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

[madjack]

But that's AAI...just because you sit 50% on the list at AAI ...doesn't mean you get the same spot at SWA...sorry

 

[f15boomer]

Well, as I sit here and read all these post from the Air Tran guys it makes me lol and think of how they all got screw form the same person that all the USAir guys took it in the shorts from. Mr. Tim Baker. Tim was the last vote in giving our retirement away back in 2003. Yes he gave it to the company that stole it from the pilots.

The smart thing that Tim did was to quit USAir before he was KIA by some of the pilot group at USAir.

He went with Air Tran, helped you vote in ALPO and screwed you boy's in the SLI by telling you not to vote yes on the first vote and you see how the first RAT was to go to SW when then doors opened.

Well, I guess you get what you vote for or should I say NOT VOTE FOR.

 

[humveedriver]

Well, as I sit here and read all these post from the Air Tran guys it makes me lol and think of how they all got screw form the same person that all the USAir guys took it in the shorts from. Mr. Tim Baker. Tim was the last vote in giving our retirement away back in 2003. Yes he gave it to the company that stole it from the pilots.

The smart thing that Tim did was to quit USAir before he was KIA by some of the pilot group at USAir.

He went with Air Tran, helped you vote in ALPO and screwed you boy's in the SLI by telling you not to vote yes on the first vote and you see how the first RAT was to go to SW when then doors opened.

Well, I guess you get what you vote for or should I say NOT VOTE FOR.

That's some quality hate right there. 1st deal was good for some. Sucked for me. 2nd deal was much better. Took me 3 years to reap the rewards, but I'm glad I didn't bite on deal one. Arbitration could have gotten me another hundred numbers. That would have been spot on realistically. Realitive not such. So I'm not going to bitch too much if I'm one hundred numbers short of what I think right would have looked like.

 

[PCL_128]

Well, as I sit here and read all these post from the Air Tran guys it makes me lol and think of how they all got screw form the same person that all the USAir guys took it in the shorts from. Mr. Tim Baker. Tim was the last vote in giving our retirement away back in 2003. Yes he gave it to the company that stole it from the pilots.

You would have been unemployed had Tim not had the balls to cast that vote. You should be down on your hands and knees thanking him for saving your sorry ass.

He went with Air Tran, helped you vote in ALPO and screwed you boy's in the SLI by telling you not to vote yes on the first vote and you see how the first RAT was to go to SW when then doors opened.

You don't even have your facts straight. Tim told people to vote YES on the first deal. We're good friends, but he and I disagreed on that vehemently, and still do.

 

[canyonblue]

Arbitration could have gotten me another hundred numbers.

If Kelly never bought AirTran then no pilots would be in front of me. Yeah, it's easy to play the "what if" game.

 

[canyonblue]

Pretty crappy fragmentation language...

I've seen better contract language in a Cell Phone Plan. :laugh:

 

[humveedriver]

If Kelly never bought AirTran then no pilots would be in front of me. Yeah, it's easy to play the "what if" game.

Very true. My comment was to somebody with no skin in our game. USAir turned into one dicked up airline. I don't appreciate it when folks try to drag us down to their level.

 

[madjack]

So who is Tim?

 

[Uncle Bunkle]

It wasn't. Gary got around the language by doing a smart sublease arrangement. He's a scumbag, but he's not an idiot.

Do you have any must-family buildings you guys are looking to get rid of?

 

[Lear70]

Sorry, I checked out for a while, but... like I said a few months ago:

Embrace the suck.

Or, as I like to put it

Vote No.

I feel like it's 2007 all over again. Dusting off the Vote No stickers and preparing the T.A. rebuttal instead of going shooting this weekend to test out the new rifles. Getting tired of people sacrificing Scope for the sake of a little money.

One of these days you would think pilots would learn from the mistakes of other carriers or, hell, even their own mistakes. Every Agreement with this company since I've been involved here has involved end-runs around said Agreements. Wonder what that means? Think anyone is ever going to learn?

