Looks like I was right about the failed SWA TA

[Dash Power]

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?

Apparently balls.

Something you are obviously lacking.

You appear to be the poster child of why this profession continues its downward spiral.

Congratulations to all my fellow SWA brothers and sisters for finally taking a stand for this entire profession.

Never in the history of aviation have employee salaries and benefits been the problem for its financial woes. Airline management on the other hand........

 

[ableone]

I am not at WN but with guys like SheardShaft around, man do I feel your pain.

Dude - read a book on labor management relations or Flying the line or purchase a clue anywhere.

 

[Sy-bil]

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?

Gee, you think this guy would be a scab or what!

 

[shearedshaft]

It's easy to be negative toward me, but I'm noticing nobody ever addressing my points. Voting no got us less than voting yes would have gotten us.

You guys all said that voting no on the first offer was a great idea, because things would only get better from there. Anyone saying that "the NC says this is as far as they can go, might want to pay attention", was said to be a fear monger.

Well the mongering has come home to roost. It sounds like the TA was, in fact as far as the NC could go.

It also looks like voting no got us nothing but less money in our pocket and the very real chance of having an "affiliate" flying Southwest passengers in the domestic USA (something the TA prohibited).

So keep attacking me, I don't care, but like I said before, being rude just makes for a boring conversation. I claim we are now far worse off than we would be, scope alone, if we had voted in the TA.

So could one of you rocket scientists chime in and explain how our current contract's scope language (ha) is going to protect us? I know that for you "it isn't about the money", which is probably why you don't have as much as someone who is more ambitious, a fool and his money, and all that, but if it's about the scope, why in the world didn't you take the scope and run with it?

What we have now is worse.

 

[shootr]

Sheared,

Are you really so scared as to think Gary will just impose his will on us and we'll get the crap he just OFFERED and we have to accept it? Where are your 'nads? Or are you just stupid?

What do you want your extra $1000 a month for? Is it for a trip to Vegas? Short term that could be a good use of the money. Do you have a family and a retirement to support? They're trying to start the process of ruining your career here at SWA. Think longer term if you can. You can thank us later but I doubt you'll understand what we did for you when you retire. Dude, you think you lost $1000 a month but we're saving your frikkin career.

shootr

 

[shearedshaft]

Yes, I do, in fact think "Gary will just impose his will". Contractually, he has every right to do so. He offered us a bunch of restrictions that added to our job security, my favorite being "no domestic codeshare" and we said, "no thanks, buh buy."

We voted it down, not him. We told him we want to operate under the current contract, not a contract with strict codeshare restrictions (except for near-international, yada yada).

So we're under the current contract. The current contract has no restrictions against RJs, no restrictions against another cheaper labor airline flying our passengers. None.

That's what flumoxes me. You think you get your cake and to eat it to. You vote no on the codeshare restrictions, then say it's ok, because Gary wouldn't do it anyway.

If Gary wouldn't do it anyway, then why did my rep just send me an email explaining that Gary won't agree to the same restrictions that were in the TA? If he wasn't going to do it anyway, why would he care about taking items off the table that will do nothing but piss the pilots off?

Face it, you voted to allow domestic codeshare and now we're all going to pay the price. There was no quick solution at the bargaining table and it sounds like it hinged on money (no surprise here) and domestic codeshare.

You voted to allow domestic codeshare while talking out of the other side of your mouth arguing that somehow you were saving future generations from ruin. Yeah right, you didn't even save the junior guy on the list who is going to get to see another airline flying our passengers in the US.

One more time: fill me in on how voting no helped restrict domestic codeshare.

 

[RDG]

It's easy to be negative toward me, but I'm noticing nobody ever addressing my points. Voting no got us less than voting yes would have gotten us.

You guys all said that voting no on the first offer was a great idea, because things would only get better from there. Anyone saying that "the NC says this is as far as they can go, might want to pay attention", was said to be a fear monger.

Well the mongering has come home to roost. It sounds like the TA was, in fact as far as the NC could go.

