SWA and SWAPA Negotiating -800s

[chase]

Dash,

Thanks for the compliment...I do think I'm wonderful !

The term "my FO's" offended you...."my fellow employees", "my neighbors", "my friends"....hope those don't offend you either. Seeing how I employ no one, I would think my observations are what offended you most...putting such emotion into the argument negates the point your making which is a valid one.

Your comments are partially correct:

Growing the airline is not dependent on how much we give back or give in. (From a purely academic standpoint, if pilots worked for free at SWA, the airline could arguably grow faster and make more money for th shareholders...my wife wouldn't let me support that decision so it is a moot point)It is purely based on the demand of our product. (In theory I agree 100% with this.) When we recover fully from this recession, this and most all airlines will grow. (The question is how much will we or other airlines grow....some will argue strongly lower CASM costs will be a major factor in determining ROIC...maintaining the same pay will lower CASM)

This continued attitude is just killing this profession.

Emotionally stated but not factually driven.....most airlines have failed for reasons that clearly don't include flying airplanes for the same rate....the worse thing that "kills a pilot's profession" is furlough, bankruptcy or insolvency, but what do I know....

Signed,

Head up my ass

​

Chase,

Aren't you just wonderful.

I must admit I drink some of the flavors of the koolaid. But you drink them all.

Pull your head out of your a$$ and see how your post displays how self indulgent you are (my FO's) and how you are supporting the continued backslide of this entire pilot profession by allowing the company to take advantage of our passion and vulnerability with being an airline pilot.

They will let us do this job for free if we allow them!

Growing the airline is not dependent on how much we give back or give in. It is purely based on the demand of our product. When we recover fully from this recession, this and most all airlines will grow.

This continued attitude is just killing this profession.

 

[chase]

Flyarticcat,

To be clear, I never said the FOs I fly nor myself are not interested in negotiating something from the company.

That "something" is no shrinkage in aircraft with the transition from -700 to -800s. That is paramount.

As I said my "survey" is not scientific or meant to be representative of the majority of FOs or others at SWAPA. I have been surprised I've only spoken to one FO who felt a pay increase was mandatory. Not making it up but simply passing along what I have experienced. I'm sure there are many FOs who feel differently, I just haven't run into them other than on this forum, prune or on SWAPAs.

Just saying....

 

[GuppyWN]

Chase,

If you ever learn one thing be it this - "your FO" will tell you whatever you want to hear, even if it's not the way he thinks.

Just look at TA1 and TA2.

Gup

 

[livin'thesim]

The "more responsibility" argument is very weak.

Does an -800 pilot with a half-full airplane have more or less responsibility than the pilot of a full -700?


The problem with so many pilots is that they try to create these "moral arguments" when they are trying to justify higher pay.

Negotiate, then accept or reject. Be a man. There is no need for posturing about "repsonsibility" and such. Anyone who knows anything knows that flying an 800 is not that different than a 700. Sure, you could probably snow some low-time CFI and convince him that there is all this added "responsibility", but everyone else knows that it is just a rationalization.

A much better reason for insisting on higher pay is:
1) We want it, and you can afford it.
2) We think introducing these airplanes will substantially change the career prospects or income potential of our pilot group and we want to change our contract accordingly.

If the notion of added responsibility can be used to insist on marginally more pay for an -800 than a -700, management can then use the reverse argument for smaller aircraft when/if they arrive.

 

[Bake]

Chase,

If you ever learn one thing be it this - "your FO" will tell you whatever you want to hear, even if it's not the way he thinks.

Just look at TA1 and TA2.

Gup

Gup, that used to be the case and I'm sure you are correct the majority of the time, however; after year 8 now I can say that I try my hardest to say what they don't want to hear, even if I agree with them.

Bake

 

[chase]

Gup,

I presume you have or had the backbone to express your opinion to CAs. The FOs I fly with appear to have the same confidence as you.

I can't speak for other CAs but I try to make the FO comfortable from the beginning. I certainly don't try to engage such topics on the first leg or first day.