(by the way, the numbers I put up with this original thread is actually what we're at now. Anyone who would like to retract their previous scoffing rebuttals, I'm now accepting apologies).

 

[PCL_128]

Even if you didn't care about the scope, how the hell could anyone put up with a 10% 401k match at a major airline? Does no one on the NC or BOD have any self respect?

 

[Phlintstone]

I'll admit, the vengeful side of me was planning to vote "Yes" to a crappy contract due to the way the whole integration went down. BUT...this TA is so bad I cannot do it. I am a definite NO.

The company gave very little in up front money (bonus), measly raises and 401K match but gets Scope blown wide open. I'd need CA pay for new hires before voting YES on that kind of Scope.

Phred

 

[Lear70]

Even if you didn't care about the scope, how the hell could anyone put up with a 10% 401k match at a major airline? Does no one on the NC or BOD have any self respect?

I have it from good sources that there was also a minimum 6% "floor" on the profit sharing so that, in no case, would retirement ever be below 16%, even though we are the only ones required to input 10% of our own money to it at this level of the industry to get it.

That, however, was lost at the very end along with the additional scope grab for Far International in the last week of meetings.

I am really quite frustrated. I have officially requested, per the RLA and in conjunction with the Association's Duty of Fair Representation for them to buy out and allow two "No" representatives to accompany every road show and be given equal time to present what is considered the negatives and pitfalls of the Agreement and the loopholes in the language.

It shouldn't be just a "sales job". It should be a fair and balanced representation of what the deal is and isn't. If enough of us want to accept these kind of concessions, that's the way it is, but it shouldn't be "sold", and that's what EVERY Neg Comm does at the road shows, even if they THINK they're being fair and balanced - it's pride of ownership, can't get past it.

 

[Just thinking]

Cowards did not even send out blast email notifying their constituents they are passing this POS TA on for a vote. Had to find out from an email from the Kompany spokesman. "Super moderator" on the forum is focused on Q&A sections the sell the TA and don't answer the tough questions.

 

[FurloughedAgain]

I got a blast email. You didn't?

 

[Phlintstone]

I got a blast email. You didn't?

So did I.

Attacking without facts on an www forum. IM SHOCKED!

Phred

 

[PCL_128]

I have officially requested, per the RLA and in conjunction with the Association's Duty of Fair Representation for them to buy out and allow two "No" representatives to accompany every road show and be given equal time to present what is considered the negatives and pitfalls of the Agreement and the loopholes in the language.

Eh, just so you know, they have no requirement under the RLA or DFR doctrine to allow that. I'd be shocked if they agree.

 

[FurloughedAgain]

My rep told me all of the reps will be at the road shows anyway.

 

[N1atEcon]

I had low expectations since the snake Randy Babbit got in our hen house. Then the rumors started leaking and I lowered my expectations again. But this, WOW! I didn't imagine it would be this pathectic. I seriously think they think we are idiots. I don't need the Union to spend a bunch of my dues. Its a NO!
Also if there is a recall of PJ and TW I will sign that ASAP.

 

[Just thinking]

Nothing yesterday. Only thing I got was from 16th. Got email from DAL reps today.

 

[madjack]

I predict it will pass....barely

 

[madjack]

Or fail...barely

 

[PCL_128]

My rep told me all of the reps will be at the road shows anyway.

Being there is one thing. Being able to make a presentation is another. All reps could attend our TA road shows, but I certainly didn't allow the dissenting votes to make their own ant-TA presentation when the vote of the MEC was in favor.

 

[Lear70]

Eh, just so you know, they have no requirement under the RLA or DFR doctrine to allow that. I'd be shocked if they agree.

They didn't, and they were pretty rude about it, said "there is no mechanism to allow people besides the NC and staffers to be trip pulled and attend, much less present."

I responded asking if, perhaps, they could use the SAME mechanism they did by creating the Neg Oversight Committee then pulling line pilot Tom Dean to be on it with pay. Maybe since they've already set the precedent...

