SWA TA Passes

[texman]

Let me offer a minor correction that had major consequences. The RJ carriers didn't take anything. It was foolishly given to them by mainline pilots. The fault of all this outsourcing lies squarely on the shoulders of mainline pilots, specifically DAL. Comair was the U.S. launch customer for the CRJ and the DAL MEC allowed it.

True early 90's comair.

 

[bmpilot]

heard Airtran is going to have big announcement soon.....

Been here for a few years. That one goes around every six months or so.

 

[OCP]

So can any SWA people tell us what "RJ" is defined as in the TA?

 

[relief tube]

Yeah, we are buying you guys if we can get SWAPA to agree to being stapled to the bottom of our seniority list.

that'd be like walmart buying Sakk's.

On a serious note. Int'l codeshare limited to 4%....isnt that a lot? Come on fellas, do your own international flying.

 

[RedDogC130]

So can any SWA people tell us what "RJ" is defined as in the TA?

I will later tonight unless someone get to it first

 

[turning2]

So can any SWA people tell us what "RJ" is defined as in the TA?

“Regional aircraft” shall be defined as jet aircraft (aircraft utilizing a turbine-driven engine without an external propeller) certificated for eighty-six (86) seats or fewer and a maximum permitted gross takeoff weight of less than eighty-five thousand (85,000) pounds or turboprop aircraft (aircraft utilizing an engine with an external propeller) certificated for seventy-six (76) or fewer seats and a maximum permitted gross takeoff weight of less than seventy-five thousand (75,000) pounds.

“Regional carrier” shall mean an air carrier that operates regional aircraft, including regional aircraft (as that term is commonly understood in the airline industry) larger than seventy seats for turbojet aircraft (e.g., EMB-170, -190, CRJ-700, -900), or seventy-six seats for turboprop aircraft (e.g., Bombardier Q-400).

 

[RDG]

And just to ensure a 9 page minimum on this thread,

Domestic codeshare

Southwest Airlines will not enter into a domestic Codeshare Agreement within the fifty (50) United States without the agreement of the Association.

Codeshare for Regional Aircraft Flying

Southwest Airlines will not enter into any domestic or trans-border code share agreement with a regional carrier or involving regional aircraft except to provide inter-island service within the Hawaiian Islands or inter-island service within the Caribbean Islands.

 

[OCP]

“Regional aircraft” shall be defined as jet aircraft (aircraft utilizing a turbine-driven engine without an external propeller) certificated for eighty-six (86) seats or fewer and a maximum permitted gross takeoff weight of less than eighty-five thousand (85,000) pounds or turboprop aircraft (aircraft utilizing an engine with an external propeller) certificated for seventy-six (76) or fewer seats and a maximum permitted gross takeoff weight of less than seventy-five thousand (75,000) pounds.

“Regional carrier” shall mean an air carrier that operates regional aircraft, including regional aircraft (as that term is commonly understood in the airline industry) larger than seventy seats for turbojet aircraft (e.g., EMB-170, -190, CRJ-700, -900), or seventy-six seats for turboprop aircraft (e.g., Bombardier Q-400).

That all sounds pretty solid. Why are some people thinking that "RJs" are right around the corner? Although I don't know the seats and GWT of an E190.

 

[RedDogC130]

That all sounds pretty solid. Why are some people thinking that "RJs" are right around the corner? Although I don't know the seats and GWT of an E190.

because as soon as you don't think they are coming they are here.....better to be proactive than reactive.

 

[Tripower455]

Never mind......

 

[Cometman]

What is the capacity and weight of the 190 or the 900?

 

[cscflystraight]

Congrats SWA crews ...

 

[Skybus]

If you think its a better contract by negotiating half a million dollars less wages for an average career compared to the value of our 2006 wages, then congratulations.

Can you quantify that claim for those of us that may be a little slow.

Thanks

Bus

 

[GuppyWN]

“Regional aircraft” shall be defined as jet aircraft (aircraft utilizing a turbine-driven engine without an external propeller) certificated for eighty-six (86) seats or fewer and a maximum permitted gross takeoff weight of less than eighty-five thousand (85,000) pounds or turboprop aircraft (aircraft utilizing an engine with an external propeller) certificated for seventy-six (76) or fewer seats and a maximum permitted gross takeoff weight of less than seventy-five thousand (75,000) pounds.

“Regional carrier” shall mean an air carrier that operates regional aircraft, including regional aircraft (as that term is commonly understood in the airline industry) larger than seventy seats for turbojet aircraft (e.g., EMB-170, -190, CRJ-700, -900), or seventy-six seats for turboprop aircraft (e.g., Bombardier Q-400).

