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

[PCL_128]

That's great logic, if it actually happens. Unfortunately, it rarely does. Instead, you usually get something like 60/40 against, and then the company takes a wag at how much more cash they need to throw on the table to get the other 10% +1 vote. That's why BODs/MECs are supposed to be the check valve.

 

[Lear70]

I think - respectfully - that you're inserting foul play where there is none. They freely admit that they didn't like the deal but that the moderator wouldn't support them in any further negotiations. If the 23 member board voted the AIP down then the company spins it as an activist board out of touch with the pilots. If 8000 pilots vote it down, it's a mandate.

My reps say they'll be at the road show sharing their opinions. This is emotional enough. I look forward to reading what you write, but let's not assume the worst in the people who are volunteering to do the work of the Union. They have skin in the game too.

I'm not inserting foul play where there is none. Did you read Jon Weak's blast email to the LAS pilots today? He clearly laid out what I just said here... Many BoD members thought they were going to have an opportunity to send it with a NO recommendation, then the vote never happened.

Weaks was the one who presented the resolution, by the way.

The rest I agree with you. 8,000 pilots voting NO would be a great mandate. Hell, 85% of them would be awesome, but with the NC in heavy "spin" mode, highly moderating the T.A. sections of the Q&A area, deleting replies, deleting threads, leaving just the NC's response then locking a thread,,,

There's a big sales job being pitched here, and I'm concerned that the agenda of those in control of the T.A. section of the website is not going to allow dissenting viewpoints to be even heard by the majority.

It's going to be up to the Reps who are against it and the pilots sharing this info with other pilots who aren't as engaged or we're hosed.

 

[Lear70]

Having spent far more time than I'd like dealing with the NMB, I find it almost completely unbelievable that they're losing patience already. I'm sure the mediator may be saying such things to help speed along the process, but unless the execs have been called to K Street to be yelled at a few times, you're nowhere close to the Board's limit. I think what you've got are some negotiators and execs who just don't have the experience dealing with the Board to know how to work the process.

That would be about right.

Straight from the horse's mouth, the rumor that the mediator was frustrated with us isn't true. She wasn't, she just said "You have converged on a point in RRC and it's largely industry leading, I'm not going to push the company for more, you're going to have to figure out what you want to do from here."

I'm not going to comment on the questionable "industry leading" on the Scope changes, I don't have Delta's or American's Scope sections to compare to see what the limits are on their touching international same-station code share.

 

[General Lee]

Go back to dispatching those RJs, General.

Ahahahahaha! You did say the DL TA would pass. You are a complete idiot. And go vacuum over by Moak's desk, you missed a spot.....



Bye Bye---General Lee

 

[Nindiri]

I was a pretty solid NO vote when I first looked over the TA, but after reading a conversation about the retro/bonus/whatever, I'm reconsidering. Not that this TA is getting any better, but if the next TA is going to take away my bonus because I happen to be FAT, then I'm probably going to vote yes to lock it in now.

 

[Lear70]

That's great logic, if it actually happens. Unfortunately, it rarely does. Instead, you usually get something like 60/40 against, and then the company takes a wag at how much more cash they need to throw on the table to get the other 10% +1 vote. That's why BODs/MECs are supposed to be the check valve.

Exactly. I've been writing eMails to the Bod every other day all week leading up to the vote explaining that.

Unfortunately, many of them don't get it, and now, if we can kill it at all, we'll tip our hand on just how much/little they need to get the 50%+1 solution, and it won't be Scope.

I think we're screwed unless we really can get close to the Flight Attendant's resolve. At least THEY get it that their current contract is better than a little cash and a bunch of concessions. It'll be a sad story if the Flight Attendants are better-motivated for a fair deal than we are.

 

[Lear70]

I was a pretty solid NO vote when I first looked over the TA, but after reading a conversation about the retro/bonus/whatever, I'm reconsidering. Not that this TA is getting any better, but if the next TA is going to take away my bonus because I happen to be FAT, then I'm probably going to vote yes to lock it in now.

No one's going to do that. That's just a few OSW pissed off about the integration.

The BoD was vehement with PJ that they would not allow that and the Mediator would never go for it, either. Way too divisive.

