SWA TA Vote

[RedDogC130]

who was the MDW rep JH? or the other guy...forgot his name?

 

[mdf]

who was the MDW rep JH? or the other guy...forgot his name?

The other guy..RG

 

[scoreboardII]

read my signature and decide how I voted...

 

[gobyebye]

I have read the TA very thoroughly. I'm undecided at this point because of my thoughts on the unknowns, whether it passes or doesn't. Just weighing the possible outcomes either way. What I said on page one was that many, not all, but many of the die hard no, no, no guys say things that just aren't true. Capn Butthead just proved my point on page one. A lot of the the people voting no have valid, thought out reasons and I respect their opinions because they are based on straight facts. I was just trying to say that in trying to talk to people and educate myself, I have run into a lot of people who are voting no because of reasons that just aren't true, and what kills me is that they are red faced angry over these things. For every yes voter who is voting uneducated, there are an equal amount of improperly educated no voters.

 

[ASADFW7]

Voted No

 

[roughneck]

Voted No

 

[Cobra17]

I feel like we've been completely steamrolled by this TA. The co. got probably 98% of everything they wanted.

RF

Huh? According to the exec summary and the SWAPA/SWA Gains handout, SWAPA made considerable gains!

The company has been fighting the Wright amendment for 30 years. Why would we be so quick to throw in the towel on codeshare?

Wright is wrong, codeshare is wrong!

Oh yeah, can we have our UFlyMike's back...pretty please?

 

[GuppyWN]

Fellow Pilots of the World’s Best Airline.

The endorsements at the end of this letter represent a cross section of former SWAPA board and committee members, chairmen from previous Negotiation, Scheduling and Safety Committees and fellow line pilots across the seniority spectrum. We have in common the belief that this TA contains significant risks to our business model and as such it undermines the security and future earnings potential of every SWA pilot as well as the future viability of Southwest Airlines. It is a giant step backward for both SWA and SWAPA. The philosophy contained in this TA language potentially changes forever the mutually beneficial working relationship that allows us to prosper at SWA. It is the first contractual change in more than a decade that doesn’t combine increased efficiency with increased quality of life, pay and schedule improvements. It isn’t win-win.

RISKS TO OUR BUSINESS MODEL - This proposal will reduce SWA’s vaunted efficiency, increase our schedule execution costs and result in a higher Flight Ops Cost per Available Seat Mile, (FOCASM) with no long term benefit to the pilot group. The minimal code-share protection allows a further dilution of the SWA brand and the outsourcing of SWA flying. Further, the proposal reduces our quality of life, our schedule flexibility, our protection on days off and our ability to earn additional income from discretionary flying. Overall, this TA decreases the pilot group’s continuing ability to make real contributions to the viability of SWA’s business model. It will make SWA’s industry leading scheduling and manning models less efficient. This philosophy will very easily result in greater long-term furlough risk for SWA pilots.

CODESHARE LANGUAGE - The current offer allows the outsourcing of viable 737 flying into all of Canada and Mexico after a short period of minimal growth. This can be instantaneous with the purchase of another carrier. This tenet threatens SWA’s future viability as a brand and reduces your potential income, your quality of life, and your job stability. During these economic times, outsourcing of SWA flying is unacceptable.

LANCE CAPTAIN - The proposed 52% reduction in Lance Captains is a guaranteed cost increase for SWA. Additionally, it will affect EVERY PILOT’S schedule flexibility and will result in a commensurate decrease in QOL ACROSS THE BOARD. Some Lance Captains will suffer an immediate $40,000 per year decrease in pay. The mid and lower seniority FOs will have less viable open time. Captains will experience decreased giveaway ability. Captain reserve pilots will increase, the costs per seat mile will go up and we will be overall much less efficient and effective for the company as a low cost pilot group.

