. It should be clear, but it's not. Even if they aren't tyrants, they are bumbling morons.

I have no argument with your last statement.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

SWA is known for keeping costs low, and part of the way that they do that is by not having backup plans at hubs, they fly point to point. So, one mistake (whatever the reason may be) causes rippling issues. If you recall about 2 or 3 years ago, all of the SWA planes were sitting on the tarmac at JIA for hours and hours because they made a staffing mistake and had no one to staff the gates. Probably a similar issue here. It's how SWA operates specifically to keep costs down, similar to how they only fly one type of jet rather than a fleet of several types.

---

"Southwest Airlines CEO Gary Kelly says vaccine mandate had “zero” contribution to airline cancellations this weekend"

He now blames absenteeism but blamed weather few days ago. Cmon man.....we all know what is causing the absenteeism.  The mandate.

Weather could cause absenteeism in airline operations.   Flights get delayed, so crews get stranded, and they're not where they need to be to make the next flight, and the whole thing cascades into a huge problem.

---

SWA is known for keeping costs low, and part of the way that they do that is by not having backup plans at hubs, they fly point to point.  So, one mistake (whatever the reason may be) causes rippling issues.  If you recall about 2 or 3 years ago, all of the SWA planes were sitting on the tarmac at JIA for hours and hours because they made a staffing mistake and had no one to staff the gates.  Probably a similar issue here.  It's how SWA operates specifically to keep costs down, similar to how they only fly one type of jet rather than a fleet of several types.

Exactly.  Companies can maximize profits by taking the slack out of the system and running a very lean operation.  But of course, the danger in that approach is, one little thing can shut down an entire system.

---

We head to that November deadline, we will soon know who was right and who was wrong. Until then, debate is always fun.

I love the folks who pretend Southwest's "leanness" is the root cause of their issues, lol. Talk about head in the sand.

---

We head to that November deadline, we will soon know who was right and who was wrong. Until then, debate is always fun.

I love the folks who pretend Southwest's "leanness" is the root cause of their issues, lol. Talk about head in the sand.

It seems to be a valid argument. Is any other airline suffering to the same degree from delays? I haven’t heard of any.

---

We head to that November deadline, we will soon know who was right and who was wrong. Until then, debate is always fun.

I love the folks who pretend Southwest's "leanness" is the root cause of their issues, lol. Talk about head in the sand.

It seems to be a valid argument. Is any other airline suffering to the same degree from delays? I haven’t heard of any.

I haven't seen any other documented cases where other airlines pilots are calling in sick at the same time to protest vaccine mandates.  Southwest may be smaller than other airlines but giving every other reason than what actually happened as the root cause of he massive delays and cancellarions is being untuthful.

The MSM doesn't want it to get out that the people actually have the power to stand up to tyranny.

---

It seems to be a valid argument. Is any other airline suffering to the same degree from delays? I haven’t heard of any.

I haven't seen any other documented cases where other airlines pilots are calling in sick at the same time to protest vaccine mandates.  Southwest may be smaller than other airlines but giving every other reason than what actually happened as the root cause of he massive delays and cancellarions is being untuthful.

The MSM doesn't want it to get out that the people actually have the power to stand up to tyranny.

Their absentee rate this past weekend was the same as it always is, so why doesn't that reflect all these brave patriots who are trying to stick it to the Man and destroy the economy by refusing to do their jobs?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Southwest stands down.

Who is next?

---

https://www.businesstravelnews.com/Trans...-Exemption

Anyone here still doubting the internal pressure coming from SW employees? This kind of decision wasn't made lightly.

---

https://www.businesstravelnews.com/Trans...-Exemption

Anyone here still doubting the internal pressure coming from SW employees? This kind of decision wasn't made lightly.

I guess it was more than bad weather after all.

---

https://www.businesstravelnews.com/Trans...-Exemption

Anyone here still doubting the internal pressure coming from SW employees? This kind of decision wasn't made lightly.

https://www.businesstravelnews.com/Trans...-Exemption

Anyone here still doubting the internal pressure coming from SW employees? This kind of decision wasn't made lightly.

I guess it was more than bad weather after all.

The thing is the EO gives all companies an automatic out to basically fire no one. All they have to do is just approve all religious requests and say you can wear a mask and test if you come into the office. There is no penalties for that and the government cannot do anything.

These companies are willfully doing this because they are getting pressure or promises of money.

---

Southwest stands down.

Who is next?

Hopefully this becomes a trend not just for airlines, but for business across the board.

I have one employee that works for me that is applying for an exemption.  I don't think that he will get it, but I respect his decision and back him 100%.  I work as a contractor for the federal government so it's not likely that they will "bend" or "cave" since we are talking thousands of employees.  The thing is we are already short-staffed and losing him would make the situation worse.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Southwest stands down.

Who is next?

Hopefully this becomes a trend not just for airlines, but for business across the board.

I have one employee that works for me that is applying for an exemption.  I don't think that he will get it, but I respect his decision and back him 100%.  I work as a contractor for the federal government so it's not likely that they will "bend" or "cave" since we are talking thousands of employees.  The thing is we are already short-staffed and losing him would make the situation worse.

Aren't exemption requests for government contractors up to the contracting company and not the actual federal government?

---