Southwest slam clicks- c'mon captains....

[HowardBorden]

Thanks for that. I am going off thread topic here but I am really more interested in your current section 6. How are negotiations going? You've been at it for 2-3 years? Close to end game? Management playing hard ball? Pilots satisfied with pace of negotiations? At my own carrier we are not at all happy with negotiations and especially management's stance on several key issues. Been at it for over three years. Things starting to heat up as pilots' patience is at an end. Wish the best for you guys but I think that SWAPA will have to experience a real sea change to get any traction. Perhaps this is where the "disgruntled" AT pilots may be a real asset in your struggle to improve your CBA. You are probably going to have to inflict some "pain" on SWA before you get any positive movement. That's something I don't think SWAPA knows how to do. Regards,
Fr8doggie

On the parts in bold I completely agree. We have fundamentally changed our list. There is certainly a portion of our original list that are yes voters no matter what, the reasons are varied from; I don't have a lot of time left and I'll agree to any small improvement in order to get mine before I retire, to those that want to never be confrontational in order to preserve the era of a "constructive relationship" with management.

Those recently added will easily drown out the automatic yes votes. I think most former AT folks will not be easily swayed to a yes vote on practically anything. Management will take a while to understand how the recent additions to the list will change the dynamics of negotiations, but in time it will become evident.

 

[scoreboardII]

Last section six took 5 years, nothing new here, move along.

 

[Luv2BFlyin]

When was the last CBA ratified and when was that in relation to the ammendable date?

 

[PCL_128]

Fr8- I think most of us on the line are in a patient mode

There are 5 major projects being finished in 2015, plus new international terminals in 3 cities coast to coast in a few years after-
Our leverage will be better then, and most don't mind sitting on the best contract and making gains a year later

JMO

I'm curious why you think that your leverage will be better then. These events that you discuss do not generate leverage.

 

[redflyer65]

FE's testimony would make you sick. I've read all of it and it's no wonder why we're in the situation we find ourselves in. He and the MC were in way over their heads and instead of admitting to it and getting help, they continued to prod along and get their asses handed to them.

Do you have a link to that testimony?


I think Wave is talking about more revenue leading to a better negotiating environment. You could pretty much discount everything he mentioned and quarter profits are going higher and higher. Management floating 'flattish' at the beginning of negotiations has become more and more laughable. All you need to do is review the last 2-3 quarterly reports. The Annual report is eye opening.

 

[fr8doggie]

Do you have a link to that testimony?


I think Wave is talking about more revenue leading to a better negotiating environment. You could pretty much discount everything he mentioned and quarter profits are going higher and higher. Management floating 'flattish' at the beginning of negotiations has become more and more laughable. All you need to do is review the last 2-3 quarterly reports. The Annual report is eye opening.

That's great but what is SWAPA going to do to convince a recalcitrant management to agree to the CBA enhancements you are seeking? You can say 'flattish' is laughable but you are going to have to bring the pain to get what you want.

 

[PCL_128]

Do you have a link to that testimony?

You either have to pay to download it from the public records or get it from someone who has access. I've heard rumors that someone is going to make all of it freely available on a web site, though. It's very eye opening. Especially VdV's testimony.

I think Wave is talking about more revenue leading to a better negotiating environment.

Irrelevant. That just means that there is money available to be bargained for. It doesn't mean that you have the leverage to get it. Where is the leverage going to come from? Because unless management needs something from you, you're going to have to generate leverage on your own.

 

[Luv2BFlyin]

When was the last CBA ratified and when was that in relation to the ammendable date?

Anyone?

 

[waveflyer]

I'm curious why you think that your leverage will be better then. These events that you discuss do not generate leverage.

We'll have a better idea of the real long term plans, and delta will have leapfrogged us in regards to pay after already having better retirement. The other legacies will be closer to us for same size airplanes as well, if not exceed.

Pattern bargaining.

 

[scoreboardII]

Anyone?

We had a one year extension because we got something, don't remember what. I am pretty sure we are only 1 plus a few months past the extension date, although two plus something since first opportunity to amend.

 

[PCL_128]

We'll have a better idea of the real long term plans, and delta will have leapfrogged us in regards to pay after already having better retirement. The other legacies will be closer to us for same size airplanes as well, if not exceed.

Pattern bargaining.

You still haven't described where your leverage will come from. Your problem is that your pilots aren't willing to do what is necessary in order to generate leverage. Lagging behind Delta and other carriers doesn't generate leverage unless you can get a strong strike vote to take the NMB. Otherwise it's just a talking point at the bargaining table, and the other side can continue to stall for an eternity.

 

[27 driver]

You still haven't described where your leverage will come from. Your problem is that your pilots aren't willing to do what is necessary in order to generate leverage. Lagging behind Delta and other carriers doesn't generate leverage unless you can get a strong strike vote to take the NMB. Otherwise it's just a talking point at the bargaining table, and the other side can continue to stall for an eternity.

A strike vote means exactly ZERO. The NMB will never release an airline the size of SWA. They carry more domestic pax then anyone else. You know that PCL.

 

[PCL_128]

A perfect example of how pilots don't understand how the NMB works. Yes, the NMB will most certainly release an airline the size of SWA......as long as they're convinced that a deal will result from the release instead of a strike. In other words, you need to be close to a deal (few items on the table), you need to have steadfast pilot unity so that management believes your threat is credible, and you have to have union leadership that the NMB has confidence will be reasonable and know a deal when they see it. The NMB won't release a large airline if those conditions aren't met, because the odds are too high that it will lead to a strike rather than a deal.

