Possible SWA T.A. pay numbers... Embrace the suck.

[EL10]

Is not the 900 pax per day only for the Asia/Pacific region, and a lower threshold for the rest?

I hear what you are saying and the start up and down is an issue. With that said it will be hard to find a foreign airline that would want to do the reverse seasonal with SWA. Which would be a hard sell to any airline to fly off peak times.

 

[Ty Webb]

By the way, the NC *CLAIMS* that the company can only use foreign carriers, but I don't see that restriction yet, and I've been looking. The two things it can't use are:

1. Flags of Convenience - the alter-ego European carriers like Norwegian Air Shuttle, and
2. State Owned Enterprises - The Emirates and Qatars

It may be there, I just can't find it, which means they could code share with the Legacies here in the states for their Far International flying. I still can't believe we're buying off on South America as "near International."

Wow. I thought some the stuff in the AirTran TA was foolish, this is a whole 'nuther league altogether.

These guys have been living in a cave for the past 40 years. Time to bring in some outside help. Holy crap.

 

[Lear70]

Your an idiot . SWA just needs more like you and they will get enough yes votes .

Now, now... we're all on the same team. Simma,,, simma,,,

We have to CONSTRUCTIVELY persuade the Yes voters. Your approach MAY not be conducive to doing that...

 

[Lear70]

Is not the 900 pax per day only for the Asia/Pacific region, and a lower threshold for the rest?

I hear what you are saying and the start up and down is an issue. With that said it will be hard to find a foreign airline that would want to do the reverse seasonal with SWA. Which would be a hard sell to any airline to fly off peak times.

The last part I disagree with you, simply because revenue is revenue, and in the off-season those other carriers are looking to fill their seats - I doubt they'll complain if we send them business when they need it.

In the peak season we fly them for max profit, in the off-seasons we let another carrier do it for us and explore other markets without having to buy a single new plane or hire a single additional pilot.

As for the 900 PDEW, no sir, it applies to Near Int'l as well:

c. Near International: To provide connecting service for the Company with a foreign carrier on Near International itineraries within the regions of North America, Central America, and South America where the Company operates any domestic segments and any U.S. trans-border segments of the itinerary under the following conditions:

i. Unless the Company serves the market, it will not initiate interline service to any foreign destination for which the average of the total Passengers Daily Each Way (PDEW) between the United States and the foreign destination over the previous twelve (12) months is equal to or greater than nine hundred (900). The Company may initiate interline service to destinations below nine hundred (900).

 

[outerlimits]

Now, now... we're all on the same team. Simma,,, simma,,,

We have to CONSTRUCTIVELY persuade the Yes voters. Your approach MAY not be conducive to doing that...

If the SWA pilots vote this contract in. Not only will the camels nose be in the tent. The camel will be inside ,drinks ur beer and eating out of the refrigerator .

 

[humveedriver]

By the way, the NC *CLAIMS* that the company can only use foreign carriers, but I don't see that restriction yet, and I've been looking. The two things it can't use are:

1. Flags of Convenience - the alter-ego European carriers like Norwegian Air Shuttle, and
2. State Owned Enterprises - The Emirates and Qatars

It may be there, I just can't find it, which means they could code share with the Legacies here in the states for their Far International flying. I still can't believe we're buying off on South America as "near International."

Lear,

I know you will put a decent contract comparison out for the pilot group to digest. He did this at AT. It is very helpful for the fences sitters who get distracted by the pay increases and hope that the company does the right thing with their newly found scope gains. Please look at the section that talks about SSS. Scheduled Sub Contracted flying. Basically Apple Tours. There is no language that addresse how the red eye flight are going to be constructed. That is my number one reason for voting no. And hopefully, if people are educated on what will come out of this TA, they will stop worrying about their pay raise and think about how flying to southern Mexico at 8pm and deadheading back to HOU at 12am is going to feel? Are you getting override for that? When do you not? What is a "non-domestic" route pairing? Some really loose language in this TA. So never mind we failed at getting RRC, the company got exactly what it wanted, and the schedules a year from now will reflect it (if we vote this in as is).

 

[Lear70]

Well-said, sir. Hoping to have Sec 1 done by the end of the weekend.

I've reached out to JL and he and I are going to try to coordinate a joint product that would have Scope, the FULL pros/cons list, some breakdown of the worse sections, some of which you listed very well, trying to keep it short and succinct. Maybe a 3rd person in on it as well.

 

[Nindiri]

I suspect you won't be on GK's Xmas card list this year, Lear.

 

[Lear70]

I suspect you won't be on GK's Xmas card list this year, Lear.

I don't mind.

Seriously though, I'm just advocating we keep what we have and go back to the table, not try to choke the golden goose.

It'll take the pilots showing up for picketing events and actually doing what pilots have to do to get a contract. If they won't, then we're pretty much screwed.

 

[N1atEcon]

Seriously though, I'm just advocating we keep what we have and go back to the table,

I will stick with what we have. The TA is a giveway of unbelieveable proportions. I would think only somone 63 or older would vote yes. Anyone else is either a fool or cannot understand the concept of what this TA will do to our jobs and quality of life.