I didn't get a nice response from Mike P, I'll be posting his exact response on the forum later.

I'm not interested in a sales job and spin. As "Just Thinking" mentioned, they're avoiding all the hard questions and just answering the ones they have good answers for that help sell it. (and he probably just didn't have his email address right in his SWAPA profile, there's a lot of people that happened to, doesn't make him a liar).

Back to the issue: No one should be surprised. No negotiating committee in the history of aviation has ever been able to neutrally discuss both the good AND bad of an Agreement; they're too personally invested.

As an interesting aside, there WAS a resolution to attach a "No" vote recommendation, BUT... it never got seconded. It took a lot of arm twisting to finally get them to admit that.

So we have 10 or the 20 reps voting Yes, with most of the reps SAYING they want the pilot group to kill it, but only ONE rep with the balls to try to send it out with a NO recommendation. Trying to find out who it was, everyone has pretty much clammed up once I let them know we would be working to kill it, just like we did at AAI in '07, except instead of just me starting the effort, there's a dozen of us and growing.

Standby for the Section 1 analysis, working on it now. It's an easy 5 year stagnation on growth. Maybe more. I'd like a raise as much as the next person, but not at this price. Hell, a 1 year delay on your upgrade wipes out your raise COMPLETELY.

Oh, and P.S. Hope you like red-eyes, which result in drastically less-efficient lines for only a 3% override instead of the 15% that's currently in our contract. Oh, and you can't trade out of them except for another red-eye. Lots and lots of stuff in this one to hate.

 

[HowardBorden]

Being there is one thing. Being able to make a presentation is another. All reps could attend our TA road shows, but I certainly didn't allow the dissenting votes to make their own ant-TA presentation when the vote of the MEC was in favor.

What a magnanimous dictator you were.

All members in good standing have a right to voice any opinion positive or negative at any road show. I expect my reps who have been fully briefed on this TA to voice any and all opinions regarding the agreement whether they be for or against ratification. Holding an elected office in no way muzzles a member as to their opinions regarding this TA.

 

[RIDETHELIGHTING]

The Denver reps voted against it!!!!

 

[PCL_128]

What a magnanimous dictator you were.

Thank you!

All members in good standing have a right to voice any opinion positive or negative at any road show. I expect my reps who have been fully briefed on this TA to voice any and all opinions regarding the agreement whether they be for or against ratification. Holding an elected office in no way muzzles a member as to their opinions regarding this TA.

Again, being able to stand up and ask a question or make a statement is not what Lear was talking about. He wants a full presentation of both pros and cons. They ain't gonna do that. I'd put money on it.

 

[HowardBorden]

Again, being able to stand up and ask a question or make a statement is not what Lear was talking about. He wants a full presentation of both pros and cons. They ain't gonna do that. I'd put money on it.

You better believe I will be asking each and every rep present at any road show I attend what their recommendation is for the membership vote. These folks have had extensive briefings and I want to know where they stand on the issue. They owe me an honest and forthright answer. Each and every board member needs to be on record as to their personal recommendation. Me personally I needed to read no further than section 1 give aways to know I was firm and unchangeable no. But, I need to know what reps share my sentiments and those that don't so I know who to vote for or against in being my elected representative going forward.

 

[PCL_128]

A shame that I resigned. This show could be entertaining.

I agree, BTW. I'm usually not a scope hawk, but it appears that the concessions in your TA would allow at least a couple years of stagnation as the company builds near international feed with code share partners. Bad juju. Unlike RJ feed, that's flying that the airline is likely to do itself if you don't give them the concessions. That is a direct giveaway of jobs.

 

[General Lee]

Thank you!






Again, being able to stand up and ask a question or make a statement is not what Lear was talking about. He wants a full presentation of both pros and cons. They ain't gonna do that. I'd put money on it.

Wait, didn't you say the DL TA was going to pass too? You're an idiot! Are you still applying to be a janitor at The Moak Group?




Bye Bye---General Lee