Looks like I was right about the failed SWA TA

[The Victors]

but it's naive. GK will get out of SL32. It will happen. Get yourselves ready. With the current contract he can do whatever he wants to outsourse jobs.

 

[GuppyWN]

..... and I will be one who forces Gary to destroy the culture. I'm not giving him his concessions - I'm making him take it from me.

I love the company and I respect Gary but the pilots need not be the poster children for the only group at SWA that takes a paycut.

Gup

 

[SevenThreeSeven]

At least we didnt approve it through TA swiss cheese. We will grieve his "debilitating circumstances" at the appropriate time and win. next...

 

[Sandhawk]

In engineering terms (fluid dynamics), it is referred to as head loss. To those of us in Rio Linda, we just hosed ourselves.

And so whines the little bitch that already got 5 more years at max capt pay......

now he wants a raise - FO's be damned!!!

imp:

 

[Flying the Line]

2 Items.
1. Don't look at the pay check on the 20th, look at it from a perspective of career pay. That Retro check starts to look pretty small.
2. Maybee someone in the know can answer this. The F/A's just passed their contract, does their's have the Section 1 peotections that would have been in ours, or does it only say 'we have what the pilots have'. If the former is true then we have our protections from unlimited codeshare with RJs via the F/A contract.</p>

 

[GuppyWN]

The FA's do not have specific language - they have "me too."

Gup

 

[The Prussian]

and so whines the little bitch that already got 5 more years at max capt pay......

Now he wants a raise - fo's be damned!!!

imp:

Speaking of whining...that reminds me...only 1245 more days of having to listen to it!!

 

[Orionflyer]

The jury is still out on the wisdom of voting no.... we may get a better offer.

However, anyone who thinks we (SWAPA) will win a grievance of SL32 is delusional.

 

[737tanker]

Curious, if SWA meets the growth requirement, how much above 6% can they go? And is SWA scheduled aircraft delivery currently at the growth requirement?

If SWA met the growth the 6% became unlimited. Also SWA just had to add airplanes not pilots. With SWA's current overstaffing that would mean SWA would at the most add crews for 7 aircraft. However SWA could have parked those 7 aircraft as maintenance spares, adding zero pilots, and the 6% cap would still have been removed.

 

[shearedshaft]

Well, I just got the email from my rep. Looks like I was right...raises are off the table. Looks like scope is off the table too, at least if I'm understanding what they mean by "affiliates".

Hmm. Current contract has no limit on near international code share and it sounds like the restriction of 6%, lame as it might be, is off the table too.

So voting no has gotten us, zero codeshare protection, no raises (off the table), no retro (not off the table apparently), no scope improvements and if rumors are correct, we're going to wish we had all of those.

Nice work guys. Tell me again how voting no got us something better than the TA? It sure wasn't money, we can all agree on that. It wasn't scope, since our current contract doesn't even address scope. It wasn't code share, since the only thing addressing codeshare is the side letter.

What'd we get again?