SWAPA TA failure just cost me $1,200 per month

[michael707767]

Protect your SCOPE guys. It is the only way to protect your future income and jobs.

Exactly. 1200 a month will be gone when your jobs start to be outsourced. Look at the mistakes made by Delta, NWA, United, etc. How many more pilots would be at the mainline with tighter scope? How many more FOs would be captains?

I would not sell out my pilot group for 1200 a month. Sadly, our MEC would.

 

[shearedshaft]

How does voting no help my scope? If you have seen the contact, you'd realize that the failed TA restricted all domestic code share. It didn't restrict near-international by any reasonable amount, but that market is tiny.

So voting no, was in effect, a vote "yes" to allow SWA to domestic code share (there is no restriction other than a side letter with an easy out for the company). Voting yes was voting to restrict it, voting no was a vote to allow it, at least in the near term.

So no, me writing a check each and every month for $1,200 so we can have weaker code share restrictions is not in my best interest.

And to those guys that think we're now going to get 15% raises instead of my 10%, dream on. Did you read the headlines? SWA revenue down almost 10% last month?

Why would I vote no for a 10% raise in the hopes I'd get a 15%? That is greedy.

 

[Beechball]

If someone voted no just on the sheer dislike of the raise is absolutely selfish and assenine. Look back at what Gup wrote and you'll see the big picture. His list is pretty much the same as mine. Besides, decreased flying means you'll have to work your a_s off to make 120 TFP which is NOT a raise....it's falling into the company's hands of what they want you to do...make more by working substantially more.

I'm more about protecting work rules than dollars. The dollars will come later if you protect your work rules. Unfortunately, 60% of the captains didn't look at this TA in terms of "how does this affect the F/O's" they looked at it as "This TA doesn't affect me much, so I'll vote YES." Some unity we have.

 

[StopNTSing]

How does voting no help my scope? If you have seen the contact, you'd realize that the failed TA restricted all domestic code share. It didn't restrict near-international by any reasonable amount, but that market is tiny.

So voting no, was in effect, a vote "yes" to allow SWA to domestic code share (there is no restriction other than a side letter with an easy out for the company). Voting yes was voting to restrict it, voting no was a vote to allow it, at least in the near term.

So no, me writing a check each and every month for $1,200 so we can have weaker code share restrictions is not in my best interest.

And to those guys that think we're now going to get 15% raises instead of my 10%, dream on. Did you read the headlines? SWA revenue down almost 10% last month?

Why would I vote no for a 10% raise in the hopes I'd get a 15%? That is greedy.

Friend, the ONLY reason we got such iron-clad language on domestic code-share is because the company has NO PLANS to code share with another airline in the domestic markets! If RJs had a place in the low-cost airline business model of SWA, trust me, we would have had them a long time ago. They make even less sense in the depressed-yield environment we are in now.

 

[Mookie]

I am a senior FO at SWA and my pay rate was scheduled to go from $108 to $121 after the TA (from about $120/hour to $135/hr).

I fly 120 trips per month, so the TA failure cost me $1,200 per month. Every month.

Would I write a check for $1,200 per month to keep ELITT the same? Nope. How about to let lance captains continue to take senior FO lines and give them to junior FOs? Nope.

This is the interesting part: I've asked every FO I've come in contact with in the last week what they thought their gross pay raise was going to be if the TA passed. Not one had an answer.

Luckily, SWA just announced 9% lower revenues for last month, so I'm sure our pay raises will be even better (not) when we go back to the table.

You guys don't know a good thing when it's looking you in the eye.

Anyone else think General Lee just created a new handle on here to stir things up???

if not, this guy is so clueless its scary that he got his atp.
Mookie

 

[shearedshaft]

Friend, the ONLY reason we got such iron-clad language on domestic code-share is because the company has NO PLANS to code share with another airline in the domestic markets! If RJs had a place in the low-cost airline business model of SWA, trust me, we would have had them a long time ago. They make even less sense in the depressed-yield environment we are in now.

I can't argue that. But don't dismiss the fact that iron-clad domestic code share language is now gone.

So if Republic, or Skywest or one of the other hurting regionals is sitting down in SWAs offices making an offer that SWA can't refuse right as I type this, we're going to look like chumps to turn down protective language for unlimited RJs domestically.

You might be right about not making sense in a depressed yield enviroment, but you might also be wrong, especially if the fuel prices make it work. I dunno much about RJ economics these days, but I know there are a lot of hulls looking for hours and there are a lot of SWA airplanes with RJ-only loads on them.

I also know that the TA had much better scope restrictions than our current contract, so voting no was a vote against increased scope, at least for the year it will take to re-negotiate another contract.

 

[mesaserf]

Wow, you sound like a UAL pilot circa 2000: "Give me my raises... I don't care about the outsourcing Section 1 allows." Your biggest pay raise will come when SWA grows its own fleet (instead of Volaris & WestJet) and you upgrade to Captain. Then you'll get your lousy $1200 a month and then some.

Damn straight buba…

Just imagine some time in the future when cabotage is history and Volaris & WestJet are flying point to point within the lower 48. Or better yet, a Mesa 100 seat jet in WN colors with a captain making $50/hr and a F/O making $25? How does that grab yah?

Thought so.

 

[ASA_DFW]

How does voting no help my scope? If you have seen the contact, you'd realize that the failed TA restricted all domestic code share. It didn't restrict near-international by any reasonable amount, but that market is tiny.

