SL6 Passes....-800 Approved by SWAPA pilots

[chase]

The voting has closed on Side Letter 6: 737-800 and the results are in. The side letter passed 75.70 percent in favor, 24.30 percent opposed.

80% of the eligible voters voted.

Lets move on to the next issue. Good news for new hires and future SWA pilots!

 

[StopNTSing]

We just extended our contract for another year and gave away a 28% productivity increase to the company in exchange for the possibility of a 1% raise and a bunch of maybes about growth. Forgive me if I curb my enthusiasm.

 

[chase]

Stop,

The 28% increase in productivity "has the potential" to get higher revenues, higher profits, to reach the targets needed to add airplanes and get more FOs to the right seat.

No guarantees but I'm happy to trade a day on the calendar (no guarantees a new contract would be signed by then nor tangible growth occurring merely because the amendable date remains the same, wouldn't you agree?) for "the possibility" of growth....I'm optimistic this is a better plan than doing nothing other than acquiring AAI for our "growth pill".

Both pills together will have greater potential and generate far more than a measly 1, 2 or 3% pay raise for them and will remarkably improve the quality of life for hundreds of pilots who will get back to their base of choice, have better chances of getting OT flying or simply wish to have a better QOL which is many times more important than $$.

Time will tell which argument proves to be true, for now it is behind us and embracing the results (which can't be changed) is one way to deal with it.

Nothing you said was untrue because it is opinion, the same can be said of my statements also.

My question would be, which do you hope for and what can we all do to improve the chances of having the most positive outcome occur?

Respectfully submitted,

 

[N1atEcon]

Yeah that "choking the goose" strategy has worked so well in the past. How many raises have you got in the last few years?

 

[Newpilot2b]

So the highest paid narrow body pilots in the industry still have some doosh bags that will never be happy. Some of these guys need to go work for American or United - see how the other half lives.

 

[Quiet Flight]

So the highest paid narrow body pilots in the industry still have some doosh bags that will never be happy. Some of these guys need to go work for American or United - see how the other half lives.

Amen brother. I'll even help them fill out the app!

I don't like the ETOPS subset language but I do like the 3.61:1 ratio. I might even get to see Hawaii during my career. Haha!!!

 

[chase]

Not a math wiz, sorry.

1999 pay rates for 12 yr CA

$117.32 per Trip (TFP rate, not hourly...multiply by 1.13 approximately)

2010 pay rates for 12 yr CA

$186.06 per trip

Hard rate of 2% already negotiated for '11 with the possibility of another 1% if profit targets are met.

0-3% profitability raises for '12 as a result of the approved SL

Most recent pay raise was Sept '10 when a 3% pay raise was justiifed because of 10% profit target was reached.

2009 was no pay raise

2008 and 2007 there were negotiated hard pay rate increases due to the new CBA.

If in error, my apologies....others wiser with more facts, please correct.

 

[Widow's Son]

I don't like the ETOPS subset language

None of the current AAI overwater stuff requires ETOPS. ETOPS requires training AND CURRENCY.

Hawaii is the obvious reason for ETOPS, and the furthest east that will work is PHX.

Are you saying that with just a handful of airplanes based in the west, that every pilot will have to train on ETOPS and maintain ETOPS currency including ETOPS specific line checks? The logistics would be a nightmare, not to mention it would be a huge pain in the butski to the pilots. The fastest way to get huge growth out of ETOPS is to make it efficient enough to justify expansion. Making the company have to train and keep every pilot current is the exact opposite to promoting growth.

Nothing will prevent anyone from bidding where the ETOPS flying goes but to make everyone have to maintain ETOPS currency would be just plane stupid.

 

[mt2]

None of the current AAI overwater stuff requires ETOPS. ETOPS requires training AND CURRENCY.

Hawaii is the obvious reason for ETOPS, and the furthest east that will work is PHX.

Are you saying that with just a handful of airplanes based in the west, that every pilot will have to train on ETOPS and maintain ETOPS currency including ETOPS specific line checks? The logistics would be a nightmare, not to mention it would be a huge pain in the butski to the pilots. The fastest way to get huge growth out of ETOPS is to make it efficient enough to justify expansion. Making the company have to train and keep every pilot current is the exact opposite to promoting growth.

Nothing will prevent anyone from bidding where the ETOPS flying goes but to make everyone have to maintain ETOPS currency would be just plane stupid.

Couple of thoughts on ETOPS:

1) The -800 will not make PHX to the islands with anything close to a full load. Maybe an ETOPS -700 but not an -800, it barely makes it some days from SFO/OAK.

2) ETOPS currency ?? Explain that one please, been ETOPS qualified for years and never heard of that one.

