AirTran pilots will own the SW upgrades

[Luv2BFlyin]

Stock options are a risky move in lieu of money. For the early guys, they got lucky, nothing short of that. They went to work for a start up low cost carrier flying around Texas for low pay and the lure of gambling on stock options instead going to a major. For some reason, they didn't want to join the sky gods of the day. Would you deride them for making that decision back in the day.

As far as what would be better, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. WN could have been bought out or merged with another airline 25 years ago and we wouldn't even be discussing this. That may not worked out so well for those gamblers lured by the quick upgrade and rapid seniority gain (where have we heard that before). For a lot of us where we went was a choice and where we ended up was fate.

 

[HowardBorden]

For a lot of us where we went was a choice and where we ended up was fate.

I don't believe in fate but will instead, place my trust in well educated decisions based on empirical data available at the time.

 

[redflyer65]

All airlines grow and progress or wither and die. No one enters the game at the top of the heap, it takes years and years to build upon the initial contract and make it something to be proud of.

The difference between many of us here arriving at SWA post 9/11, and those at AirTran for a similar time frame, is the choices we made about what type of airline was right for us. The AT folks chose a small up and coming airline with quicker upgrade times but coupled with a less than superior contract and pay rates. Others chose an airline that had an industry leading contract and pay rates coupled with an airline of substantial size and financial stability with little chance of becoming an acquisition target.

I don't blame you for your choices, don't blame me for mine. Since I have been at SWA I have enjoyed an industry leading compensation package with great rigs and work rules. It took me longer to get a job here because it was a more desirable position with lots of qualified candidates competing for a limited number of jobs. I turned down a job at an airline similar to AT because I had my sights set on something better.

I won't profess to know what was best for you and your career path, only what was right for me. I chose an airline that I was confidant would remain financially viable, had little chance of being acquired due to its size and firm financial footing and where I thought I had the least chance of being furloughed.

It is of little consequence to me what type of job was available at SWA 40 years ago because I didn't work there then. I do know many folks who were around during that time frame from gate agent to pilots to rampers, and all seem quite satisfied with their choice to come to work at SWA back in the day when SWA wasn't "the cream of the crop", as you put it. As a matter of fact, most of them will retire to a lifestyle that far outweighs many of their peers at competing airlines because they chose an airline that never needed to hit the reset button nullifying all of their hard work and efforts putting something away for retirement.

Good post Howard and I agree.

Luv,

So you could go to work for a company making low wages (SW 1990, AAI 2010) and have the possibility of HUGE earning via Stock Options (SW), or go to one that would never offer something like that(AAI)?

One could pay off big, and the other will definitely not. Now I agree, anyone could get bought but the bigger you get the less likely that becomes. And that's out of anyone's control. The only way to make that pay off is owning some of your own stock.

 

[humveedriver]

I don't believe in fate but will instead, place my trust in well educated decisions based on empirical data available at the time.

If it's your time. It's your time. You can always try to mitigate risk, but you can't eliminate it. I believe in fate and education/data/trend information.

 

[redflyer65]

If you apply to every carrier, then it could be seen as fate. If you choose only the ones you'd like to work at, isn't that limiting fate somewhat?

 

[HowardBorden]

If you apply to every carrier, then it could be seen as fate. If you choose only the ones you'd like to work at, isn't that limiting fate somewhat?

I actually sent resumes to just about everyone when I was looking simply to get as much experience interviewing as possible. However, there was only 1 or 2 I would ever consider accepting an offer of employment. I get it, that many AT folks had apps in at SWA for similar reasons.

 

[humveedriver]

If you apply to every carrier, then it could be seen as fate. If you choose only the ones you'd like to work at, isn't that limiting fate somewhat?

It reduces risk to a career with a negative outcome. But it guarantees nothing. Just getting hired at SWA is folly too. Many good applicants turned away. Many fortunate enough to get hired (based on some sort of awesomeness factor I'm sure). Some (Morris/AT) work there now without even applying. Now that's fate.

 

[redflyer65]

It reduces risk to a career with a negative outcome.

Exactly my point. I didn't apply to some carriers because I didn't want to work there for various reasons. Howie makes a valid point that he used them for interview prep. I never saw it that way. Apply to the top airlines and see what happens. If nothing, then re-apply. That was my method but others may not have seen it that way.

Take SW. Your right, sometimes they don't hire people for whatever reason. What if you interviewed again, and maybe again (number 3) and get hired? Fate or effort?

 

[PCL_128]

So you need to reach back to 1990 to make an argument? Probably not your strongest case.

No, I only need to go back about 10 years. Keep re-writing that history, though.

 

[Luv2BFlyin]

Good post Howard and I agree.

Luv,

So you could go to work for a company making low wages (SW 1990, AAI 2010) and have the possibility of HUGE earning via Stock Options (SW), or go to one that would never offer something like that(AAI)?

One could pay off big, and the other will definitely not. Now I agree, anyone could get bought but the bigger you get the less likely that becomes. And that's out of anyone's control. The only way to make that pay off is owning some of your own stock.

