SWA Pilot union gives away flying!

[fool737700]

VOTE NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[GuppyWN]

One thing I can tell you is voting this down will change things only for the worse.

How is that? Is the company going to pick up their toys and go home? Are they going to spank us if we turn them down?

You need to realize that voting "NO" doesn't mean you don't love this company. It simply means that you refuse to accept downgrade after downgrade in your quality of life and career expectations.

Gup

 

[GuppyWN]

The company will not come back to the table to "make things right" and we will end up in the hands of a judge. How do you think that will turn out??

A judge? Pretty hard ass stance by the company don't you think? You ever heard of a counter offer?

If we turn this down Gary is going to have to ask himself how hard he wants to push? How hard can he push before he loses the pilot group? I don't know but I know he's getting closer and closer.

Gup

 

[RedDogC130]

Hell the FAs got a better COLA than us.

 

[murano]

The Victors is the kinda guy a car dealer LOVES to see walk onto his lot.... always accepts the sticker price, even if it's a used-car.

 

[HalinTexas]

What, how much, are you willing to give up to get the Scope you want?

 

[Flyarcticcat]

I think some of the posters are leaving out the fact that there is NO DOMESTIC CODE SHARE in the TA. Can you imagine? That is significant. No other major U.S. airline has that. Good for the SWAPA negotiators. Most of the other airline pilot groups would kill to have that. Domestic code share has been the thing that has really hurt the major airline pilots.

There are raises, retro, improvements to scheduling issues, improvements in 401K, and a mandated number of aircraft (net gain) by certain dates. Additionaly there is limitation on trans-border code sharing....6% of ASMs flown by SWA.

To say "all future flying" is going to be farmed out is a stretch of huge proportions and nothing more than fear mongering.

In these times, what the SWAPA negotiating committee accomplished is significant. There is a small, albiet very vocal group of pilots who will complain and totally focus on one negative issue and ignore the big picture. It's called negotiations and you don't get 100%of what you want. Most of the SWA pilots understand this and view this TA as a fair one. The so called "silent majority" who don't get on internet forums and constantly whine, will cause this TA to pass, as it should.

Head in the sand!!

Read it and it is not all that. I will vote NO this TA is horrible.

 

[snoman75]

Yea! Go Swa

You'r a domestic operator. Caution don't cross any border you'll get lost, let the Pros do the international stuff.

 

[snoman75]

Hey Boys

Sounds like SWA is in decline, Don't give away any thing, It's a slippery slope down that hill.

 

[chris69]

As a matter of perspective, and good on the FAs for getting improvements, but when mid level, just got weekend off, Capts start pontificating, I get frosted. Especially those who complain that FO's should be capped at $130K a year, or 60% of lowest Capt pay, live within their budget...OK...and that we only got a 2% raise to pay off the 6-12yr FOs that, oh, by the way, got hosed with age 65...not to mention the bottom lances that will be downgraded on Dec 1. Usually Morris guys, but I digress. As for our FAs, and again, good on them, just think: HS grad, 19 years old to start, 12 yrs (31 yrs old) at $50.50 TFP, on average 110-120 TFP/month, 15-16 days off, same $2.15 per diem and 401k match as pilots (%9.3 by end), 3%/3%/3%/(Profit based raise) for 08/09/10/11 and your looking at $52.02/$53.56/$55.18/?, or (x1.138 hourly conversion), $59.19/$60.97/$62.80/?. Or, using 09 numbers for a 115 TFP month/year, $6,161/$73,934, excluding per diem. Again, I illustrate this to show some perspective. The average new hire at SWA over the last 7 years was 37/38 years old with experience, on average, dating back 14-15 years. So, if the company can do the right thing by all the other groups, don't you think they could do it for us? Once again, good on the FAs; I've seen them turn a pretty pissed off group of pax on one of those days from hell into a happy, cheering group upon landing at 3AM.

 

[redflyer65]

I'd be willing to forgo the 2% X three years to have stronger codeshare language. I could drive 4 Mack trucks through the holes that are written into this agreement.

Most likely voting NO.

 

[The Victors]

The Victors is the kinda guy a car dealer LOVES to see walk onto his lot.... always accepts the sticker price, even if it's a used-car.

Don't mention my name when discussing your wife. My post wasn't a "vote YES", just starting a conversation. I'm not happy with this crap either. I'm just not as optimistic that the company will come running back to the table to give us a better deal if we vote this thing down. My point was to read the thing, take a deep breath, and think about it for a while.

 

[fiel12]

Don't mention my name when discussing your wife. My post wasn't a "vote YES", just starting a conversation. I'm not happy with this crap either. I'm just not as optimistic that the company will come running back to the table to give us a better deal if we vote this thing down. My point was to read the thing, take a deep breath, and think about it for a while.[/quote]

Done that. With all respect my vote is NO!!!

I LUV SWA. I want to see this place grow.

 

[GuppyWN]

Victor,

The company may not come "running back" to negotiate but they will be required to negotiate. If you keep the emotion out of it, (something I'm not always good at) you see it from a different light.

I love this company. I am very blessed to have a job at, IMO, is the best airline out there. I am also of the mind that a no vote does not mean you are trying to burn the joint down. A no vote simply means there are sections that the pilot group would like to see renegotiated.

If we go back to the table it will be up to the company to decide how hard they want to push and just how much like United or American they want to be.

I just want to go fly, have a positive influence on our customers, have a good time with my crew, make my 110tfp and go home to be with my family.

Gup

 

[jonjuan]

A no vote simply means there are sections that the pilot group would like to see renegotiated.

Sounds good. As it's a negotiation, what would you be willing to change/loosen to tighten the scope which you find so distasteful?

 

[radarlove]

Do any of you guys have friends over at Airtran?

Ask them how, exactly, voting "no" to two consecutive TAs worked out for them.

Don't bother asking their union president, he quit. The union guys are prolly busy to, what with the decertification vote and all.

 

[PCL_128]

Do any of you guys have friends over at Airtran?

Ask them how, exactly, voting "no" to two consecutive TAs worked out for them.

It worked out great. Very few of us have even the slightest regrets about that. It was the right decision. That TA was worse than our current agreement, and with 86-seat scope, it would have resulted in significant outsourcing and lost jobs for our guys. We'll have a better TA soon.

 

[maxblast72]

Do any of you guys have friends over at Airtran?

Ask them how, exactly, voting "no" to two consecutive TAs worked out for them.

Don't bother asking their union president, he quit. The union guys are prolly busy to, what with the decertification vote and all.

Sounds like the Southwest TA vote is going to go similar to the Airtran TA vote of summer 2007. Senior guys in general are going to vote yes, and the junior guys in genernal vote no.

Is your union president telling all the FOs not to worry about the FO payscale because you will all be Captains by 2011? If not, you guys have one up on us (although that guy did get replaced, and well the guy that replaced that guy got replaced too).

 

[radarlove]

You turned down the first one with an assumption the second would be better. Was it?

Now you turned down the second, assuming the third will be better. Why would it?

It sounds like the company is quite willing to have you guys beg to keep what already existed two TAs ago.

 

[PCL_128]

You turned down the first one with an assumption the second would be better. Was it?

Yes, by a significant margin. It still wasn't good enough, though.

Now you turned down the second, assuming the third will be better. Why would it?

Because if it's not, they're going to get a strike. The choice is theirs. Pay us fairly, or shut down the airline.