ELITT - Under this proposal, ELITT weekend restrictions are increased by 100% and the overall ability to trade down is reduced significantly. This change will again decrease in our QOL and cost SWA more money to fly the same schedule. There is not a problem covering weekend flying now because ELITT is not the problem. ELITT doesn’t cause uncovered flying, improper, erratic, manning and excessive pairing length does. ELITT can contribute to an existing MANNING and PAIRING problem. The flexibility of ELITT has proven to be a benefit for SWA. During the ELITT testing phase, when properly manned, ELITT has proven time and again to decrease overlap issues and increase weekend trip coverage. The TA offers no solutions to address the real problem of erratic manning, and excessive pairing length.

PAY - In this environment, we truly appreciate the thought. In reality, the proposal represents a significant real dollar pay CUT over the life of this TA, on the order of 5-15% depending on the rate of inflation. SWAPA estimates that there is only a very slight chance of significant raises next year and in 2011 with only a 50% chance of a 1% raise in the last 2 years. The proposed raises are out of balance with the rest of the SWA employee group’s percentage pay raises. It will certainly NOT replace the 8-12% DECREASE in pay already suffered in schedule reductions and again planned for the next year.

OPENTIME - The total re-write of the Open Time distribution system is unwarranted. It is untested, certainly unproven and not ready for implementation. Again, significant potential exists for costs and manning increases with no benefit to the pilot group overall.

SCHEDULING - The TA language allows for a worse than current schedule. It effectively solves none of our long-term schedule issues of excessive pairing length, overlap resolutions, or excessive manning shifts in monthly vacancy bids. Additionally, it contains no increased rig protection against excessively longer duty day growth or increase aircraft changes. There are no pairing length reductions to help stabilize our manning. Line writing changes increased the top TFP limit but left the bottom limit, increasing the 50% pay differential between junior and senior lines.

RESERVE SYSTEM – After ten years of complaints, the TA still doesn’t fix any of the long term issues regarding pay, AM / PM protection, or a lack of seniority in awarding trips. Reserve pay is still a B scale at 17% below the line average. It still allows an effective RAP change without pilot consent. It still allows a pilot to fly 89.9 TFP and sit the last four-day reserve block for FREE (0.1 TFP.) It adds the ability to be JA’d on Reserve.

DEBUNKING OF PROPOGATED MYTHS -
MYTH 1. - Rejecting the TA will have a bearing on the company's furlough decision. Not true,. In fact, accepting this offer will increase FOCASM, resulting in a long-term risk of decreasing profits, decreasing pay, and increasing the risk of outsourcing of our jobs and furlough.
MYTH 2. -We will have to start from scratch. False. Although the overall philosophy is flawed, there are several areas that are acceptable. The OVERALL RISK to SWA is unacceptable.
MYTH 3. - We will lose the Code share protection we have already negotiated. False. Side letter 32 will come back into effect if this TA is voted down and the December 2009 growth restriction is not met

PLEASE READ THE TA
And make up your own mind. The executive summaries and gain / gain documentation put out by SWAPA are an incomplete and misleading representation of what this TA will bring to our pilot group. There is no CON argument to accompany the extensive SWAPA presentations, However, some members of the BOD have already rejected the Executive Summary. Please VOTE NO or DON’T VOTE until you have read and understand the actual language of this tentative agreement. You should “Limit Check” the language provisions to determine if you can live with the range of each item. If you don’t understand the language, then that is a red flag. Ask yourself why it is written the way it is.

IN CONCLUSION - The pilots of SWA are significantly invested in the future viability of SWA. The contributors to this document fully comprehend and appreciate that investment. Our careers are worth several millions of dollars each and several billion dollars overall. This money is invested in the future viability of SWA. We do not take this position lightly. Most of the pilots whose names appear below have already devoted years of time and effort to preserving the working relationship between SWA and SWAPA. Each of us believes that this TA contains significant risks to the future viability of SWA, and by extension, to the job security and future earning potential of every SWA pilot. Please say NO to a contract that will change our business model and our airline for the worse. Our families, our SWA family, our leadership and our stockholders deserve much better.

 

[RDG]

Read the whole TA, cover to cover and voted no. Sorry, but that dog just don't hunt.

 

[Ralph Wiggums]

Voted NO.

