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.