3) ETOPS specific line check?? Perhaps an initial check but that would be it. SWA could train everyone but check out only OAK or ?? crews to do the ETOPS flying to the islands thus saving all the hassle of training everyone.

4) There is no magic to ETOPS flying, the hard part will be getting Fed approval for Maint, Dispatch, & Flt Ops training & operational procedures.

 

[bcp7]

Ops Spec B344 OpSpecs B344 If an operator does not use its ETOPS authority for a period of 6 months, the FAA may rescind the authority to operate in that area.

 

[boxjockey]

BCP7,

Pretty sure we don't fall under the term "operator". Wouldn't that be SWA? At CX, we don't have any kind of specific ETOPS recurrency training.

box

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Maybe an ETOPS -700 but not an -800, it barely makes it some days from SFO/OAK.

I think I would have heard if an -800 had not made it because last time I checked there was no place to divert en route.

The -800 has 200 nm more range than the -700 because it is a faster aircraft.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

It good see SWA will start learning the entire 737NG fleet. How are those auto throttles treating you newbies?

It will also be good to see SWA furlough some of those AAI guys as Gary is planning. Spin age 65 all you want but Paul E. was the cause of the it.

Enjoy the next five plus years transitioning to the legacy SWA really is.

 

[RedBelly]

The -800 has 200 nm more range than the -700 because it is a faster aircraft.

From Boeing:

-700 range is 3440 miles
-800 range is 3115 miles

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/specs.html

 

[andyd]

Let me get this straight......you guys got to VOTE on a side letter? At DAL we find out about side letters and mou's AFTER they have been approved by the mec. Must me nice to have a union instead of a dictatorship!

Vote: DPA

 

[GuppyWN]

The -800 has 200 nm more range than the -700 because it is a faster aircraft.

WOW!

Gup

 

[StopNTSing]

Yeah that "choking the goose" strategy has worked so well in the past. How many raises have you got in the last few years?

I think my position is a bit softer than Rick Dubinsky, but thanks for the comparo. I'm not in favor of "choking the goose." I'd merely be satisfied with not always swinging at the company's first pitch. In this case, it would have been nice to get SOMETHING for the increased productivity we just gave away. How about tighter rigs for the longer turn times? Gary's already showing his intent that these aircraft won't just be for long-hauls, but also for those capacity-constrained markets (LGA)....enjoy those 45+ min turns on east coast short-hauls. Or what about some assurances that this "One Rate" precedent we seem to be moving towards will actually prevail if the company decides to buy some 100-seaters? Do you honestly think that if Gary announced a CSeries order next week, that he wouldn't be clamoring for a lower rate from us based on the way our contract is currently written? Or at a very minimum, some assurance that this replacement of Classics with higher-capacity -800s would not result in LESS total airframes for the same capacity....and an even LONGER upgrade for you?

Call me crazy, but I believe we got played....again. Yes it's still great here. There's no place else I'd rather be. But it could be even better if we took a page from our FAs or Mechs and demanded a little more respect from the company.

 

[PCL_128]

Let me get this straight......you guys got to VOTE on a side letter? At DAL we find out about side letters and mou's AFTER they have been approved by the mec. Must me nice to have a union instead of a dictatorship!

Vote: DPA

You can vote on side letters under ALPA as well. Both AirTran and FedEx have requirements for membership ratification of side letters. If you have a problem with that issue, then the problem is your MEC, and your pilot group for not pushing them, not your union.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

From Boeing:

-700 range is 3440 miles
-800 range is 3115 miles

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/specs.html

You are correct. Good fact finding. My 737 experience is quite old.

I like the above guys quote where he said they "sometimes barely" make it HNL out of SFO/OAK. Because if it only happened "sometimes" it would really be bad.

But SWA thinking it is gaining something by flying -800's is what is so wrong. -800's with 50 plus more seats than a retiring -300 leads to less than a 1 to 1 replacement and therefore less jobs.

The senior at SWA have once again sold out the junior. Argue that SWAPA spin masters.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

SWAPO is a dictatorship as well.

SWAPO funds educational issues without pilot input. Age 65's propaganda campaign was a SWAPO funded railroad job on the SWA Fo's till most of them woke up with a five year hang over.

 

[dicko]

You are correct. Good fact finding. My 737 experience is quite old.

I like the above guys quote where he said they "sometimes barely" make it HNL out of SFO/OAK. Because if it only happened "sometimes" it would really be bad.

But SWA thinking it is gaining something by flying -800's is what is so wrong. -800's with 50 plus more seats than a retiring -300 leads to less than a 1 to 1 replacement and therefore less jobs.

The senior at SWA have once again sold out the junior. Argue that SWAPA spin masters.

Listen man,

You've already proven that you're not the sharpest tool in the shed. The 800 "has greater range because it flies faster" .... Really. Are you even a pilot ? Send a note to 737-900 operators. Tell them they should fly the 900 on the clacker to increase its range :laugh:

I will agree that you are truly 'Lucky to have a job'.