 

[waitin]

gobyebye,
The issues discussed in the letter Gup shared are, as far as I can tell, 100% true and factual.
What issues are you talking about when you say "no" voters have bad information?
If nothing else, the decrease in QOL necessitates a "no" vote.

Gup, is that the box-stuffer that was allowed in some domiciles and not in others?

 

[Mach 80]

Voting YES to ensure it passes so I don't have to hear any more crap about it.

 

[GuppyWN]

Waitin,

That's the letter. I am confident it will find its way into your box - either SWAPA or SWA allowed.

As of this morning there are about 120 names that will be attached to that letter. It was shown to the DAL ACP yesterday and his jaw hit the floor. You can find a post on the SWAPA forum to have your name added to.

Gup

 

[Orionflyer]

So the No voters are arguing that the TA is bad because it will increase FOCASM???? If so, then I've got two great ideas to reduce our costs... furloughs and pay cuts. Many of you guys don't acknowledge that our current "decrease in pay" is due to overmanning that is beyond anyone's control and could only be mitigated with growth (not in the cards) or furlough.

Also, how can you argue that costs are a problem and then complain that the pay raises are too low??

 

[Sandhawk]

It will probably pass, but you won't find a soul that voted "yes"..............

 

[RedDogC130]

just voted NO..

 

[StopNTSing]

It will probably pass, but you won't find a soul that voted "yes"..............

I used to think so too, but I can barely find anyone who is in favor of this turd. The negative sentiments are like nothing I've ever seen around here before. :beer:

 

[Mach 80]

May 2009: Junior SWA F/O: "I'm voting 'no' because I don't like the ELITT, the Lance thing, and I think we can do even better on code share"

June 2009: TA gets rejected.

January 2010: New TA comes out. Company perceives increased costs due to not getting changes to ELITT they had in earlier TA, expensive (to them) Lance grandfathering, and loss of ancillary revenue from near Int'l code sharing. The economy is still weak as is revenue and travel in general. No growth seen anytime in next year to 18 months.

March 2010: SWA announces the furlough of 300 pilots. Many of the 300 had voted 'no' to the original TA. The new, more expensive contract than the original and loss of ancillary revenue from near border code-sharing does not allow SWA to carry 300 extra pilots any more. How ironic that many of those 300 who thought the 'no' vote was helping them, in reality caused them to be the first pilots SWA has had to actually furlough in it's history. They now go to bed at night thinking of the raise, retro, and most of all, their paychecks from SWA that they could have had, had they not allowed themselves to catch the 'no' flu back in May.

 

[Dude]

Mach 80,

Do you jump at the sight of your own shadow? That isn't a very realistic post. The timeline may be, but the resulting furlough solution has nothing to do with this TA and is rejection or approval. ELITT has very little, if nothing at all, to do with the bottom line. It costs nothing. In fact, you could say that it costs the company more in less productivity for the pilots. The Lance program should stay as is. We shouldn't have allowed it to be negotiated away. Codeshare......don't get me started.

Chuck and his folks are trying to scare folks into voting yes. They are say things like, "Gary has buyers remorse and wants what he gave up back".
We are in negotiations until this thing is killed or ratified.

 

[Mach 80]

I'm not scared of anything. I'm senior enough that this airline will be completely out of business before I'm gone.

Now, if ELLIT doesn't affect costs then why does the company want it modified? If Lance doesn't affect costs than why do they want it changed? EVERYTHING SWA does relates to costs or revenue.

I really don't have much of a dog in the hunt here except the raise and retro will be nice, but I am serious about the costs getting pushed just enough to make the company look at furloughs. I'd truly hate to see these macho young naive 'no' votors vote themselves out of a job. They think it can't happen to them just like many pilots at other airlines before them thought. They thought their airline or situation would somehow be different. SWA will absorb some slop in pilot costs (read exce3ss pilots) to a point but if that point gets crossed, something will be done. Adding costs and not permitting some amount of revenue with some code sharing with a different TA increases the odds of it happening, but the 'no' flu doesn't let some look that far ahead.