SWA TA Vote

[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.