SWA TA Vote

[ivauir]

yes. It is funny how the YES voters sell the FEAR while the NO voters say that what we have isn't that bad, and, oh by the way, read the TA. It seems that every Yes voter I run into hasn't gotten around to reading the TA, instead they seem to be relying on the exec summary and the gains/gains pieces and the BOD recommendations. oh well. people get the gov't they deserve in a democracy and it looks like some SWA pilots think we deserve to have a contract that was written by and for schedulers rather than pilots.

Poppy cock.

Get off of your high horse I've read it and am voting for it.

The FEAR I'm hearing is from the "no" camp and frankly it doesn't even make sense:

"If we pass the TA we'll be like United domestic ..."

Thanks for making my point GuppyWN

 

[ivauir]

Read it again dude. Rjs under 86 are not allowed domestically unless they buy a carrier that already has them. Ask your union rep which carrier that clause applies to and your answer will be they can't say due to confidentiality agreements. They have a carrier in mind.

Read it again and again dude the domestic codeshare veto would still apply.

What protects us under the current CBA?

 

[shootr]

ivauir,

You have the right to vote "yes" but you do not understand this TA. The domestic codeshare veto does not apply if we buy a carrier that is already doing it. You are not done with your research, yet. You can still change your vote.

shootr

 

[RJones]

Let me explain something to you guys about our current CBA and the TA. If the company wants to enter into, purchase, or purchase an airline with RJ's right now and or in the future we have nothing that protects us, not now nor in the future with our current CBA and or the TA should it be voted in.

Neither of them have protections, remedies, relief, and teeth to protect the pilot group. We can raise our finger at the company hollering and screaming, take it to arbitration, and after say about three years the arbitrator will ask us what we want, nothing spelled out in the contract guys, go-away.

Take this CBA and the TA to your attorney and they will tell you exactly the same thing.

 

[shootr]

I am not saying that what we have with codeshare is better that what is in the TA. Just don't say that the TA is better than what we have, because it is not. It is filled with vagueness and loopholes that will allow the company to do what they would have done otherwise.

Now, the workrules are a step backwards and it seems that we gave in on these for basically nothing.

Here's what it'll take to get a yes from many of us, now...

-3% like everyone else
-keep the industry standard FO/CA percentages
-keep lance program as is or at least grandfather the current ones
-get rid of the Alleghany/Mohawk language so it's not our starting point
-a better compromise on ELITT
-a test period for a very messy and complicated open time system

It's still OK to change your vote to "No"!
shootr

 

[vixin]

Read it again and again dude the domestic codeshare veto would still apply.

What protects us under the current CBA?

I think you need to make sure your lic. says English Proficient. Becasue you my friend dont understand the TA.

 

[firstthird]

ivauir,
You are the first yes voter I've heard (not counting the BOD) that has read the TA. I ran into one guy who said he wasn't a lawyer and that he couldn't figure out all that stuff, and then we talked about his big boat and the bigger one he wanted to buy. good for him. I just wish he wouldn't vote if he can't take the time to read the TA.
firstthird

 

[Ralph Wiggums]

Here's what it'll take to get a yes from many of us, now...

-3% like everyone else
-keep the industry standard FO/CA percentages
-keep lance program as is or at least grandfather the current ones
-get rid of the Alleghany/Mohawk language so it's not our starting point
-a better compromise on ELITT
-a test period for a very messy and complicated open time system

shootr

What he said...

 

[Reebo]

It will pass 62% to 38% with 89% of all eligible voters casting a vote.

 

[RJones]

get rid of the Alleghany/Mohawk language so it's not our starting point

That's a big fat funny one for me.
1. its law.
2. if we purchase another airline, and take the employees, the courts will revert to it regardless.
3. no reason to have it in any airline pilot labor contract.

 

[shootr]

3. no reason to have it in any airline pilot labor contract

Thanks for making my point!

 

[RDG]

Read it again and again dude the domestic codeshare veto would still apply.

What protects us under the current CBA?

As others have already pointed out, you obviously don't understand what you read. And since we are on the subject, when SWA did not meet the growth requirement for continued codeshare, what price did they pay?

Oh, that's right...we won't meet the growth requirement....too bad...so sad...we are codesharing anyway.