In a nutshell the ONLY RJ/Regional flying that can be done in this contract is inter-island Hawaii unless said "RJ's" are owned and flown by SWA and SWAPA pilots.

Period. Dot. End of discussion.

Gup​

 

[Flyingcat]

I am only a general aviation pilot, so I have never lived under an airline pilot contract. I do have friends that are at different airlines. I think they would take the job protections any day over the "industry leading wage". It sounds to me that a majority of the SWA pilots thought this out very carefully and decided the same.

That being said, if it were me I would like to see more ironclad verbiage than what has been suggested here. Why define an RJ? Along with the well crafted no code share language I think it would be better to have language that read something like this: Any and all aircraft flow in the service of SWA shall be piloted by pilots on the SWA seniority list. Add whatever Legalese you need to make it work as I am not an attorney. It just seems that by defining an "RJ" it opens to many things to interpretation. Guess we need to see what the actual language.

Anyway, I say congratulations. No contract will be perfect and not everyone will be happy. I think considering some of the other contracts in the industry you should still be proud to say your a SWA employee.

 

[gear_guy]

Hiring

This is way off topic, but when can I get a job at SWA? Any idea of how retirements will affect future hiring to open up the hiring windows again?

 

[328dude]

This is way off topic, but when can I get a job at SWA? Any idea of how retirements will affect future hiring to open up the hiring windows again?

Hopefully sooner then later. If not, once the 65 guys start to leave, the hiring should start.

 

[Skyboy722]

This is way off topic, but when can I get a job at SWA? Any idea of how retirements will affect future hiring to open up the hiring windows again?

I'm one of the more optimistic guys I know, and I still think it will be a few years before we really start to hire in substantial numbers again. I don't see many of the "I'll only fly till I'm 62" crowd leaving anytime soon, forced retirements don't start for another three years, we're over staffed as it is, and we have a CEO apparently hell-bent on codesharing out our near international growth opportunities. (or merging)

Boy, I'm a bit of a downer tonight, huh? Wish it weren't so, believe me...

 

[Tripower455]

I am only a general aviation pilot, so I have never lived under an airline pilot contract. I do have friends that are at different airlines. I think they would take the job protections any day over the "industry leading wage". It sounds to me that a majority of the SWA pilots thought this out very carefully and decided the same.

That being said, if it were me I would like to see more ironclad verbiage than what has been suggested here. Why define an RJ? Along with the well crafted no code share language I think it would be better to have language that read something like this: Any and all aircraft flow in the service of SWA shall be piloted by pilots on the SWA seniority list. Add whatever Legalese you need to make it work as I am not an attorney. It just seems that by defining an "RJ" it opens to many things to interpretation. Guess we need to see what the actual language.

Bingo...... every word in section 1 is there for a specific reason. FWIW, the NC tried to simplify the language like you suggest, but the company simply wouldn't play ball.

Unfortunately, and I know I'll get a hard time for saying this, but there are numerous places in the new contract that are written in a way that they will be subject to interpretation.

This has been my pet peeve with the old CBA. Lots of seemingly good stuff in there that has been interpreted by the company to our detriment, because they used 50 words where 10 would've been clearer.

Anyway, I say congratulations. No contract will be perfect and not everyone will be happy. I think considering some of the other contracts in the industry you should still be proud to say your a SWA employee.

I've always been proud to be a SWA employee! Even when we were near the bottom of the barrel pay wise, and guys were leaving. This is a great company, with great people. Now, all we need is a great contract!

 

[GuppyWN]

Flyingcat,

A little history. A few years ago WN had no protections against codeshare at all. We then voted to allow the company limited codeshare so long as they promised to grow. Without 5% annual growth there could be NO codeshare. During that time WN signed 2 codeshare deals with WestJet and Volaris. Neither has started and hopefully never will.

Fast forward to the "new" contract.

The new contract allows up to 4% of our RPM's in "near international" codeshare with Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean. There is a provision to allow a larger % only if SWA flies to said destinations and "offsets" the 4%. There is NO "far" international codeshare allowed without membership consent. There is NO codeshare to and from Hawaii. There is absolutely NO domestic codeshare of any type period.

Would I like 0%? Hell yes I would but the membership was too shortsighted a couple years ago when we traded growth for codeshare. At least we have a cap on it and have completely prevented RJ's and turborprops from taking our domestic customers.

Section 1, scope and codeshare, is and will always be paramount in my mind. All you have to do is look at the old United of 600 plus mainline jets vs. today with a little over 300 mainline jets and 1,000's of furloughed family providers (pilots).

Now if we could just get Gary Kelly to get off the intial thoughts of shrinking to profitability and merger mania we'd be set - once again.

Gup