SWAPA "AIP reached with Company"

[HowardBorden]

You know Howie, you might consider not acting like a d!ck for a few posts and embrace any competing idea to voting in what you're faced with right now?? Because it's going to be a lot less fun for you to look up exact RJ/outsourcing numbers the rest of us live with if your coworkers vote this in. Make any sense to you at all?

No, that makes no sense to me at all!

All my energy going forward is to convince each and every voter how shortsighted voting away scope would be. If that includes pointing out the missteps of those that have gone before us then so be it.

You seem to want SWA to fall into the same trap that stifled growth at every legacy airline so you can revel in their misfortune. Just because your fate has been sealed, doesn't mean the rest of us are doomed to repeat that history.

SWAPA still has great scope in the CBA, it hasn't been bargained away YET. I implore everyone to view this from a long term lens and see the pitfalls for what they are. It is still a choice for SWAPA members. Please choose wisely.

 

[Flopgut]

SWA has always had a lot of help, and it will always need a lot of help. You would be smart to steer it toward a situation that is beneficial.

 

[Uncle Bunkle]

SWA Bubba told me the other day, over hot dogs and an Extra large Diet Pepsi, that he thought someone in SWAPA had a 'master plan' regarding this scope.

 

[HowardBorden]

SWA has always had a lot of help, and it will always need a lot of help. You would be smart to steer it toward a situation that is beneficial.

Your theory that SWA wouldn't be around without the "manna from heaven" is understood by everyone familiar with your posts.

Trust me, in this situation the pilot group needs nothing from anyone in order to make the right call. That being said, your false narrative that selling scope is a smart move is completely transparent. There is no need to fall victim to your "misery loves company" mindset.

 

[Flopgut]

Your theory that SWA wouldn't be around without the "manna from heaven" is understood by everyone familiar with your posts.

Trust me, in this situation the pilot group needs nothing from anyone in order to make the right call. That being said, your false narrative that selling scope is a smart move is completely transparent. There is no need to fall victim to your "misery loves company" mindset.

D Neeleman has started two airlines in the time that SWA decided it was too good to listen to him. UAL just tied up with his Brazilian airline. That could have all been growth or increase that involved SWA

 

[SWA Bubba]

D Neeleman has started two airlines in the time that SWA decided it was too good to listen to him. UAL just tied up with his Brazilian airline. That could have all been growth or increase that involved SWA

Actually, it was three airlines that Neeleman started since leaving Southwest: Westjet, JetBlue and Azul. Although listed as a "founder" of WestJet, Neeleman's contribution was less substantial, and he left under undisclosed circumstances two years into its existence. He then started JetBlue, and eventually was replaced as both CEO and then Chairman for lackluster performance. He then started Azul, which is his current gig.

So in his career, he was "asked to leave" two, and possibly three airlines, and this is the guy you thought would do great things at Southwest? So what that he likes and pushes codeshare--so would all major US airline management teams, including Southwest. Why not?--it makes them money by utilizing cheaper labor than their own pilots. Not to mention, Neeleman is against unionization, which is the reason he was able to have his way so much, often to the detriment of his own labor force.

So tell me again why you like him so much, Flop. Is it his his anti-union views? How about his continual push to outsource his employees' work? Perhaps it's just his track record in general, jumping from airline to airline.

Hey, maybe you guys at United should hire him.

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

Bubba these other airlines in other countries are going to grow or get started whether or not SWA is affiliated. They'll be affiliated with another airline and they'll do better for it. I don't particularly like DN, but I appreciate the airlines he's been a part of. Smart, organic and inclusive growth. No Texas airport bs. No problems with class2 or etops they get the work done.

You need to vote no, but you also need to consider limitations

 

[SWA Bubba]

Bubba these other airlines in other countries are going to grow or get started whether or not SWA is affiliated. They'll be affiliated with another airline and they'll do better for it. I don't particularly like DN, but I appreciate the airlines he's been a part of. Smart, organic and inclusive growth. No Texas airport bs. No problems with class2 or etops they get the work done.

You need to vote no, but you also need to consider limitations

Not sure you know what "organic growth" means. Neeleman's (and other majors, for that matter) penchant for codeshare and farming out flying to cheaper operators is growth that is the exact friggin' opposite of "organic." Sure it grows the company's bottom line, but it does so while leaving your own workforce stagnant. On the other hand, actually hiring more employees, and doing all your growth flying yourself, IS growth that is "organic" in nature. That's what we prefer, and our current scope clause requires it. Our position is that any flying that we're capable of doing, should be done by us.

Bubba

 

[outerlimits]

D Neeleman has started two airlines in the time that SWA decided it was too good to listen to him. UAL just tied up with his Brazilian airline. That could have all been growth or increase that involved SWA

More bragging about codeshare


Love you man How about giving up some 737 or A319s.

 

[FurloughedAgain]

Not sure you know what "organic growth" means. Neeleman's (and other majors, for that matter) penchant for codeshare and farming out flying to cheaper operators is growth that is the exact friggin' opposite of "organic." Sure it grows the company's bottom line, but it does so while leaving your own workforce stagnant. On the other hand, actually hiring more employees, and doing all your growth flying yourself, IS growth that is "organic" in nature. That's what we prefer, and our current scope clause requires it. Our position is that any flying that we're capable of doing, should be done by us.



Bubba

In fairness, jetBlue - with 42 airline partnerships - has an upgrade time of under 3 years right now.

