Possible SWA T.A. pay numbers... Embrace the suck.

[EL10]

Is not the 900 pax per day only for the Asia/Pacific region, and a lower threshold for the rest?

I hear what you are saying and the start up and down is an issue. With that said it will be hard to find a foreign airline that would want to do the reverse seasonal with SWA. Which would be a hard sell to any airline to fly off peak times.

 

[Ty Webb]

By the way, the NC *CLAIMS* that the company can only use foreign carriers, but I don't see that restriction yet, and I've been looking. The two things it can't use are:

1. Flags of Convenience - the alter-ego European carriers like Norwegian Air Shuttle, and
2. State Owned Enterprises - The Emirates and Qatars

It may be there, I just can't find it, which means they could code share with the Legacies here in the states for their Far International flying. I still can't believe we're buying off on South America as "near International."

Wow. I thought some the stuff in the AirTran TA was foolish, this is a whole 'nuther league altogether.

These guys have been living in a cave for the past 40 years. Time to bring in some outside help. Holy crap.

 

[Lear70]

Your an idiot . SWA just needs more like you and they will get enough yes votes .

Now, now... we're all on the same team. Simma,,, simma,,,

We have to CONSTRUCTIVELY persuade the Yes voters. Your approach MAY not be conducive to doing that...

 

[Lear70]

Is not the 900 pax per day only for the Asia/Pacific region, and a lower threshold for the rest?

I hear what you are saying and the start up and down is an issue. With that said it will be hard to find a foreign airline that would want to do the reverse seasonal with SWA. Which would be a hard sell to any airline to fly off peak times.

The last part I disagree with you, simply because revenue is revenue, and in the off-season those other carriers are looking to fill their seats - I doubt they'll complain if we send them business when they need it.

In the peak season we fly them for max profit, in the off-seasons we let another carrier do it for us and explore other markets without having to buy a single new plane or hire a single additional pilot.

As for the 900 PDEW, no sir, it applies to Near Int'l as well:

c. Near International: To provide connecting service for the Company with a foreign carrier on Near International itineraries within the regions of North America, Central America, and South America where the Company operates any domestic segments and any U.S. trans-border segments of the itinerary under the following conditions:

i. Unless the Company serves the market, it will not initiate interline service to any foreign destination for which the average of the total Passengers Daily Each Way (PDEW) between the United States and the foreign destination over the previous twelve (12) months is equal to or greater than nine hundred (900). The Company may initiate interline service to destinations below nine hundred (900).

 

[outerlimits]

Now, now... we're all on the same team. Simma,,, simma,,,

We have to CONSTRUCTIVELY persuade the Yes voters. Your approach MAY not be conducive to doing that...

If the SWA pilots vote this contract in. Not only will the camels nose be in the tent. The camel will be inside ,drinks ur beer and eating out of the refrigerator .

 

[humveedriver]

By the way, the NC *CLAIMS* that the company can only use foreign carriers, but I don't see that restriction yet, and I've been looking. The two things it can't use are:

1. Flags of Convenience - the alter-ego European carriers like Norwegian Air Shuttle, and
2. State Owned Enterprises - The Emirates and Qatars

It may be there, I just can't find it, which means they could code share with the Legacies here in the states for their Far International flying. I still can't believe we're buying off on South America as "near International."

Lear,

I know you will put a decent contract comparison out for the pilot group to digest. He did this at AT. It is very helpful for the fences sitters who get distracted by the pay increases and hope that the company does the right thing with their newly found scope gains. Please look at the section that talks about SSS. Scheduled Sub Contracted flying. Basically Apple Tours. There is no language that addresse how the red eye flight are going to be constructed. That is my number one reason for voting no. And hopefully, if people are educated on what will come out of this TA, they will stop worrying about their pay raise and think about how flying to southern Mexico at 8pm and deadheading back to HOU at 12am is going to feel? Are you getting override for that? When do you not? What is a "non-domestic" route pairing? Some really loose language in this TA. So never mind we failed at getting RRC, the company got exactly what it wanted, and the schedules a year from now will reflect it (if we vote this in as is).

 

[Lear70]

Well-said, sir. Hoping to have Sec 1 done by the end of the weekend.