The comparison was between going to WN in the 70's versus the major dujour at the time. Low pay offset by rapid seniority gains, better quality of life sooner, and fast upgrade time. I highly doubt many of those guys were betting their future on stock options. Luckily for them it worked out and paid off in spades. Many of us came to FL or any number of other LCC's for the exact same reasons when the companies were relatively young. Do you think of your senior pilots as cast-off's that couldn't get hired anywhere else or that they were using WN as a stepping stone airline in the 70's? When they chose to apply and got hired, there was no empirical data that irrefutably proved that that was the right decision for them.

 

[PCL_128]

Holding up stock options as justification for horrendous pay is just further proof that the SWA guys of old didn't give a flying you-know-what about the profession. Stock options in lieu of pay do nothing to raise the bar. In fact, they do the exact opposite.

 

[redflyer65]

No, I only need to go back about 10 years. Keep re-writing that history, though.

10 years? I think the big pay raise came in 2001 timeframe. Was Delta/CAL/UAL higher than SW at the time? Maybe...but then DL and NW went into bankruptcy in 2005 as SW pay continued to rise.

To go back even further, a SW captain was making around 125/hr in 1994. Equating to around 200/hr in todays dollars.

As far as Stock Options go, Herb wanted a pay freeze in lieu of rate increases and laid out his reasoning. The pilots believed in the plan, crushed the competition and in the end were rewarded handsomely (retiring multi-millionaires...along with the FA's) And yes, it was about Us vs. Them. Is that a problem?

 

[redflyer65]

Holding up stock options as justification for horrendous pay is just further proof that the SWA guys of old didn't give a flying you-know-what about the profession. Stock options in lieu of pay do nothing to raise the bar. In fact, they do the exact opposite.

And yet you had NO justification of it a AirTran. Why is that?

 

[PCL_128]

10 years? I think the big pay raise came in 2001 timeframe.

Wrong. A contract was ratified that included down-line pay raises, but those big raises didn't come until several years later. SWA never hit pre-9/11 legacy rates (still hasn't, in fact), and only bypassed the legacies finally when they went into bankruptcy and took massive concessions.

Allow me to repeat that: today, 15 years later, SWA has STILL not hit pre-9/11 legacy narrowbody rates. You have absolutely nothing to be proud of. Period.

To go back even further, a SW captain was making around 125/hr in 1994. Equating to around 200/hr in todays dollars.

I'm glad you bring that up, since a legacy captain at the time was making about $300/hr in today's dollars. SWA was always dragging down the industry.

And yes, it was about Us vs. Them. Is that a problem?

Well, yes, in fact. Us vs. them is fine for the businessmen. It's not fine when labor negotiations involve pattern bargaining. Allowing your management to succeed on your back is never okay.

 

[PCL_128]

And yet you had NO justification of it a AirTran. Why is that?

Because I don't attempt to justify it. It wasn't right for AirTran, either. That's why so many of us fought to fix it.

 

[Luv2BFlyin]

And yet you had NO justification of it a AirTran. Why is that?

It took 33 years for WN to catch up to the majors in pay and you're throwing stones at FL for not doing it in 17?

 

[redflyer65]

It took 33 years for WN to catch up to the majors in pay and you're throwing stones at FL for not doing it in 17?

Luv,

I'm out brother. Time for some single malt.

 

[redflyer65]

Well, yes, in fact. Us vs. them is fine for the businessmen. It's not fine when labor negotiations involve pattern bargaining. Allowing your management to succeed on your back is never okay.

And Herb followed through on his plan, you get that right? Complete success. They both won....wildly. The company and the pilots.

 

[PCL_128]

And Herb followed through on his plan, you get that right? Complete success. They both one....wildly. The company and the pilots.

I keep forgetting that I'm talking to the biggest dolt to ever wear a pilot uniform. One who can't even remember the difference between "one" and "won." You waste my time, mental midget.

 

[redflyer65]

I changed the typo for you Fat Boy, thanks for the help. If you need help with those College classes just let me know. I know plenty of AirTran guys that can't wait to see you hit the road.....and that's one thing I can definitely agree with them on! :laugh:

 

[humveedriver]

Take SW. Your right, sometimes they don't hire people for whatever reason. What if you interviewed again, and maybe again (number 3) and get hired? Fate or effort?

I think making people interview for a job three times "just to see if you want it bad enough" is BS. Is this a parole board or something? Oh thanks for hiring me 18 months later I really enjoyed the stress and loss of potential seniority. I realize for some it's a badge of honor. I just don't know why you hire someone after telling them no twice. Unless you saw potential the first time and should have given them their shot. I'm sure there is more to it. But I probably still wouldn't like the reasoning. Anyone can have a bad day or interview. But two bad days? That's probably a sign.

 

[HowardBorden]

Wrong. A contract was ratified that included down-line pay raises, but those big raises didn't come until several years later. SWA never hit pre-9/11 legacy rates (still hasn't, in fact), and only bypassed the legacies finally when they went into bankruptcy and took massive concessions.

