SWA TA Vote

[jhill]

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

I no dats rite!

 

[HalinTexas]

Ask any of the former ATA guys if they voted yes in 2005. That was supposed to save the company. There were three votes that year and one in 2004.

Scope and QOL are more important than pay.

Don't vote with your emotions.

 

[TV9Driver]

i would rather vote down a bad contract and face a possible furlough in order to protect what is left of this profession and have a decent career to come back to in a few years. This career has taken such a nose dive in the last 10 years, we can't let it denegrate anymore. (i'm not talking about SWA in particular, rather the industry as a whole)

20 years ago we had Captains flying DC9-10's at major airlines for $130/hr. Now we have regional pilots flying 90 seat "RJ's" for $70/hr. Tell me scope is not important!!!

We are the stewards of this profession and we have to maintain this profession for those that will come after us.

By voting for a concessionary contract that gives back hard won benefits, you are hurting the profession for the next generation.

good luck to everyone!

 

[StopNTSing]

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.

But...wait...according to the estimates I've heard from our own union, this new contract would cost the company an extra $350-400M over the life of the contract. So, if you're genuinely interested in preventing furloughs, the only responsible thing to do is vote no!

 

[FlyinGuy]

hey no voters.....quit throwing out the "savings" of voting no. It makes you look very emotional and not very rational! Food for thought.

 

[Richard Gozinya]

Don't forget about Section 26. There are items that AREN'T in the contract.


Contract Duration and Opener Procedures
General Definitions
Implementation Schedule

Contract Duration and Opener Procedures

This section covers not only covers how long the contract will last (Amendable Date) but also the process for the next negotiations (Openers). This was a critical issue in the last contract negotiations (ICO) because of the infamous Supermediation Clause. Yet, we have seen nothing for this TA. We do not know if Openers may be given 1 year prior, 90 days prior or we have to wait until the Amendable Date. Or if there is anything similar to the Supermediation Clause. Additionally, we do not know if the contract is automatically renewable (some contracts state that if Openers are not given in a specific window, then the contract automatically renews for a full year).

General Definitions

Another critical section. Numerous grievances (hence QOL and $$) have hinged upon the exact wording of the Definitions in this 4 page section of our current contract. With the numerous new Scheduling procedures in this TA, the Definitions become even more crucial.

Implementation Schedule

This could have the greatest effect on our Quality of Life, Future Pay and Retro Pay. We do not have an idea of when this new scheduling system will be turned on (otherwise we still operate under the current system). Will some partial system be in effect for a period of time? What will that look like?

Other items are left completely up in the air. For instance, the Tax-Free LOL plan depends on when the “Company’s new payroll system is implemented and configured to administer the annual election”. No due date when the Company must configure the system even when the new payroll system is implemented.

Additionally, the implementation schedule covers exactly what Retro Pay will cover. For instance, does Retro Pay cover the new JA and Holiday pay rates back to the Amendable date of September 1, 2006?


I realize that some are already hard-over on their vote, “Yes” or “No”, but for a fully informed decision, we need to see the FULL contract. Unfortunately, we are voting and we do not know what we are voting on.



DBMIVN!

 

[Benjamin Dover]

EVERYTHING SWA does relates to costs or revenue.

Everything? Right ...

 

[Dude]

Mach 80,

Chuck Magill and Greg Crum are anti-Lance. They are choosing to politicize the program and say that the feds don't like the program and that it's unsafe. If the feds were so opposed to the program, it would have been gone years ago. They don't like it, therefore, they are trying to get someone else to be the bad guy.

ELITT is different. Russ, our company scheduling guy, hears from his schedulers that ELITT makes their job harder, next thing you know......he wants it gone. Folks in the GO are making decisions based on politics rather than the health of the company.

Furloughs are not the problem of the pilots, Mr. 80. NO decision made by the pilots will EVER result in furlough. "Furlough is a failure of management", said Mr. Kelleher. If the company has to furlought, they do so as a result of decisions they have made. I drive the jet, man. That is all. Paying me and improving my benefits will not create a surplus of positions.

This contract is good enough to pass or bad enough to be rejected. Voting with fear will not negate the reasons for that fear, my friend.

 

[StopNTSing]

Well said, Dude. :smash:

 

[Cobra17]

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.

Really? So how does banning UFlyMikes and buying thousands of crappy Telex headsets relate to costs and revenue? Why are they authorized at other carriers but not at SWA?

Why did the company let Flight Ops continue to hire pilots when they knew the flight schedule and deliveries were going to be reduced. Is it so they could use them as hostages during negotiations?

 

[Capn Butthead]

Well my two cents worth......Im starting to get mad. I did not want to vote no but I had to! There are too many loopholes to let this go thru! Ive been thru crappy contract talks before and ive even been on strike and it sucks but I quess it was necessary. Im very glad to be here but this is too far!

With that being said, Im about to make some more people mad.....

If we furlough anyone up to the number of age 65 guys that were supposed to be gone I will personally start a petition to make sure that we take care of the furloughed guys. This is what I think....ALL of the age 65 people should pay to make sure the furloughed pilots at least have insurance. That should happen untill the number of furloughs matches the number of guys that were supposed to retire. Once that number is met, Id gladly pay a little more to take care of the junior guys. That is the reason we will furlough and not the contract.