I've reached out to JL and he and I are going to try to coordinate a joint product that would have Scope, the FULL pros/cons list, some breakdown of the worse sections, some of which you listed very well, trying to keep it short and succinct. Maybe a 3rd person in on it as well.

 

[Nindiri]

I suspect you won't be on GK's Xmas card list this year, Lear.

 

[Lear70]

I suspect you won't be on GK's Xmas card list this year, Lear.

I don't mind.

Seriously though, I'm just advocating we keep what we have and go back to the table, not try to choke the golden goose.

It'll take the pilots showing up for picketing events and actually doing what pilots have to do to get a contract. If they won't, then we're pretty much screwed.

 

[N1atEcon]

Seriously though, I'm just advocating we keep what we have and go back to the table,

I will stick with what we have. The TA is a giveway of unbelieveable proportions. I would think only somone 63 or older would vote yes. Anyone else is either a fool or cannot understand the concept of what this TA will do to our jobs and quality of life.

 

[General Lee]

I will stick with what we have. The TA is a giveway of unbelieveable proportions. I would think only somone 63 or older would vote yes. Anyone else is either a fool or cannot understand the concept of what this TA will do to our jobs and quality of life.

That is the correct attitude. The top 30% of the Captains in each base will try to sell you out because they don't think any of the changes, including redeyes or JV or codeshare, will affect them. The 1700 former AT pilots will vote NO because this is their chance to keep the "gold mine."

Giving up flying via JVs or codeshares is something you will never get back, take it from pilots from the big 3. Cheaper INTL pilots flying larger planes is what all managements want. A small raise can't make up for that loss, we all can see that now. Good luck to you guys.



Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[humveedriver]

Lear,

There is no language that addresse how the red eye flight are going to be constructed. That is my number one reason for voting no.

Found what I was looking for;

Used to say only one red eye trip per month (if you had 4 three days, only one three day could have red eye flying). That language is crossed out.

If you have a red eye on your schedule, you can only trade it for another red eye.

You can sit for up to 2.5 hours in the middle of your multi-leg red eye flight.

You can be scheduled to have your DH end 1 hour past your maximum duty period.

You can only be scheduled for one DH leg after flying a red eye. That's good. Unless the association agrees to change it. Why EVEN include that? Unless it's MOU fodder.

I was senior enough at AT to do this flying and realize it was not for me. If this passes. I will see all of this.

 

[71driver]

AAAARRRGGGHH!!!! what do we pay our negotiating committee members for....seriously....OUR JOB is to fly planes and have them sift through this crap!! WHY has THIS become the norm!!!!
I look forward to having "Lear70" digest this TA for us as I KNOW and am CONFIDENT he will be obective and point out what our d-bag negotiators should have!!!
We should NOT have to taste the turd to see if we like it...period... WE PAY these useless tools for this???!!...don't bring us a 50%+1 hopeful turd and HOPE we vote for it....LAME...LAME....LAME...

There I feel better...now back to your original programming

 

[FurloughedAgain]

Geez. Calm down. They're just pilots. Just like you. While you go home and play golf or coach your kids soccer game between trips, these guys spend month after month heads down pouring over language. And yet people treat them like they're taking money from your pocket. Like the TA or hate it, remember that all of the union's committees and board members are just pilots standing up and volunteering their time and energy to make the association run. Dbags? Right. The average pilot can't even be bothered to wear a dark tie as an expression of unity and the guys with their hands in the dirt doing the work are the dbags?

Well? Next time why don't you get off your butt and go volunteer for some committee work?! Quit blaming SWAPA. You ARE SWAPA!

 

[humveedriver]

Geez. Calm down. They're just pilots. Just like you. While you go home and play golf or coach your kids soccer game between trips, these guys spend month after month heads down pouring over language. And yet people treat them like they're taking money from your pocket. Like the TA or hate it, remember that all of the union's committees and board members are just pilots standing up and volunteering their time and energy to make the association run. Dbags? Right. The average pilot can't even be bothered to wear a dark tie as an expression of unity and the guys with their hands in the dirt doing the work are the dbags?

Well? Next time why don't you get off your butt and go volunteer for some committee work?! Quit blaming SWAPA. You ARE SWAPA!

