SWA TA fails

[shearedshaft]

Ummmmmm.........what?????

If you don't understand the mechanics of ELITT, then it's time for you to dig in a little. It sounds like you don't understand DTC, or the net zero phenomenon.

If you were a captain, and checked the ELITT board, you would find a very large net zero number. That means that you could give as many duty periods back to the company as you needed to (you probably have 12 duty periods on your board at the beginning of the month. If net zero is 65, you have ultimate flexibility). Then you could take duty periods back from the company or from TTGA, or from open time as you worked your schedule.

In reality though, the lances and first year guys know how to work this, so they start giving away their line to the company via ELITT as soon as it opens.

Net zero for FOs goes to zero immediately and stays there. Every time it pops it head up and hits one, a lance pounces and gets rid of another duty period. So now you, as five-year guy, can only trade for more, or the same number of duty periods. Or move a weekend trip to a weekday trip.

Im a 5 year f/o and im always on elitt looking for something better! I like having the option of moving my trips around and enjoying my days off! it take 3 minutes to log in check elitt, then logoff

That's my point. You check it and 95% of the time, there is nothing there to help, you're stuck with 19.5 weekend trips and net zero of zero. The captains, who don't have lances and first year guys pounding on ELITT have a much, much better experience with flexibility.

Scope is a big big deal and SL32 does address that better than the TA. [\quote]

Not.

SL32 just says the company has to meet with the union and tell the union why they are not complying if they don't comply. How is that better than "no domestic codeshare"? There is no remedy in SL32. None. It doesn't say, "All codeshare will stop if growth stops." Go read it. It says the company will comply, but if the company doesn't, they'll sit down with the union and explain to the union why they didn't feel like complying.

SL32 isn't worth the paper it was written on. If the company violates it, the only penalty is them talking to the union. They don't even have to do that if there are debilitating circumstances, and if you think the worst recession in 50 years isn't debilitating, I have an arbitrator job for you.

 

[Beechball]

Shearedshaft,
When's the last time you've been on the f/o ELITT when it first opens?? It NEVER opens with anything except a NETZERO of ZERO!! The most I've ever seen it is maybe a Netzero of 5...but that's never been at the noon hour on opening day. So your argument is pretty weak. Don't go blaming Lances and First Year guys/gals for killing the Netzero value.....I've been on for..let's see...about 60+ ELITT openings and never saw it that flexible except for weekends. The Captain side for some reason has always been different.

 

[shearedshaft]

The captain side doesn't start at a positive net zero either, guys through their scheduling machinations and the captain net zero usually turns positive early and stays at a pretty positive (65 to 100 is out of hand that's recent) amount.

FO net zero starts at zero and every time it goes to one, a lance or a first year guy pounds on it and drops a duty period. I don't understand why you don't believe me, go check across the board. Every base has a very positive net zero for captains and zero for FOs. Why? FOs have lances and first year guys. Captains don't.

DTC changes would be meaningless with a good net zero. So restrict the lances from dropping too many duty periods, restrict the first year guys from dropping their whole line and picking up everything at second year and you suddenly have a good, workable ELITT.

Or, you could vote no and keep a nearly useless ELITT for FOs. And give up your raises. Oh wait, you already did.

 

[StopNTSing]

The captain side doesn't start at a positive net zero either, guys through their scheduling machinations and the captain net zero usually turns positive early and stays at a pretty positive (65 to 100 is out of hand that's recent) amount.

FO net zero starts at zero and every time it goes to one, a lance or a first year guy pounds on it and drops a duty period. I don't understand why you don't believe me, go check across the board. Every base has a very positive net zero for captains and zero for FOs. Why? FOs have lances and first year guys. Captains don't.

DTC changes would be meaningless with a good net zero. So restrict the lances from dropping too many duty periods, restrict the first year guys from dropping their whole line and picking up everything at second year and you suddenly have a good, workable ELITT.

Or, you could vote no and keep a nearly useless ELITT for FOs. And give up your raises. Oh wait, you already did.

I think you are overlooking a few things with captain ELITT.

1) We are overstaffed, more on the CA side than the FO side. That, more than anything else, is causing the sky high net zero numbers. Before January '09, they never reached levels anywhere near where they are today. I saw plenty of prolonged net zeros on CA ELITT out of MDW and LAS in recent years and have had to fly plenty of trips from those bases that I could not give away (again, not in these over-staffed times, but in recent years that represented more of the historical norm.)

2) It has always been a seller's market for captain trips out of the senior bases and always will be. There are plenty of PHX, HOU, & DAL wannabees commuting out of those bases to the more junior ones. Of course the other side of that coin is....good luck finding any trips out of those senior bases these days! The only one benefitting from this environment is a CA that would like to fly as little as possible.

3) Captain trips pay around 65% more than FO trips (duh!) So there's even more incentive to pickup that weak BUR turn or some broken-up 3-day that pays 17....trips that wouldn't even get a second look from most FOs.

 

[ivauir]

SL32 requires the company to grow by 5% if they want to codeshare. There are no exceptions, no outs. The only out is to simply not abide.

You can have your 7% raise (not really after the reductions), I want job security.

Gup

There is a HUGE out - the arbitrators decision when you grieve it.

 

[GuppyWN]

I understand that. I would rather force the company to take us to arbitration than sign a contract that allows them a free out.

Gup

 

[pilotyip]

Job Security?

SL32 requires the company to grow by 5% if they want to codeshare. There are no exceptions, no outs. The only out is to simply not abide.

You can have your 7% raise (not really after the reductions), I want job security.

Gup

Job Security and aviation in the same post? Talk about an oxy-moran. The AAL guys felt the same way when they voted no on RJ's for American Eagle back in the early 90's. As the AAL growth stagnated in relation to the other airlines having RJs in the feed system, they changed their minds. Guess what more growth, faster advancements, and other good things.

 

[PCL_128]

Job Security and aviation in the same post? Talk about an oxy-moran. The AAL guys felt the same way when they voted no on RJ's for American Eagle back in the early 90's. As the AAL growth stagnated in relation to the other airlines having RJs in the feed system, they changed their minds. Guess what more growth, faster advancements, and other good things.

You're joking, right?

 

[Dude]

This rejection is hopefully a move in the right direction. Our pilot group has given unfettered support to SWA for decades and finally decided to push back a little. We have issues with some of the items in the contract and hope to resolve them. I am glad that we have enough that are willing to stand up and tell SWA, "no thanks". We haven't fired the buildings and the barn, only stated that our association and SWA have more work to do.

This is only a big deal because in 31 years of SWAPA, we have NEVER said "NO!" to the company. With such a small margin, it's more like; "no, but thanks", but at least a no.

I heard guys were calling SWAPA all the way to 5 minutes prior to the close of the vote to ask when they could expect their retro check Oops.

 

[The Victors]

This rejection is hopefully a move in the right direction. Our pilot group has given unfettered support to SWA for decades and finally decided to push back a little. We have issues with some of the items in the contract and hope to resolve them. I am glad that we have enough that are willing to stand up and tell SWA, "no thanks". We haven't fired the buildings and the barn, only stated that our association and SWA have more work to do.

This is only a big deal because in 31 years of SWAPA, we have NEVER said "NO!" to the company. With such a small margin, it's more like; "no, but thanks", but at least a no.

I heard guys were calling SWAPA all the way to 5 minutes prior to the close of the vote to ask when they could expect their retro check Oops.

Should be interesting to see if a year from now you're saying " well guys I guess we should except this last company offer of 1% raises and unlimited domestic codeshare".