 

[FurloughedAgain]

That would be about right.



Straight from the horse's mouth, the rumor that the mediator was frustrated with us isn't true. She wasn't, she just said "You have converged on a point in RRC and it's largely industry leading, I'm not going to push the company for more, you're going to have to figure out what you want to do from here."



I'm not going to comment on the questionable "industry leading" on the Scope changes, I don't have Delta's or American's Scope sections to compare to see what the limits are on their touching international same-station code share.

So would you rather the BOD have voted it down? If they did the angry mob would be lighting torches because they didn't get a chance to see/vote on it. And the company PR machine would be full steam about the activist board that wouldn't let the pilots see the "industry leading deal". The mediator would be peeved for the same reason.

I guess my point is that there isn't really anybody to be angry at here. The NC did the best they could, the BOD made the call to send it out because they were gonna get yelled at by the masses either way.

Now we vote and hopefully it's a mandate to improve retirement and tighten up the scope language again. I love your posts and you know I'm a big fan both here and on the union site, just trying to strip some of the emotion away so that people can see the solid info you offer for what it is.

 

[Nindiri]

I hope you're right. I don't like the divisive nature of that conversation; either I am SWA or I'm not, but no changing as it suits other people's agenda.

 

[PCL_128]

So would you rather the BOD have voted it down? If they did the angry mob would be lighting torches because they didn't get a chance to see/vote on it.

Sounds familiar.

 

[Tripower455]

No one's going to do that. That's just a few OSW pissed off about the integration.

Lots of us are also pissed off about the lack of full retro.

The section 1 giveaway and subsets are far more infuriating. At least we got sub cola "raises"!

The worst part is that it will most likely pass.....

 

[Lear70]

I guess my point is that there isn't really anybody to be angry at here. The NC did the best they could, the BOD made the call to send it out because they were gonna get yelled at by the masses either way.

I'm angry about the manipulation of the BoD vote with many of them thinking they would get to send it out with a "NO" recommendation, then that was quashed before it ever got voted on.

Other than that, yeah, we are where we are.

Now we vote and hopefully it's a mandate to improve retirement and tighten up the scope language again. I love your posts and you know I'm a big fan both here and on the union site, just trying to strip some of the emotion away so that people can see the solid info you offer for what it is.

Thanks, I appreciate that, and yes, we really need to do that.

 

[Lear70]

Lots of us are also pissed off about the lack of full retro.

The section 1 giveaway and subsets are far more infuriating. At least we got sub cola "raises"!

The worst part is that it will most likely pass.....

Oh I'm pissed off about that, too.

I'm just not appreciating the people who are trying to claim full COLA would have been worth hosing the AAI pilots. Not cool and would not be allowed anyway.

It's over. We're all on the same team now or we're going to get screwed. People need to start realizing that.

p.s. If it passes, you can kiss all growth goodbye in about 2 years for a 5-7 year duration.

 

[Lear70]

Sounds familiar.

Ha! Yeah I know, right? Strangely enough, I think that was part of the BoD's concern.

 

[PCL_128]

Ha! Yeah I know, right? Strangely enough, I think that was part of the BoD's concern.

It wouldn't surprise me. Passing the buck is always easier than leading.

 

[Tripower455]

Oh I'm pissed off about that, too.



I'm just not appreciating the people who are trying to claim full COLA would have been worth hosing the AAI pilots. Not cool and would not be allowed anyway.



It's over. We're all on the same team now or we're going to get screwed. People need to start realizing that.



p.s. If it passes, you can kiss all growth goodbye in about 2 years for a 5-7 year duration.

There are a few folks saying that they want to hose the AT guys on the bonus. Most are ticked that we are paying for yours instead of getting what we're owed. That doesn't mean that we dont think you dont deserve a bonus, retro or whatever, just that SWApA gave away retro to include you guys.

The sad thing is that the retro issue is a drop in the overall turd bucket. Like the last contract, the "raises" will be eaten up by the fine print in the work rules. Not to mention the complete gutting of section 1. Oh, and the MOU mentioning PBS!

Only SWApA and it's members would accept these concessions while the company makes record profits.

