Misinterpretation, Roy
Roy:
I am sorry for wording my post in a way which led you to misinterpret my actual intent. I should not have used the wording "equally large number" when referring to SWA pilots who are more concerned with their portfolio values than higher pay rates for all SWA pilots. I should have just used the wording "large number." I truly believe most SWA pilots do care about their union brothers and sisters, both current and future ones.
I was not trying to separate "no" voters and "yes" voters with my post. I was referring to the extreme fringes of the two prominent groups that both you and I know exist at SWA -- the "haves" and the "have nots."
As you know, it was quite possible to have industry average pay (IAP) as a goal and vote either yes or no based on how you feel it can most quickly and easily be obtained. Some thought it could best be obtained taking a two-step approach (accept this extension and then get the remainder in a 2005 section 6). Some thought that an extension would lead to another extension, and the only way to ever get close to IAP is a section 6 and the sooner the better (i.e., no extension and start negotiations in 2003).
What I do want folks to understand is that a "no" vote should not be connoted with a "radical" viewpoint. Just like most of the "yes" voters, most of the "no" voters were trying hard to get IAP from SWA. As you know, extending the current contract two more years does prevent the union from fixing all the OTHER stuff sooner, unless SWA management agrees to numerous sideletters. Taking care of future hires at SWA also means having a solid contract with clear language; one which ensures they don't get abused as junior pilots. IOW, it's not all about pay.
I will never label a "no" voter as a troublemaker, nor will I label a "yes" voter as a kool-aid drinker who would just as soon pull up the ladder on everyone junior to him. Of course, there are those kinds of people at SWA. What would be a "disservice" to folks who read this forum is to ALWAYS paint the positive picture and NEVER mention the negatives.
Good luck in your campaign for Dallas union domicile representative this fall. Based on your past letter(s) to the union newspaper, I would fully expect you to support a section 6 opener in 2005 vice okaying yet another extension to our now 12-year contract.
To all FlightInfo junkies and future SWA pilots: You will always read posts here that sometimes reflect reality and sometimes do not. You will read posts from people who know what they are talking about, and those who don't know their a** from a hole in the ground. You will be exposed to lots of "opinions." If the author states it as his/her opinion, then that's great. If not, don't hesitate to wave a bullsh*t flag, just like Roy did with me.
I will continue trying to paint accurate pictures of the reality of the airline industry, not just SWA. I will try very hard to separate what I know as absolute fact versus what is merely my opinion. Roy does a great job of this, too. If he is elected, hopefully he will have time to continue providing even more accurate insight "from the inside."
Roy:
I am sorry for wording my post in a way which led you to misinterpret my actual intent. I should not have used the wording "equally large number" when referring to SWA pilots who are more concerned with their portfolio values than higher pay rates for all SWA pilots. I should have just used the wording "large number." I truly believe most SWA pilots do care about their union brothers and sisters, both current and future ones.
I was not trying to separate "no" voters and "yes" voters with my post. I was referring to the extreme fringes of the two prominent groups that both you and I know exist at SWA -- the "haves" and the "have nots."
As you know, it was quite possible to have industry average pay (IAP) as a goal and vote either yes or no based on how you feel it can most quickly and easily be obtained. Some thought it could best be obtained taking a two-step approach (accept this extension and then get the remainder in a 2005 section 6). Some thought that an extension would lead to another extension, and the only way to ever get close to IAP is a section 6 and the sooner the better (i.e., no extension and start negotiations in 2003).
What I do want folks to understand is that a "no" vote should not be connoted with a "radical" viewpoint. Just like most of the "yes" voters, most of the "no" voters were trying hard to get IAP from SWA. As you know, extending the current contract two more years does prevent the union from fixing all the OTHER stuff sooner, unless SWA management agrees to numerous sideletters. Taking care of future hires at SWA also means having a solid contract with clear language; one which ensures they don't get abused as junior pilots. IOW, it's not all about pay.
I will never label a "no" voter as a troublemaker, nor will I label a "yes" voter as a kool-aid drinker who would just as soon pull up the ladder on everyone junior to him. Of course, there are those kinds of people at SWA. What would be a "disservice" to folks who read this forum is to ALWAYS paint the positive picture and NEVER mention the negatives.
Good luck in your campaign for Dallas union domicile representative this fall. Based on your past letter(s) to the union newspaper, I would fully expect you to support a section 6 opener in 2005 vice okaying yet another extension to our now 12-year contract.
To all FlightInfo junkies and future SWA pilots: You will always read posts here that sometimes reflect reality and sometimes do not. You will read posts from people who know what they are talking about, and those who don't know their a** from a hole in the ground. You will be exposed to lots of "opinions." If the author states it as his/her opinion, then that's great. If not, don't hesitate to wave a bullsh*t flag, just like Roy did with me.
I will continue trying to paint accurate pictures of the reality of the airline industry, not just SWA. I will try very hard to separate what I know as absolute fact versus what is merely my opinion. Roy does a great job of this, too. If he is elected, hopefully he will have time to continue providing even more accurate insight "from the inside."
Last edited:
