Decade long rumor of SWA buying Q400's back

[scoreboardII]

You make my point.

 

[HowardBorden]

You can't pat yourself on the back for "stopping" something that your opposition never seriously fought for in the first place.

I am the first to admit that pilot outsourcing has never been a huge priority at SWA, they are extremely focused on controlling the product they produce and are not very interested in hiring employees out of their direct control.

That being said, SWAPA has gone to great lengths to codify protections into the CBA. Everyone could see the handwriting on the wall that there would come a day at SWA when management would be coming for our scope clause (already introduced by management in current section 6 negotiations). Our contract had holes in it and much negotiating capital has been spent to close those gaps and tighten scope over the years. Our last TA that was voted down had less restrictive scope provisions than the document that was ratified, not surprisingly, we were forced to accept less compensation to secure those tighter provisions.

Conversely, many ALPA carriers found themselves in a similar position to that of SWAPA in the not too distant past. When faced with the tough decision to tighten scope or increase compensation, the compensation argument won the day.

In the long run, the SWAPA approach has won steady, albeit smaller wage gains over the years but has over the years gained the most iron clad scope in the industry. One of the many reasons SWA was growing post 9/11 was due in large part to the lack of hemorrhaging capacity from mainline to the regionals.

There was a time when no one in this industry had anything but trivial scope protection. At the time, outsourcing was not a large priority at ANY airline. Some chose to not make the effort to codify the status quo (little or no pilot outsourcing) into their CBA's, while others slowly and methodically introduced tighter and tighter language to the contract. Looking back now I think it is clear what was the best approach in hindsight.

 

[jonjuan]

Conversely, many ALPA carriers found themselves in a similar position to that of SWAPA in the not too distant past. When faced with the tough decision to tighten scope or increase compensation, the compensation argument won the day.

Why? Different Kernals?

 

[Dan Roman]

Years ago, we actually had a European codeshare with Iceland Air. That went away about ten years ago or longer. It was pretty insignificant to begin with, and hardly anyone even remembers. There was nothing in our early contracts to prevent it.

Then we signed an agreement to codeshare with Westjet, but backed out before ever selling a single codeshare ticket. Then we actually did codeshare with Volaris to Mexico, and the agreement between the union and company came with a limitation on codeshared ASMs as a percentage of Southwest ASMs. On our next CBA, we bargained for and got not only a reduced limitation on Volaris ASMs as a percentage, but also a total exclusion of all "far international" and all domestic codeshare with anyone, and "near international" codeshare was limited to exactly one carrier by name, Volaris. That's pretty much the story with Westjet and Volaris.

When the Volaris agreement expired (as it has now), there is no more codeshare allowed by our contract with two exceptions: the limited one with AirTran to allow for the absorption (in the side letter, with a drop-dead date of the end of 2014), and the possibility of limited, inter-island codeshare in Hawaii, whenever the hell we get around to going there. No more international codeshare, and absolutely no RJ codeshare amongst US cities. That's why after the AirTran acquisition, their existing RJ codeshare agreements were terminated immediately, other than to honor already-sold tickets.

Does that answer what you were asking, Dan?

Bubba

Thanks for the response! Didn't you also code share with ATA to Hawaii? I recall SWA approached us about picking up that after ATA went under but it wasn't a good match up.

 

[flyboyike]

You can't pat yourself on the back for "stopping" something that your opposition never seriously fought for in the first place.

Bit of a "chicken or the egg" situation, isn't it? Could it be "the opposition never seriously fought for it" because they knew it was a battle they couldn't win?

 

[PCL_128]

Bit of a "chicken or the egg" situation, isn't it? Could it be "the opposition never seriously fought for it" because they knew it was a battle they couldn't win?

No. They never seriously fought for it because it just didn't fit in their business model. Outsourcing is largely dependent on a traditional hub-and-spoke model. SWA simply wouldn't have seen much benefit of outsourced lift. That's starting to change, with more and more "focus cities" looking like hubs, and it will change even more as SWA shifts to a focus on international flying. Talk to me in 20 years. If you still aren't sourcing, I may be impressed then. But right now, there's nothing to take credit for.

 

[ArmadilloJackal]

The only real question is, how fast can you taxi it?

 

[amcnd]

Or how fast they call pull the "all 737 fleet" commercial from tv!!

 

[slaquer5]

No. They never seriously fought for it because it just didn't fit in their business model. Outsourcing is largely dependent on a traditional hub-and-spoke model. SWA simply wouldn't have seen much benefit of outsourced lift. That's starting to change, with more and more "focus cities" looking like hubs, and it will change even more as SWA shifts to a focus on international flying. Talk to me in 20 years. If you still aren't sourcing, I may be impressed then. But right now, there's nothing to take credit for.

I have to agree with all of this except 20 years . You will have your answer much sooner than that .


I will hate to say ,PCL is right.

 

[SpauldingSmails]

I am the first to admit that pilot outsourcing has never been a huge priority at SWA, they are extremely focused on controlling the product they produce and are not very interested in hiring employees out of their direct control.

That being said, SWAPA has gone to great lengths to codify protections into the CBA. Everyone could see the handwriting on the wall that there would come a day at SWA when management would be coming for our scope clause (already introduced by management in current section 6 negotiations). Our contract had holes in it and much negotiating capital has been spent to close those gaps and tighten scope over the years. Our last TA that was voted down had less restrictive scope provisions than the document that was ratified, not surprisingly, we were forced to accept less compensation to secure those tighter provisions.

Conversely, many ALPA carriers found themselves in a similar position to that of SWAPA in the not too distant past. When faced with the tough decision to tighten scope or increase compensation, the compensation argument won the day.

In the long run, the SWAPA approach has won steady, albeit smaller wage gains over the years but has over the years gained the most iron clad scope in the industry. One of the many reasons SWA was growing post 9/11 was due in large part to the lack of hemorrhaging capacity from mainline to the regionals.

There was a time when no one in this industry had anything but trivial scope protection. At the time, outsourcing was not a large priority at ANY airline. Some chose to not make the effort to codify the status quo (little or no pilot outsourcing) into their CBA's, while others slowly and methodically introduced tighter and tighter language to the contract. Looking back now I think it is clear what was the best approach in hindsight.

I feel like Howard's post here seems to be an honest categorization. I think where some us on the sidelines scratch our heads is when certain posters "lionize" the SW pilot group with regard to gaining these scope protections.

Don't get me wrong, I think scope absolutely the best place you can burn negotiating capital. Alternatively, SWA pilots have had the advantage of not being at the front of the line to be offered a leap off a cliff - so, you saw the splat long before your turn. Further, the airline hadn't a trip through the ol' bankruptcy courts - which also abrogated a lot of legacy's scope clauses. I think SWAPA has the big picture on the issue, hands down - but has yet to be tested.