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?