It also looks like voting no got us nothing but less money in our pocket and the very real chance of having an "affiliate" flying Southwest passengers in the domestic USA (something the TA prohibited).

So keep attacking me, I don't care, but like I said before, being rude just makes for a boring conversation. I claim we are now far worse off than we would be, scope alone, if we had voted in the TA.

So could one of you rocket scientists chime in and explain how our current contract's scope language (ha) is going to protect us? I know that for you "it isn't about the money", which is probably why you don't have as much as someone who is more ambitious, a fool and his money, and all that, but if it's about the scope, why in the world didn't you take the scope and run with it?

What we have now is worse.

Wow. You really don't have the stomach for a fight do you?

Nothing is off the table, because we don't have to agree to anything we don't like. The bat is in our hands, once every 4 or 5 years, or in our case, once every 14 or 15.

Don't panic, folks with more fortitude than you will get a deal worth voting yes to. For now, status quo rules the day.

 

[shearedshaft]

Except status quo equals domestic codeshare by regional airlines. Which are status quoing our way, from the sound of things.

If Gary signed a contract tomorrow and regional airplanes started flying Southwest passengers, would we be better off under status quo, or worse off?

Let's say we get back to the table after Gary signs the contract for the regionals. We can't come to an agreement that restricts domestic codeshare, since we're already doing it. So the next NC comes to us with a contract that allows domestic codeshare but with restrictions.

You guys vote it down, to save our profession.

So we're still under status quo, we still have domestic codeshare partners flying our passengers and we're better off how?

By voting no and staying with status quo, we have allowed unlimited domestic, near international and far-international code share.

If I'm wrong, let's hear about it. Show me the part in our contract that says Gary can't hire an RJ operator to fly to our smaller cities. I'll save you time: you won't find it.

Now tell me why he won't agree to restrict domestic codeshare like he was willing to do just a month ago. Why is that, do you think?

 

[RDG]

Except status quo equals domestic codeshare by regional airlines. Which are status quoing our way, from the sound of things.

If Gary signed a contract tomorrow and regional airplanes started flying Southwest passengers, would we be better off under status quo, or worse off?

Let's say we get back to the table after Gary signs the contract for the regionals. We can't come to an agreement that restricts domestic codeshare, since we're already doing it. So the next NC comes to us with a contract that allows domestic codeshare but with restrictions.

You guys vote it down, to save our profession.

So we're still under status quo, we still have domestic codeshare partners flying our passengers and we're better off how?

By voting no and staying with status quo, we have allowed unlimited domestic, near international and far-international code share.

If I'm wrong, let's hear about it. Show me the part in our contract that says Gary can't hire an RJ operator to fly to our smaller cities. I'll save you time: you won't find it.

Now tell me why he won't agree to restrict domestic codeshare like he was willing to do just a month ago. Why is that, do you think?

We are not codesharing with regionals now, so any codeshare, regardless of contractual restrictions or lack thereof, are a violation of status quo. You don't seem to understand what section 6 negotiations mean to the company and us. The contract does not have to restrict it right now, if the company does it, its a violation.

 

[ron burgundy]

Did you hear that sound that accompanied Gary Kelly's letter this evening?

Yep, that was the sound of our negotiated raises disappearing.

Just like I predicted. You no voters sure got yourself a deal, yup!

The Th paycheck is almost here, when it hits, I hope you realize that if you're a captain, you're already $2,000 poorer. It will get worse by $1,000 per month. If you're a senior FO, well, about the same, you're down two grand.

Nice work guys. No scope or code share protection, no rigged open time, no raises, just a lot of surprised looking guys wondering where the money went.

That's ok. I'm sure in 2011 we'll be ready for another vote.

Before I even read through 4 pages of this...Here is what I already understand..You sheard wad.. are an A$$...The title of this thread says it all. I was right, look at me..look at me! A$$ clown... "I called for gear down and we didn't crash..see I was right..look at me! I can tell you the correct time twice a day because I can't afford a new battery for my big watch because I over extended my self to look like somebody I'm wanted to be..hoped to be..people would perceive me to be..and turns out..I'm not..I don't even know myself".