So voting no, was in effect, a vote "yes" to allow SWA to domestic code share (there is no restriction other than a side letter with an easy out for the company). Voting yes was voting to restrict it, voting no was a vote to allow it, at least in the near term.

So no, me writing a check each and every month for $1,200 so we can have weaker code share restrictions is not in my best interest.

And to those guys that think we're now going to get 15% raises instead of my 10%, dream on. Did you read the headlines? SWA revenue down almost 10% last month?

Why would I vote no for a 10% raise in the hopes I'd get a 15%? That is greedy.

The international market for Southwest is tiny? Where do you think Southwest is going to grow? Domestic or international? My guess would be international. If the TA passed you would see a press release about all the new international service through a CODE SHARE, not by Southwest. That is a ton of flying positions done by other carriers and not by SWA pilots

An airline will either grow or shrink, it does not stagnate. Southwest will grow if the TA passed, just not with SWA pilots.

 

[samballs]

I am a senior FO at SWA and my pay rate was scheduled to go from $108 to $121 after the TA (from about $120/hour to $135/hr).

I fly 120 trips per month, so the TA failure cost me $1,200 per month. Every month.

Would I write a check for $1,200 per month to keep ELITT the same? Nope. How about to let lance captains continue to take senior FO lines and give them to junior FOs? Nope.

This is the interesting part: I've asked every FO I've come in contact with in the last week what they thought their gross pay raise was going to be if the TA passed. Not one had an answer.

Luckily, SWA just announced 9% lower revenues for last month, so I'm sure our pay raises will be even better (not) when we go back to the table.

You guys don't know a good thing when it's looking you in the eye.

Funny if the TA would have passed, you would have become a junior FO if lucky. Then a whore like you would have to work every day to make what your making today minus that extra 1200. taoff the mang goggles

 

[Superpilot92]

Wow, you sound like a UAL pilot circa 2000: "Give me my raises... I don't care about the outsourcing Section 1 allows." Your biggest pay raise will come when SWA grows its own fleet (instead of Volaris & WestJet) and you upgrade to Captain. Then you'll get your lousy $1200 a month and then some.

DING DING DING!! We have a winner!! :beer:

 

[shearedshaft]

Funny if the TA would have passed, you would have become a junior FO if lucky. Then a whore like you would have to work every day to make what your making today minus that extra 1200. taoff the mang goggles

Except you have it backwards. The TA had "no domestic code share". With a no vote, we no longer have any domestic scope protection at all.

Tell me again how voting no helped our scope? Where are we right now? Can Gary Kelly start regional flying now that we've voted no or not?

How about if we had voted yes?

Voting no was a vote against scope protections.

 

[MILPILOT17]

As a mid-level seniority captain I gladly turned down over $1200 a month at 100 trips for pay to protect us from outsourcing and losing our productivity.

You're welcome clueless.

PS. I'd be willing to bet you're retired military and this is your first airline rodeo

I'm retired military and this is my first rodeo; I voted NO! I bet you're straight civilian and you're gay!

 

[Capn Butthead]

WOW! Thats all I have to say.........

How does it change scope by voting no......I think we told them to stick it...at least 51 % did. People who wanted the extra 1200 bucks voted yes at the same time risking giving away flying. Sure they could bring skywest on. Not denying that. But as an ex RJ driver myself, RJ's cant really compete with 737's or A320 in a low cost enviroment. Its all about seat mile cost and they cant compete...period. Plus if you are senior then maybe you are flying middle of the week and yes we arent full. But 50 people on a 737 is making more money that 12 on a rj. BY saying no and keep saying no we are telling mgmt that we want to do the flying! We have to change the codeshare language! Period!

 

[Colonel Savage]

"So Sheared Shaft, thanks for coming to your SWA interview. Tell us, if we had another candidate just as qualified as you, should we hire you or him?"

"Hire ME ME ME!"

 

[shearedshaft]

WOW! Thats all I have to say.........

How does it change scope by voting no......I think we told them to stick it...at least 51 % did. People who wanted the extra 1200 bucks voted yes at the same time risking giving away flying. Sure they could bring skywest on. Not denying that. But as an ex RJ driver myself, RJ's cant really compete with 737's or A320 in a low cost enviroment. Its all about seat mile cost and they cant compete...period. Plus if you are senior then maybe you are flying middle of the week and yes we arent full. But 50 people on a 737 is making more money that 12 on a rj. BY saying no and keep saying no we are telling mgmt that we want to do the flying! We have to change the codeshare language! Period!

The TA did change the codeshare language. To "NO". In the TA, there was to be zero, nada, none, no outsourced domestic flying. American Airlines would have swooned to get that language.

Voting no was a vote against restricting the outsourcing of domestic flying. I want scope, the TA offered it, and you guys said, "Never mind, we don't want raises or scope."

The company also tried to keep the Lances and first year guys from pounding on the ELITT system getting rid of duty period after duty period. How nice it would be to have a positive net zero, that is flexibility. Ask a PHX captain if he can move stuff around, they have net zero of 65. True schedule flexibility. On the FO side, lances dump everything they can into ELITT, keeping net zero forever zero. No flexibility. But hey, let's keep it that way, let's keep out the chance of being able to move our schedule around, let's let lances stuff ELITT full.

But instead, guys vote to keep the ELITT system useless for anyone not trying to change catagory (lance to captain, first year to second year) and vote against restricting domestic code share. Oh yeah, and gave up $1,000 per month or so on top of it.