I think mr Em...ns and the apaad said that age 65 was the "right thing to do" and it was not a money or greed thing. Well, this is the right thing to do since you are the reason we MAY furlough and we are overstaffed....and that does not apply to only this airline! The contract will not be the only reason we fulough. I voted no because im trying to keep Southwest as Southwest...not some piece of c@%p alliance that never works. IF you voted yes that is your decision and I respect that. I wont bash you or call you out so dont do the same to me.

Sorry for the bad spelling but I am a little slow but very mad!

 

[Benjamin Dover]

Really? So how does banning UFlyMikes and buying thousands of crappy Telex headsets relate to costs and revenue? Why are they authorized at other carriers but not at SWA?

Why did the company let Flight Ops continue to hire pilots when they knew the flight schedule and deliveries were going to be reduced. Is it so they could use them as hostages during negotiations?

Quite correct Cobra. Of course dudes like Mach 80something who helped create the LUV and all will disagree, but things have changed around here.

I also got a laugh out of his absolute of "cost or revenue" Wonder if he thinks that applies to our procedures? Wonder how all of our time taxiing around on two engines helps with either of those two things?

Just a dumbass FO here though - what do I know? Can't even tell when that loc/gs thingy is movin either. Glad the cappy has that one. Savin' some dough for the annual profit share. Yes sir :beer:

 

[SELFloadingCRGO]

Quite correct Cobra. Of course dudes like Mach 80something who helped create the LUV and all will disagree, but things have changed around here.

So I guess it's time to start burning the place down and become like every other major airline out there eh?


SLC

 

[Cobra17]

So I guess it's time to start burning the place down and become like every other major airline out there eh?


SLC

Absolutely...since that is in our best long term interest.

Noone is interested in burning the place down. Since this TA will cost the company $400 million plus, voting it down will actually save the company money. A vote for this TA will only hurt the company's bottom line and adversely impact it's long term prosperity. According to the SWAPA/SWA gains handout, this TA is grossly unfair to the company. I'm all for a 6% pay raise, lance program cut in half or less, severely restricted ELITT, and cracking open Pandora's codeshare box, but not if it's going to negatively affect the company's bottom line. You can burn the place down if you want to, but I'm voting no.

 

[SELFloadingCRGO]

Absolutely...since that is in our best long term interest.

Noone is interested in burning the place down. Since this TA will cost the company $400 million plus, voting it down will actually save the company money. A vote for this TA will only hurt the company's bottom line and adversely impact it's long term prosperity. According to the SWAPA/SWA gains handout, this TA is grossly unfair to the company. I'm all for a 6% pay raise, lance program cut in half or less, severely restricted ELITT, and cracking open Pandora's codeshare box, but not if it's going to negatively affect the company's bottom line. You can burn the place down if you want to, but I'm voting no.

So I guess by that logic you'll be voting down every TA or contract that is not concessionary in nature, since you don't want to cost the company any money.
BTW this TA isn't cracking open Pandora's codeshare box, it's already open. It's called SL32, we allowed it to happen and with no restrictions.

I would never consider burning the place down as I've seen that side of the fence so I'm not interested in that, sorry.


SLC

 

[mayoplane]

On FO side, they have a few trips on xtrafly and VJA. The reserves are flying their a$$ off. I don't know why people keep saying that the company overstffed pilots.

 

[bluestreaking]

Voted No.

I've noticed that most pilots in the "Vote No" crowd have read the actual contract and are much more passionate about their position.

I bet know one here has seen a "Vote Yes" sticker. Most people voting yes have only read the SWAPAganda Executive summary, and the SWAPA gains piece. It's much easier to be apathetic and told how to vote by your union BOD.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

I'm all for a 6% pay raise,

Lets be clear here...it is a 6% rate increase not a pay raise, with all the scheduling restrictions that will be put in place with this terd.

And lets not forget the "new fangled, untested text message" scheduling that was pushed into this TA.

Why? Because the schedulers don't like making phone calls? YGBSM !!!

Wilbur and Orville flipped a coin to see who would fly first...and we have evolved to .....this?

 

[DH2WN]

The QOL issues we gave up stink but our current codeshare language also stinks. If it doesn't pass it'll be at least a year before we see anything new. Until that time GK will do whatever it takes to gain revenue. Codesharing with anyone and everyone. Ya think SL32 matters? It doesn't. If they violate it we can file a protest and sometime somewhere there will be a hearing and a possible compromise.

For you guys who have never been through a contract negotiations before you are in for a rude awakeing if this doesn't pass. Our pilots will not strike or have AA like actions against the company. Therefore nothing will be gained but pain.

Herb isn't here anymore and GK doesn't care about you or what you think.

Good luck.

Voted Yes. Read every line of the TA.

 

[thrasher]

I read the contract. I voted no. Any pilot who read it thru, would vote no. If you don't read it, have you ever seen so much negativity over any one thing at your SWA career? That in itself should get you thinking this is not good for us.