A strike vote is incredibly important in that formula. It shows both management and the NMB that the pilot group is unified and the leadership is capable of executing. If a strike vote comes in at 85%, game over. Management knows they can break a strike, and the NMB knows that management will try. But if a strike vote comes in at 99%, management knows that the lines will hold, at least for a few weeks, and the NMB knows that management is unlikely to want to weather a strike for that long. It's a perfect recipe for getting a deal during a cooling off period instead of getting to a strike.

Pilots are too focused on wanting to strike. A strike is not the goal. The goal is to get to a deal. The threat of a strike is just a tool used to reach that goal. But if you don't have that credible threat, then a bean counter like Gary is just going to keep running the clock as long as possible to save the company tons of money. You need to start working on generating a credible threat. You're not dealing with Herb anymore.

 

[waveflyer]

So in your head the only leverage is to strike or a real threat to strike...

Once again, you got the horns bc you messed with the entire bull- not just messed with GK-

By your logic we'd have never gained a contract in our existence

You do post with arrogance on the subject- but you yourself have never won a contract, or worked with a satisfied group of pilots-
You can say we don't know what we're talking about, but try and remember that you have had no success at SWA where many of us have shared much.

 

[PCL_128]

You really are clueless. And no, I'm certainly not saying that a strike is the only source of leverage. There are so many sources of leverage that they can't be listed. But you haven't provided even a single example of where you think your leverage is going to come from. Stick to what you know.

 

[Crash Pad]

Well they do have a pretty sweet contract using there zero leverage strategy.

AirTran has a far worse contract that involved picketing, strike votes, etc. I think we also got our new contract when somebody bought us, which I know is totally unrelated. I mean the company stalled for five years then after the announcement they suddenly caved to our manufactured leverage. Weird.

 

[FIREMAN]

The company didn't cave the pilot group did.

 

[twepilot]

Toad Horse-chit talking about leverage. Laughing my ass off! Or wait maybe he means the kind of leverage you get when you pre-agree to whatever may come out in an agreement.

RV

 

[HowardBorden]

A perfect example of how pilots don't understand how the NMB works. Yes, the NMB will most certainly release an airline the size of SWA......as long as they're convinced that a deal will result from the release instead of a strike. In other words, you need to be close to a deal (few items on the table), you need to have steadfast pilot unity so that management believes your threat is credible, and you have to have union leadership that the NMB has confidence will be reasonable and know a deal when they see it. The NMB won't release a large airline if those conditions aren't met, because the odds are too high that it will lead to a strike rather than a deal.

A strike vote is incredibly important in that formula. It shows both management and the NMB that the pilot group is unified and the leadership is capable of executing. If a strike vote comes in at 85%, game over. Management knows they can break a strike, and the NMB knows that management will try. But if a strike vote comes in at 99%, management knows that the lines will hold, at least for a few weeks, and the NMB knows that management is unlikely to want to weather a strike for that long. It's a perfect recipe for getting a deal during a cooling off period instead of getting to a strike.

Pilots are too focused on wanting to strike. A strike is not the goal. The goal is to get to a deal. The threat of a strike is just a tool used to reach that goal. But if you don't have that credible threat, then a bean counter like Gary is just going to keep running the clock as long as possible to save the company tons of money. You need to start working on generating a credible threat. You're not dealing with Herb anymore.

That may have been a strategy at AirTran, but the NMB, management and SWAPA all know that a strike is a hollow threat because even if we were released by the NMB we would be defeated by the PEB.

The Presidential Emergency Board would surely step in and halt self help because the whole purpose of such a board is to determine if: an unresolved dispute between a carrier and a labor organization or other representative threatens "substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service."

But of course you already knew that.

 

[HowardBorden]

A perfect example of how pilots don't understand how the NMB works. Yes, the NMB will most certainly release an airline the size of SWA......as long as they're convinced that a deal will result from the release instead of a strike. In other words, you need to be close to a deal (few items on the table), you need to have steadfast pilot unity so that management believes your threat is credible, and you have to have union leadership that the NMB has confidence will be reasonable and know a deal when they see it. The NMB won't release a large airline if those conditions aren't met, because the odds are too high that it will lead to a strike rather than a deal.

A strike vote is incredibly important in that formula. It shows both management and the NMB that the pilot group is unified and the leadership is capable of executing. If a strike vote comes in at 85%, game over. Management knows they can break a strike, and the NMB knows that management will try. But if a strike vote comes in at 99%, management knows that the lines will hold, at least for a few weeks, and the NMB knows that management is unlikely to want to weather a strike for that long. It's a perfect recipe for getting a deal during a cooling off period instead of getting to a strike.

Pilots are too focused on wanting to strike. A strike is not the goal. The goal is to get to a deal. The threat of a strike is just a tool used to reach that goal. But if you don't have that credible threat, then a bean counter like Gary is just going to keep running the clock as long as possible to save the company tons of money. You need to start working on generating a credible threat. You're not dealing with Herb anymore.

That may have been a strategy at AirTran, but the NMB, management and SWAPA all know that a strike is a hollow threat because even if we were released by the NMB we would be defeated by the PEB.

The Presidential Emergency Board would surely step in and halt self help because the whole purpose of such a board is to determine if an unresolved dispute between a carrier and a labor organization threatens "substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service."

But of course you already knew that.