Allow me to repeat that: today, 15 years later, SWA has STILL not hit pre-9/11 legacy narrowbody rates. You have absolutely nothing to be proud of. Period.

Let me repeat it for you: I didn't work here when the rates were lower! I came here when the rates and the contract rigs and benefits were INDUSTRY LEADING.

I chose an airline that hasn't needed to hit the reset button through bankruptcy. I chose to come to an airline that had the highest narrow body rates in the passenger industry. As a matter of fact, I still work for the carrier with the best 737 rates. Our 737 rates are eclipsed by one narrow body airframe at the legacies, the 757 at Delta. That rate is the same for the wide body 767 at Delta. As a matter fact our 737 rates are better than multiple wide body rates at many legacies. Better than the united 767 rate. Better than the 767 at American. Better than the A330 rate at Hawaiian. So, please tell me where I went wrong?

You made a different career choice than I and I won't try and second guess your choice. You chose an airline where the rates were low but certainly had potential to improve. I chose an airline that had the best rates in the industry. AT rates weren't low because they were dragged through BK, they were lower because of a myriad of other reasons, yet you made a choice to go there anyway. Good for you, I'm sure you had plenty of good reasons for your choice. However, to berate me for a choice to join an airline with an industry leading contract is laughable at best. AT had the ability and the promise to reach industry leading someday, but SWA was already there when I joined on. There is a difference.

 

[PCL_128]

Howard, you miss my point. I don't fault you for going to work for SWA. Hell, I don't even fault that idiot redflyer. What I fault red for is justifying the crappy pay rates that were a drag on collective bargaining for three decades and contributed to where pay rates ended up in the bankruptcy era. So as long as you aren't joining red in the excuses, then I have no beef with you, so stop defending yourself from an attack that hasn't taken place.

 

[HowardBorden]

Howard, you miss my point. I don't fault you for going to work for SWA. Hell, I don't even fault that idiot redflyer. What I fault red for is justifying the crappy pay rates that were a drag on collective bargaining for three decades and contributed to where pay rates ended up in the bankruptcy era. So as long as you aren't joining red in the excuses, then I have no beef with you, so stop defending yourself from an attack that hasn't taken place.

It seems to be a continuous pattern by you and many others in which you fault SWA for the failings of other management teams and union leadership. I can't even attempt to explain or justify something that happened long before my tenure with the company. I had no vote, I had no voice and I have no justification to second guess the reasons or rationales for the decisions that were made at SWA or any other carrier.

You are passing judgements on individuals making decisions and career moves long before you even considered or were old enough to enter this industry. Why don't you sit back and relax and stop passing judgement on how others who made decisions for themselves and their families at the cross roads of their own careers. Hindsight truly is 20/20. Why don't you focus on your own decisions without casting aspersions on those that came before you. Everyone has reasons for what they did when they did it. If you weren't there you simply are unqualified to second guess them.

For the record, I understand how easy it is to pass judgements on others decisions, I am guilty of it myself. We would all be better served if we kept our judgements about others decisions to ourselves, confidant that we were not there at the time and can not ever truly understand how those decisions were made and for what reasons.

 

[PCL_128]

Nice sidestep, but the decisions of leaders are always up for debate.

 

[HowardBorden]

Nice sidestep, but the decisions of leaders are always up for debate.

That may be true, but in union politics at least, those decisions made by leaders are put to the test through membership ratification votes. The membership itself (at least in most cases) gets to weigh in on the decisions made by the leadership through their own vote. That is how our own little mini republics work. We can't reasonably understand how and why individuals vote the way they do, but we can speculate that those decisions were made for reasons justifiable to the individual.

 

[bluesideup1]

Holding up stock options as justification for horrendous pay is just further proof that the SWA guys of old didn't give a flying you-know-what about the profession. Stock options in lieu of pay do nothing to raise the bar. In fact, they do the exact opposite.

Strong talk from a value jet guy. Haven't your pay rates been significantly less than ours for your entire airlines existence? I don't see how you can actually with a straight face complain that SWA pilots were bringing down the industry while Value jet/airtran has never lead the way in anything when it comes to contractual gains.

 

[PCL_128]

That may be true, but in union politics at least, those decisions made by leaders are put to the test through membership ratification votes. The membership itself (at least in most cases) gets to weigh in on the decisions made by the leadership through their own vote. That is how our own little mini republics work. We can't reasonably understand how and why individuals vote the way they do, but we can speculate that those decisions were made for reasons justifiable to the individual.

It's not enough that decisions be justifiable to an individual, or even an individual pilot group. Those decisions need to be justifiable in light of the entire profession.

 

[Ty Webb]

Strong talk from a value jet guy. Haven't your pay rates been significantly less than ours for your entire airlines existence? I don't see how you can actually with a straight face complain that SWA pilots were bringing down the industry while Value jet/airtran has never lead the way in anything when it comes to contractual gains.

If you can find a copy of your 2001 contract to compare to our 2001 rates, you might be surprised.

 

[twepilot]

"Those decisions need to be justifiable in light of the entire profession. "
Dude, you are living in LaLa Land.

RV