 

[vv100]

As others have already pointed out, you obviously don't understand what you read. And since we are on the subject, when SWA did not meet the growth requirement for continued codeshare, what price did they pay?

Oh, that's right...we won't meet the growth requirement....too bad...so sad...we are codesharing anyway.

Oh he understands it all right. Believe me.

 

[BeachBummer]

I've got nothin in this battle but some friends on the swa side of the fence. You guys had best take a long hard look at UAL, DAL and Midwest. The outsourcing of your work will not come back once it leaves! Think long and hard before you let some one else do your flying for you domestically or international.

Nothin against the regional guy, I worked at two and we all come from one place or another, but this small jet crap is going to destroy whats left of the industry. Don't let them take your work away from you!

 

[GuppyWN]

You got that right but guys are seeing dollar signs and are convinced we can't do any better in these "uncertain" economic times.

Did I tell you the raise is 2% and for that we trade basically all say in near international codeshare and only "BoD approval" on domestic codeshare?

Did I also tell you that the sellout some-bitches that approved this are the same guys that get the say so?

We're screwed.
Gup

 

[Daddy]

I agree with Gup 100%...we have a bunch of dumbass pilots who are willing to trust their family's future that mgmt will do the right thing...sounds great on a greeting card but not so good in a contract. It is almost surreal how shortsighted some people are but I guess that is the nature of the beast when you are labor...I am just not used to it...

 

[BlueBlood]

Doesn't SWA hire YES voters? I mean, isn't that who they target? Middle-aged/retired O-5's and O-6's and civilians that have been abused to the point of caring less about money as the "luv" they experience from their employer-that's what SWA hires isn't it?

They don't hire militants. Granted, they seem to be making some, but I don't see a group of cooperative souls throwing rocks at Mr. Kelly.

Maybe I'm wrong. I know many there and wonder when the day will come when the pilots at WN tell everyone else to go suck it. One of my mates from a few years ago is a PHX fo and says that the cuts in capacity has really hurt some of the pilots, but the crews are the only ones sharing the burden. Is this accurate?

If that's the case, I'd be pissed too.

 

[Mach 80]

The angst on this TA is simply very misplaced dissapointment in growth stopping at SWA. When an airline is growing and everyone is steadily moving up in seniority and upgrading, there's no problems and no issues. No one's upgraing in 4 to 5 years any more and the dissapointment is simply being (incorrectly) transferred onto the back of this TA. Any other major passenger airline pilot would be very happy with this TA. The pay rates are great (do compare them to other 737 operators) , retro, the scheduling area is fine despite the over-riding fear in something new, and the code share/scope is better than any other airline. The no votors are absolutely nuts, some of them being led by a Pied Piper of a few senior guys who dislike the union leader (one of them ran against him and was trounced). No matter, this thing is going to pass. The people voting yes feel no need to be living on the internet telling everyone why. Don't let the loud minority fool you into thinking this thing is going to get turned down.

 

[AlbieF15]

I think the limits on trip trading and the code share are the biggest gripes... Everyone knows growth has slowed, especially with age 65. Your job now is to make your FO job as bearable as possible. It seems to this outside perspective the only winners on this TA are the senior captains, and the FOs don't get much more than a slightly improved 401k.

Stagnation is here. Its at other carriers too. Where you sit when the music stops counts, and you want it to be as comfy a spot as possible.

 

[GuppyWN]

You're right Mach80. If we were growing it would be much easier to stomach -

• less pay raise than other SWA work groups
• basically unrestricted near-international codeshare
• unrestricted continued codeshare w/purchase of a carrier
• reduced ELITT
• reduced trading ability (increased DTC)
• loss of one leg on SWA codeshare
• loss of restriction that now allows SWA to sell other carriers tickets
• loss of 1/2 of lance captains
• loss of mach adjustment (more block for same pay)
• loss of cancellation pay
• 4 day cap on ELITTing down
• 9 day cap on lance captain pick up
• ability of out of base captain to trounce in base lance
• loss of max trip pull for vacation (1 more hour to get you to base)

I could go on but you, and others, get the point.

It aint the lack of growth brother. This TA sucks all by itself.

Gup