To that point I hope SWA pilots realize this TA isn't about us. Yes we sent pilot negotiators to the table and told the company negotiators what we wanted. It's not like they didn't deliver the message. The company response was NO. They gave us pay rates comparable AA and in exchange for our entire Section 1. It's a complete rewrite. It gives them ALL of their asks. It's all about them. Has been since day 1. So the ball is in our court. Forget the pay. Not that we should except one penny less. Focus on what the company wants and why. That will minimize the pain down the road. The only leverage we have is a unified No vote, keep the industry leading job protections and keep the schedule flexibility that we have. Want meaningful retirement and less ambiguous languages? Then 8,000 pilots had better ask for it. That's where we are.

 

[Ty Webb]

Yep. Pretty simple. Don't trade what we have for this p.o.s. and a few extra bucks that will likely be absorbed by concessions and weak language.

 

[Flopgut]

not necessarily routing against you all, but... Back in the day Pan Am was ur equal opposite (international v domestic. I.e. They did all their own international flying) US politicians and other countries'airlines teamed up to change that. It would be quite incongruent to see a US airline like SWA be able to do all their own international flying in today's age. Youre short on compliance and enormously limited in a single airplane type, And Pan Am's advantage was traded away as much by US politicians as it was US legacy contracts. So why should it be made easy for you now? You're expensive, your cabin service is even more stale than UAL (which is pathetic) and frankly, you're just not that special. Do whatever you're going to do, but do NOT ask US politicians to make it easier for SWA in exchange for allowing the ME3 to do what they want to do.

 

[Lear70]

not necessarily routing against you all, but... Back in the day Pan Am was ur equal opposite (international v domestic. I.e. They did all their own international flying) US politicians and other countries'airlines teamed up to change that. It would be quite incongruent to see a US airline like SWA be able to do all their own international flying in today's age. Youre short on compliance and enormously limited in a single airplane type, And Pan Am's advantage was traded away as much by US politicians as it was US legacy contracts. So why should it be made easy for you now? You're expensive, your cabin service is even more stale than UAL (which is pathetic) and frankly, you're just not that special. Do whatever you're going to do, but do NOT ask US politicians to make it easier for SWA in exchange for allowing the ME3 to do what they want to do.

This isn't a political debate... wrong thread. This is about the T.A. and negotiating with the company. It has nothing to do with legislation or anything else.

No one said we wanted to fly all over the world in a 737, but we certainly can cover N America, Mexico, the Caribbean, and most of S America with the 700's and 800's, and the rest of S America and Hawaii with the Max.

The POINT is that we don't want to give that flying away. There's no reason we need codeshare for those. We're growing into it NOW, more destinations every quarter.

Would we consider SOME code-share? I think a good portion of the pilot group MIGHT give up some FAR international with drop-dead dates and cease-and-desist language, rather than some kind of ridiculous "circuit breaker" language that is almost impossible to digest. First rule of contract language - if it's hard for YOU to read and digest it, it'll be hard for the arbitrator, which makes enforcement extremely hard.

As for the rest of your post, I really don't see much of a comparison between us and Pan-Am. Different era, different product. I personally preferred the cabin experience at AirTran with assigned seating and Business Class, but whenever people find out I work at Southwest, 9 times out of 10 the response is "I love them! You guys are so fun to fly on!" You have to remember, the average person may fly once or twice a year. For them, it's not stale.

Good luck,,,

 

[Just thinking]

And to think the SME's read over this language and decided to send it on the the pilot group. The level of incompetence is staggering from the BOD to the NC and to the NOC. Dewey, Cheatem and Howe"....... From our own representatives. You have to wonder what they are getting from the company for throwing their own pilot group under the train. Take the quote from our president in March boliviating on about RRC and section 1 is sacred blah blah blah. Now he quickly shovels this load of dung at the pilot group. Phuking worthless. He does not even have the courage to send out anything to the pilots he is screwing over.
The pilot group has quickly poked holes in a multitude of sections with piss poor language and concessionary give backs for nothing. They did not even have the courage to forward it the the pilot group with a NO vote recommendation.

 

[Flopgut]

This isn't a political debate... wrong thread. This is about the T.A. and negotiating with the company. It has nothing to do with legislation or anything else,

SWA can't do what it wants to do without some change or without help. Period. Other countries will not surrender it to you like was once done with PanAm. My advice: try and keep your code share to one airline, or maybe two. Pick one with young FAs, the right airplanes, and one that can help the SWA geniuses demystify the intricacies of etops.