SWA Gets More Cautious For '08

[The Prussian]

This may be a stupid question, but since the "codeShare" is mostly west coast to Hawaii connections, why would there be a desire to eliminate what is essentially a "free flow" of money to SWA?

Not a stupid question...this was a stipulation in our sideletter in which we agreed that our fleet growth would not fall below 5%...

 

[HalinTexas]

So, let me get this straight.

If you don't grow your fleet by 5% over the '05-'10 time period the codeshare ends, or stops growing?

How much has the fleet grown to date since '05?

What determines "codeshare growth?"

 

[CaptSeth]

So, let me get this straight.

If you don't grow your fleet by 5% over the '05-'10 time period the codeshare ends, or stops growing?

How much has the fleet grown to date since '05?

What determines "codeshare growth?"

More importanly, Hal, who's going to subsidize their profit sharing if they eliminate the code share? I wouldn't lose any sleep over this one. At all.

 

[HalinTexas]

My thinking is that they're grown 5% already, unless they start parking a lot of planes and furloughing lots of people.

 

[atafan]

I understand why SWA pilots are concerned about codeshare agreements but as far as this codeshare with ATA it shouldn't be of too much concern. ATA is only operating where SWA can't operate and even if they had international authorization this flying wouldn't be profitable for SWA with their current fleet and pilot contract.

It would be suicide for the SWA pilots to push their Company in a direction that might put them in a precarious position. SWA is getting International feed without the major expenses that are related to that kind of flying, not to mention the liabilities. If, when, the world gets more unstable those markets will be the first affected and with SWA's only exposure through a codeshare agreement, the only ill effect will be less feed from ATA.

Like Seth said, I'm not too concerned about the codeshare going away.

 

[Esprit]

Why is WN so concerned about ATA's operation? They haven't the proper equipment, authorization, or qualified crews to do international. Why would their domestic growth have any bearing on the type of flying ATA does?

ESPRIT

 

[FR8dognit]

Why is WN so concerned about ATA's operation? They haven't the proper equipment, authorization, or qualified crews to do international. Why would their domestic growth have any bearing on the type of flying ATA does?

ESPRIT

Because that is what our side letter says. If we can't have avg. 5% growth, all code-share ends. It is to keep the company from growing the flying without growing the pilot group.

BTW..HAL...We've hired over 1000 pilots since end of 2005. Long story short, your probably correct...we probably have grown 15% or so since then...but I have no idea how to calculate or what I would be calculating. Is it avg. growth over that time per year or growth from the original number???? Anyone know?

 

[Esprit]

Because that is what our side letter says. If we can't have avg. 5% growth, all code-share ends. It is to keep the company from growing the flying without growing the pilot group.

Oh, I'm sorry I didn't realize that you guys had a side letter.

I'm amazed everytime I run into WN guys and see how worried they are over ATA's pitily 10 757s. My guess is that WN Management isn't as short-sighted and sees the value in your code-share agreement. One need look no further than AA and BAA's One World Alliance to see how both sides benefit. I don't think that either partner (AA/BAA) has lost any growth due to this alliance. Do you honestly believe that 5% growth would continue year after year? The fact is, this codeshare adds x amount of millions to your bottom line (that otherwise you would be unable to generate on your own at this time) and you should be thankful that your management is able to see such potential. Be carefull what you wish for, HNL redeyes are a bitch.

ESPRIT

 

[puddlejumper101]

Because that is what our side letter says. If we can't have avg. 5% growth, all code-share ends. It is to keep the company from growing the flying without growing the pilot group.

Oh, I'm sorry I didn't realize that you guys had a side letter.

I'm amazed everytime I run into WN guys and see how worried they are over ATA's pitily 10 757s. My guess is that WN Management isn't as short-sighted and sees the value in your code-share agreement. One need look no further than AA and BAA's One World Alliance to see how both sides benefit. I don't think that either partner (AA/BAA) has lost any growth due to this alliance. Do you honestly believe that 5% growth would continue year after year? The fact is, this codeshare adds x amount of millions to your bottom line (that otherwise you would be unable to generate on your own at this time) and you should be thankful that your management is able to see such potential. Be carefull what you wish for, HNL redeyes are a bitch.

ESPRIT

Honestly...you my friend have a very good point. I am here at WN...and wonder this myself sometimes. Do we spend too much time worrying about things that probably are better off alone? Sometimes I think we do. The codeshare works...so let it be. Like he said...ATA is not really a threat...granted the other side of the coin is without limits any management no matter how good they are might take advantage of the opportunity without reguard. It's a balance we both have to maintain but the financial stability of WN should be more important than a codeshare with ATA. Once we hit the point when we are not growing 5% (which it will happen), then what? Getting rid of the codeshare is probably not a smart financial move is it? At some point we will hit that point and then what happens.

 

[Alcatraz]

I don't think we're worried about, to use ESPRIT's words, "ATA's 10 pitily 757s." I agree that ATA isn't a threat AT THE MOMENT. Actually, I think it's great. So I think the ATA guys can relax and not worry about the slowdown at SWA.

That being said, what we're really worried about (or at least, I'm really worried about), is if we let this slide, does this open the door to more outsourcing pilot jobs to non SWAPA pilots? I think having two or three hundred international "codeshare" flights under the SWA brand not flown by SWAPA pilots is a major threat to my job security and upgrade hopes... so where do you draw the line?

And after all, aren't even the ATA guys concerned about a few Hawaiian codeshare flights being "temporarily" shifted to other GAL entities? (I still get the ATA ALPA union updates as a furloughee)

All I want for Christmas... OK, maybe all I want in my next contract... is a REALLY good scope clause for everybody. There's already a TA on the scope section of our new (and still incomplete) contract, and I hope it's good (SWAPA won't publish the TA for the usual valid reasons).

Hang in there, everyone...