 

[Flopgut]

More bragging about codeshare


Love you man How about giving up some 737 or A319s.

You're confused about the kind of codeshare I'm talking about.

 

[Flopgut]

Not sure you know what "organic growth" means. Neeleman's (and other majors, for that matter) penchant for codeshare and farming out flying to cheaper operators is growth that is the exact friggin' opposite of "organic." Sure it grows the company's bottom line, but it does so while leaving your own workforce stagnant. On the other hand, actually hiring more employees, and doing all your growth flying yourself, IS growth that is "organic" in nature. That's what we prefer, and our current scope clause requires it. Our position is that any flying that we're capable of doing, should be done by us.

Bubba

I'm talking about hanging out their shingle, flying A to B, and competing for business. Knowing how to fully operate their equipment and not needing a political situation to sustain them. Thats organic IMO.

Imagine what SWA could/should have learned from ATA. That would have been a lot of flying and growth, but instead SWA stole the playbook on precious little and ran with it. Couldn't even recognize or understand what was there.

My point was affiliation is different than outsourcing. You guys don't get it and I'm done talking about it. Good luck. Btw this is really the only test your section 1 has ever had. If you pass this turd you're looking at right now, then you never had scope to begin with.

 

[HowardBorden]

I'm talking about hanging out their shingle, flying A to B, and competing for business. Knowing how to fully operate their equipment and not needing a political situation to sustain them. Thats organic IMO...My point was affiliation is different than outsourcing. You guys don't get it and I'm done talking about it.

Really!?!? Your honestly going to lecture about hanging out a shingle and flying A to B? You keep talking about "doing the work". Who is doing the work when 68% of flights are outsourced?

"The famous airline names you know and think that you're booking -American, Delta, United, US Airways - may not actually be running the aircraft. In 2011, a cumulative 61 percent of the advertised flights for those four airlines were operated by code-sharing regional carriers. That's up from just 40 percent in the year 2000. The biggest outsourcer? United Airlines, where 68 percent of flights were operated by other carriers in June 2012, doubled its code-share rate from 2000. Sixty-seven percent of US Airways' flights were operated by others in June 2012, up from 49 percent in 2000. At Delta Air Lines, it's 59 percent now versus 40 percent in 2000. At American Airlines, roughly half the flights are outsourced, up from 40 percent in 2000."

Yes, affiliation is different than outsourcing but has an equal detrimental effect to the potential organic growth of an airline! Why fly airplanes at all? Why not just become a ticket brokerage?

"In 2009, after a 9.6 percent year-over-year decline, the industry workforce was at its nadir with just 513,000 employees. Since 2008, only two passenger carriers have added jobs: Southwest Airlines added 3,500 positions, and JetBlue Airways added 2,000 jobs. The government report does not cover airline-employee salaries, but all of the legacy airlines have been in Chapter 11 bankruptcy since then, and all demanded substantial salary and benefit concessions from passenger-facing employees."

This article was written in October 2012.

http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/blog/seat2B/2012/10/government-offers-air-travel-report.html

 

[SWA Bubba]

I'm talking about hanging out their shingle, flying A to B, and competing for business. Knowing how to fully operate their equipment and not needing a political situation to sustain them. Thats organic IMO.

Oh, I get it now. Redefine the word "organic" so that it means something completely different--what you want it to mean.

BTW, "...hanging out [our] shingle, flying A to B, and competing for business" is EXACTLY what Southwest has always done, and still does. Also, "not needing a political situation to sustain [us]," also perfectly describes Southwest's history.

Imagine what SWA could/should have learned from ATA. That would have been a lot of flying and growth, but instead SWA stole the playbook on precious little and ran with it. Couldn't even recognize or understand what was there.

Suppose you tell me what we "could/should have learned from ATA." because I'm not sure I can see it. Their business model was predicated on two basic things: Hawaiian tourism through their "Pleasant Hawaiian Holidays" setup, and military charters. How'd that turn out for them, Flop? Competitors ate into their Hawaii gig, and they finally had to pull the plug on the rest of their entire operation when the military canceled their charter contract. Putting your company's financial future on the continued business of a single customer (the military) doesn't sound like a sound business move to me. Is that what you think we should have "learned"?

t get it and I'm done talking about it. Good luck. Btw this is really the only test your section 1 has ever had. If you pass this turd you're looking at right now, then you never had scope to begin with.

"[SWA] never had scope to begin with." That's pretty funny coming from you, Flop-a company that farms out 2/3 of their domestic flying to cheaper pilots. We currently have the strongest scope section of any major in this country (and probably the world), bar NONE. No codeshare, no alter-egos, no subcontracted flying, NOTHING.

On the other hand, if this TA passes (although I'm personally voting 'no'), our new, weaker scope section will still be stronger than yours, and every other major in the US. It will still prohibit all domestic codeshare and subcontracting. Lemme know when you achieve that, and then you can lecture Southwest on codeshare, and how "good" it is for union pilots. Okay?

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

BTW, "...hanging out [our] shingle, flying A to B, and competing for business" is EXACTLY what Southwest has always done, and still does. Also, "not needing a political situation to sustain [us]," also perfectly describes Southwest's history
Bubba

You could fertilize every tillable acre of Texas with the BS your airline has needed to create to stay afloat

Look I was trying to help you guys. You're at a point where mgt is going to get some version of what they want. There is flying to be done that you can't do, and it's your own hubris that precludes it. Vote this down, steer GK into affiliations that will benefit you. Or don't! I don't care if you get it together or not