SWA today like the airline in the book, "Nuts!"?

[Bake]

That'll be your contract too-
So, thx- we'll keep your misunderstanding in mind and make sure we negotiate in good faith.

And bake, one of the FOs on the nc was in class w/ me- I don't share your take on swapa being overmatched.

That's OK, You can be wrong.

 

[Crash Pad]

So what is ALPAs excuse? 5 years of fighting at AirTran and at the end of the day the company was sold and the negotiation wrapped up when management decided.

Lets talk about the contract:
1. Caved on scope
2. Industry trailing rates even with a massive FO raise
3. The same reserve system as ASA (SureJet or whatever they are)
4. Yes it was better than the old contract. That is like saying the Pittsburgh Steelers are better than Jacksonville this season.

Don't kid yourself. You got what management was willing to give, when they were willing to give it.

The strike vote you brag about is the same strike vote taken at every airline during contract talks. It always passes by 98% and ALPA sends out some rah rah email saying "the company knows we mean business". I think ALPA drafted the letter in 1968.

Here is what really happened. The company stone walled ALPA for 4 years. Then GK called and offered to buy the place. The company stalled for another year while they worked out the details and golden parachutes. My guess is GK called and said something like "wrap up the labor issues"... then we got a contract.

Calling SWAPA soft and saying they take what is given to them is hilarious. We did too. At least SWAPA got some money, 3 day trips, higher min day, the list goes on.

 

[DonVerita]

Two things

A- we don't want divided rates here and most agree-
If we bought 787's, we'd want one increased rate for everyone and not get into the divided carrot chasing career others have

B) if gk and execs are getting raises/ I better also
That's a common sentiment

I understand your point on (A), but don't see it as feasible.

If SWA were ordering another narrowbody type, then a case could be made for having one rate. But the 787 is a widebody and I doubt they would order more than a handful, at least to begin with. So let's say GK comes to SWAPA and says they want to order 25. SWA currently has 573 narrowbodies (per data on APC) on property. Is GK going to agree to up the rate on 573 737's just to get a lower than normal rate on 25 787's?

A better plan would be to have the 787 in a category by itself with pay rates that match or exceed the highest of the other legacies (SWA is now a Legacy for all intents and purposes). The training events would be minimal due to the # of widebodies in the fleet. The pilots flying those aircraft would get pay commensurate with the additional revenue generated by having a higher number of seats. International override would be on top of that.

As for (B), I'm in 100% agreement.

 

[humveedriver]

Here is what really happened. The company stone walled ALPA for 4 years. Then GK called and offered to buy the place.

AirTran pilots merged with ALPA on 1 May 2009. The new contract became effective 1 DEC 2010. ALPA wasn't stonewalled for 4 years. The pilots of AirTran were.

18 months of representation prior to getting the new contract. Other than having an ALPA number, I never felt like I was a part of "ALPA". They were supposed to be a tool that helped cut the crap with our in house union of 12 years. ALPA's time to shine would have been during the SLI process, but they were vague with their advice.

What I learned from all of this is it doesn't matter what Mickey Mouse letter acronym you have representing you. It's the integrity and unity of the local union leadership that directly impacts the solidarity of union membership.

 

[waveflyer]

That's OK, You can be wrong.

As long as you keep posting with that avatar(!)

 

[waveflyer]

I understand your point on (A), but don't see it as feasible.

If SWA were ordering another narrowbody type, then a case could be made for having one rate. But the 787 is a widebody and I doubt they would order more than a handful, at least to begin with. So let's say GK comes to SWAPA and says they want to order 25. SWA currently has 573 narrowbodies (per data on APC) on property. Is GK going to agree to up the rate on 573 737's just to get a lower than normal rate on 25 787's?

A better plan would be to have the 787 in a category by itself with pay rates that match or exceed the highest of the other legacies (SWA is now a Legacy for all intents and purposes). The training events would be minimal due to the # of widebodies in the fleet. The pilots flying those aircraft would get pay commensurate with the additional revenue generated by having a higher number of seats. International override would be on top of that.

As for (B), I'm in 100% agreement.

I'll concede that one strategy may be better than the other- but look at the in house divisions within other airlines- Look at the quality of life as pilots chase money out of family responsibility- I just think ups had it figured out in that area-
When I'm 65 I don't want to feel pressured to fly widebodies across time zones for money- but when you look at other legacies, the in house divisions make it a necessity to get in those topped out years at the end- and they often sacrifice narrow body pay for wide- long term, we are already divided enough- we will have better contracts and better QOL in the long run if we stay one BLENDED rate-

 

[slaquer5]

I'll concede that one strategy may be better than the other- but look at the in house divisions within other airlines- Look at the quality of life as pilots chase money out of family responsibility- I just think ups had it figured out in that area-
When I'm 65 I don't want to feel pressured to fly widebodies across time zones for money- but when you look at other legacies, the in house divisions make it a necessity to get in those topped out years at the end- and they often sacrifice narrow body pay for wide- long term, we are already divided enough- we will have better contracts and better QOL in the long run if we stay one BLENDED rate-

I just want to make sure I understand correctly .


You are saying most SWA pilots would like one pay scale. Q400,737, 787 ?

 

[Kharma Police]

I just want to make sure I understand correctly .


You are saying most SWA pilots would like one pay scale. Q400,737, 787 ?

Please, tell me most SW pilots don't agree with him.

 

[madjack]

UPS does it...

 

[redflyer65]

Please, tell me most SW pilots don't agree with him.

Kharma,

We all have our opinions, but I'd say 'most' SW pilots would agree on same pay for narrow bodies...no matter what size they are. Widebody would probably be a different payscale, even though I get where Wave is coming from. People at the end of their carrier chasing the large plane for more money sucks. They look like the walking dead most of the time due to the crappy schedules. Remember we have Zero redeyes here, so the flying is pretty easy.