 

[EL10]

Oh I'm pissed off about that, too.

I'm just not appreciating the people who are trying to claim full COLA would have been worth hosing the AAI pilots. Not cool and would not be allowed anyway.

It's over. We're all on the same team now or we're going to get screwed. People need to start realizing that.

p.s. If it passes, you can kiss all growth goodbye in about 2 years for a 5-7 year duration.

For us outsiders. Which parts of section one that do not require BoD approval will cause growth to stop? Can you give an example of an airline partnership would be allowed?

Thanks

 

[Lear70]

For us outsiders. Which parts of section one that do not require BoD approval will cause growth to stop? Can you give an example of an airline partnership would be allowed?

Thanks

Still working on it... The issue is that PDEW (Passenger DAILY Each Way) has two different metrics.

I see it as a way for the company to establish new service, get it up and running with 3-4 daily flights, then sub-service it to another carrier running only one flight every 3 or 4 days (there's no minimum service level to still say we fly there mentioned in 1.F.1.f), then go develop other markets, then come back seasonally. Essentially allowing the company to grow and develop other markets without increasing the number of our pilots or planes. A LOT of those S. American and Caribbean destinations are seasonal... We grow for the next 2 years into those markets so we can say we "service" them, then growth stops while they use this to explore route options.

First, Southwest must already serve the city, and no pilots may be on furlough.

Second, once we have service, they can sub-contract up to 900 passengers EVERY DAY to that city without triggering the "circuit breaker" (Negotiating Committee term - clearly they're trying to dumb it down for those who can't be bothered to read the CBA for more than 5 seconds).

That's 900 passengers, PER CITY, PER DAY. About 6 -700's or 5 -800's or 4+ max flights.

Then it has to drop to 75 passengers per city per day as seen by a 12-month look-back. This would allow the company to essentially service a station in high volume seasonally (Cancun during Spring Break and the peak Fall/Winter travel months when people in the U.S. want to escape the cold), then sub-contract it out the rest of the year, freeing the aircraft up to develop new markets elsewhere, rather than having to buy additional aircraft for our pilots to fly those routes during the low-season. Rinse, wash, repeat.

If they do NOT comply with the above limits, they have 12 months to continue doing it before they pull down the traffic below those limits or stop completely, AND,,, there is no restriction on how LONG the pull-down must take place before they exceed it again, then they have another 12 months to re-comply. (F.2.D.ii.a)

There are a couple "feel-good" paragraphs about the Company agreeing that this is primarily SUPPOSED to be to develop SWA routes so that we can grow (with no metric tied to actually forcing one of our planes on the route), more feel-good language about the Company demonstrating, upon request, that it really IS being used for growth - with no metric or open books requirement beyond showing them the ticketing volume... Heck, they could say that it's stimulating DOMESTIC travel to US cities they're codesharing out of and it would fall under "growth", as there's nothing in there to require them to prove it's International growth, or even how much "growth" is considered "growth". Are we getting 1 more passenger per week on those planes? Hey, that's revenue growth.

We fell for the same old thing I've been cautioning people about for years... NO backstop "cease and desist PERMANENTLY, or until we can come to a new Agreement" language. NO metric on growth. Some undefined terms like "U.S. Trans-border segment", among others.

Oh, and did I mention that, in the language, if you go to a discipline meeting, you HAVE to sign the letter of warning? You can no longer grieve it? That is the first step of progressive discipline. The RLA requires the company to use PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE on a pilot. First, a Letter of Discipline, then a suspension, then termination. You essentially just gave away the first step of discipline with no way to challenge it or grieve it.

The more I find, the more it's just unbelievable this went to the membership. The rebuttal is going to be REALLY long. The page of give-backs is up to two pages now with about 12 things in the "gains" section, most of which are pretty small.

 

[Lear70]

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."

 

[outerlimits]

I was a pretty solid NO vote when I first looked over the TA, but after reading a conversation about the retro/bonus/whatever, I'm reconsidering. Not that this TA is getting any better, but if the next TA is going to take away my bonus because I happen to be FAT, then I'm probably going to vote yes to lock it in now.

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