SWA TA Passes

[Flying the Line]

Not a lance and haven't been for almost 9 years. I am not crying.




OK, whatever works for you......

As I said, I will never understand this pilot group......

That is exactly the seniority I pegged you for after reading your first post.

 

[Tripower455]

That is exactly the seniority I pegged you for after reading your first post.

Why? They aren't the only ones getting hosed, although they are getting the brunt of it.

 

[Whataburger]

I am not gonna argue with you, but this is essentially the same POS that TA1 was, with less money.

Oh, and not only did I vote no on TA1, I was deeply involved in the grass roots efforts that got it shot down. I figured (incorrectly) that we, as a group, finally woke up, and that most would see TA2 as, at best, break even with TA1.

Now, as the "interpretation, errrr..... implementation plan" is enacted, we'll get to see what we really got, or didn't...... I am sure that the scheduling policy handbook is back from the printers already.

If you were a one-man negotiation committee, what would you do to make this the "perfect" contract?

 

[murano]

TA2 is better than TA1, no doubt. But it still wasn't good enough for me. I've got 30 years to go at this place and giving away our near-int'l flying is just plain wrong. I refuse to vote on anything that allows the outsourcing of my job. At some point in the near future domestic flying is going to reach max capacity and we'll have nowhere to go but int'l. We let that cat out of the bag with the 4%. Ok, so we locked-down far-int'l. Yay. I don't see Gary buying 777s so we can go to Tokyo.

We can fly to Mexico, the Caribbean and Canada ourselves, right now, with 737s. Why SWAPA was not budging on far-int'l but gave away near-int'l still confuses the hell out of me. They've got the "good" and "bad" codeshare all mixed up.

But that's just my opinion. Sorry I'm now in the 13% minority.

 

[turn&pull]

I voted No...A lot of years and money negotiating and we get a contract that we could have achieved in a weekend with a couple of good side-letters...We didn't need a Section 6 for this.

Oh well...I am part of SWAPA so I guess we voted yes.

 

[OCP]

So does the TA define "RJ"? The 170-190s are really not at all "RJs".

 

[Widow's Son]

Tripower,

The way the vote turned out and the pummeling that the no vote candidates like Wells and JD took, it will be interesting how the runoff candidates handle the vote results in their campaign.

I'm not so sure that "I don't understand you guys" is going to play all that well for a wannabe rep.

 

[Tripower455]

Tripower,

The way the vote turned out and the pummeling that the no vote candidates like Wells and JD took, it will be interesting how the runoff candidates handle the vote results in their campaign.

I'm not so sure that "I don't understand you guys" is going to play all that well for a wannabe rep.

Whatever.

 

[FlyinGuy]

I was a no voter on TA1 but voted yes on TA2. #2 does not fix everything. There is no way that Carl and the BoD would be able to do better than what we have now. They sold us a little short several years ago. Besides our contract was written in 1994. There is no way that we can fix everything in one go round (especially in this economy). I am not happy, but I am comfortable with this deal and I will vote for execs and BoD members that will be aggressive in our next round.

 

[Empennage]

I voted No...A lot of years and money negotiating and we get a contract that we could have achieved in a weekend with a couple of good side-letters...We didn't need a Section 6 for this.

Oh well...I am part of SWAPA so I guess we voted yes.

I have to agree with you. This took over 3 years.