The Victors
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2006
- Posts
- 455
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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:
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.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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.