 

[PCL_128]

But SWA thinking it is gaining something by flying -800's is what is so wrong. -800's with 50 plus more seats than a retiring -300 leads to less than a 1 to 1 replacement and therefore less jobs.

The senior at SWA have once again sold out the junior. Argue that SWAPA spin masters.

When 75% vote in favor, how is that "the senior selling out the junior? The SWAPA membership obviously saw the potential benefits, as laid out clearly by Chase earlier in the thread, and decided to go for it. With SWA's great track record, I think it's a smart bet.

SWAPO is a dictatorship as well.

Really? Seems more like a democracy to me. The membership voted, not one guy.

SWAPO funds educational issues without pilot input.

Without pilot input? Didn't SWAPA run years of polling on that issue? I think they made the wrong decision, but it was theirs to make. From what I remember, the polling at SWA was pretty clearly in favor of supporting the change. Does anyone from SWA remember the exact numbers?

 

[SKC]

Listen man,

You've already proven that you're not the sharpest tool in the shed. The 800 "has greater range because it flies faster" .... Really. Are you even a pilot ?

Not that I really want to defend him, but he wasn't the one to make that statement. It was someone else.

 

[SKC]

I like the above guys quote where he said they "sometimes barely" make it HNL out of SFO/OAK. Because if it only happened "sometimes" it would really be bad.

If you would have read far enough back, you would have seen that he said they sometimes barely make it out FULL.

 

[chase]

Jan 2007

59.71% of SWAPA pilots voted to continue Age 60 repeal.

Not sure when ALPA changed their position but I believe there was a vote but much closer as I recall. I heard they didn't allow furloughed pilots to vote....not a good decision IMHO but it wasn't my fight either.

Later that month the FAA announced proposed rule change.

 

[PapaWoody]

Not to beat a dead horse, but SWAPA's vote on Age 60 repeal was heavily influenced by the "pro's/con's" information packet that was unfairly skewed towards supporting the change. Basing it on "historical growth" of around 10%, we got such BS statements as "it will delay upgrade 6 mos. to no more than a year" and "the maximum financial impact will be about $50,000" and my personal favorite "everyone will have 5 extra years as CA". The fix was in, and imho, if SWAPA was the driving force behind age 60 repeal, the bottom 60% of our membership would have serious grounds for a misrepresentation lawsuit. That being said, once ICAO changed its 60 rule, it was inevitable that ours would, so SWAPA and Paul Emens were immaterial. I just wish they had held off til the day after old Pauly Walnuts retired. That would have been priceless.

Fraternally
PapaWoody

 

[Ty Webb]

I just wish they had held off til the day after old Pauly Walnuts retired. That would have been priceless.

Fraternally
PapaWoody

We had a similar scenario- one AT Capt (who was loathed by most FO's) was writing letters to Congressmen, testifying at hearings, doing everything he could to help get it passed before his August___ birthday.

It was coming down to the wire. . . . . . a real nail-biter. I was joking that there were two stacks of paper on Oberstarr's desk- one from this Captain pleading him to sign it, and another stack from AirTran FO's pleading with him to wait.

In the end, he missed it by six days. I'm sure he's still sulking about it, down in FLL.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

Have fun flying the -800 into MDW and LGA on a snowy runway.

MDW is a space constrained and LGW is a slot controlled airport which both need the seats.

6000 feet with poor braking action is a great -800 airport. Enjoy the new thrill.

But remember if you are hot, high, and the visibility is low stabilized approaches are for the other airlines, not SWA. You have the HUD, use the force!

 

[dicko]

Have fun flying the -800 into MDW and LGA on a snowy runway.

MDW is a space constrained and LGW is a slot controlled airport which both need the seats.

6000 feet with poor braking action is a great -800 airport. Enjoy the new thrill.

But remember if you are hot, high, and the visibility is low stabilized approaches are for the other airlines, not SWA. You have the HUD, use the force!

"LGW" .... What's London Gatwick got to do with it ?

Everybody has flown into LGA and MDW. Try to remain calm.

Lay off the chocolate and go to bed.

 

[GuppyWN]

Have fun flying the -800 into MDW and LGA on a snowy runway.

MDW is a space constrained and LGW is a slot controlled airport which both need the seats.

6000 feet with poor braking action is a great -800 airport. Enjoy the new thrill.

But remember if you are hot, high, and the visibility is low stabilized approaches are for the other airlines, not SWA. You have the HUD, use the force!

I used to think some of your stuff was mildly entertaining - you know, from a "rookie" standpoint.

I now find you just plain ignorant and offensive.

Welcome to the #2 spot on my FI Avoidance Bid.

Gup