I have found FOs willing to express their negative feelings over TA1 & TA2 as well as Age 60. Why would theybe willing to voice their true opinions on those topics but hide them on the -800?

Not a big deal but I hope the polling of our members are considered as are the blank surveys.

 

[waveflyer]

The "more responsibility" argument is very weak.

Does an -800 pilot with a half-full airplane have more or less responsibility than the pilot of a full -700?


The problem with so many pilots is that they try to create these "moral arguments" when they are trying to justify higher pay.

Negotiate, then accept or reject. Be a man. There is no need for posturing about "repsonsibility" and such. Anyone who knows anything knows that flying an 800 is not that different than a 700. Sure, you could probably snow some low-time CFI and convince him that there is all this added "responsibility", but everyone else knows that it is just a rationalization

A much better reason for insisting on higher pay is:
1) We want it, and you can afford it.
2) We think introducing these airplanes will substantially change the career prospects or income potential of our pilot group and we want to change our contract accordingly.

If the notion of added responsibility can be used to insist on marginally more pay for an -800 than a -700, management can then use the reverse argument for smaller aircraft when/if they arrive.

I wholeheartedy agree with your ideas on negotiating- but don't think you're on about responsibility-
Cessna crashes barely make more than the local news- somewhere between cessnas and 737s there is an enormous increase in responsibility-
We live in america and every individual is valuable- there is a higher standard for pilots as we move up to fly bigger a/c-
There absolutely is an incremental increase in responsibility. You will take on more responsibility with a full -700 vs a full -800

 

[livin'thesim]

Comparing a cessna to a 737 is silly.

Also, realize that you are not actualyl arguing for being paid by the amount of repsonsibility. If you were, you would need to have the pay rate adjusted by the number of seats filled, since a full -700 implies more responsibility than a half-ful -800.

You are actually arguing for being paid by the amount of POTENTIAL responsibility based on the number of seats.

However, you then also need to admit that a leg to PHX on a sunny summer day is less risky than a cold icy approach into MDW. Different responsibility, therefore different pay, right?


The "more responsibility" argument is basically pilots buying into the who "bigger airplane/more important pilot" idea.

There are lots of non-pilots who imagine that piloting a A340 is substantially more difficult and demanding than an A319. Measuring the job by the size of the airplane is similar to people who think that red sports cars are faster because they "look faster".

Using the seating capacity of the airframe as a proxy for pilot value actually serves to lower the level of discussion when it comes to pilot value in the labor marketplace.


This is not an argument for across-the-board same pay rates. The widebody/narrowbody split seems rational. Or even a rate for each specific type. But differing rates for differing sizes within a type?

Suppose the company swaps out a -700 on a particular leg. I'll bet you want to be pay-protected, right? I doubt that you will be suddenly thinking about that extra respsonsibility that you have just been relieved of.

Having flown for and airline that had varying sizes of one type, I treated each flight the same, and never once thought aboout my lessened responsibility when we were on the small airframe that day.


The problem with using size as the PRIMARY proxy for pay rate is that too many people see through the argument. You may love that argument with your whole heart, but it makes for bad PR.

Pilots are selling a service, and an important part of selling is to recognize the motivations and desires of your buyer. Insisting that they buy YOUR ARGUMENT and rationalizations is bad salesmanship.

 

[waveflyer]

If we aren't paid more for bigger airplanes- how did mgmt justify my pay in the turboprops?
"I know you're qualified for food stamps, but you actually get paid more per seat than a 747 pilot."

If you look at my posts- I'm an advocate for same pay. But I wouldn't be against the pilot group negotiating an -800 rate and blending it in- can't lose capitalism in this. Your post has too many misnomers to respond to. Makes me wonder if you're not a doug Parker wannabe....?

 

[General Lee]

I am assuming that SWA wanted a deal with the stews about the -800 flying because they knew that they were going to get the 40 or so Airtran -800s if they merged. Is that right? It makes sense.

Regardless, all of you guys have a FANTASTICALLY GREAT DAY!


Bye Bye--General Lee