SWAPA "AIP reached with Company"

[no1pilot2000]

Can someone please post the contract that's in the wind? It could make for some interesting reading.

 

[Ty Webb]

I haven't seen a flag tie since July. I'm a HOU guy, don't get to PHX much.

Seems to me that the Co. deal with JB would constitute a "major dispute"...which would be some leverage in of itself.

Can you name another carrier that was able to place into service another fleet type in absence of a pay rate for the new aircraft, PCL? Also, if the Faa is truly insisting on a subset of pilots to operate those aircraft, barring a SL, would that not also constitute a major dispute under the RLA?

 

[PCL_128]

Ty, most contracts contain an arbitration clause that prevents a company from bringing a new type on the property without arbitrating the pay rates and work rules associated with the new type. SWAPA doesn't have that. Instead, they just have a re-opener clause, which means the company has to bargain over it, but is under no obligation to reach agreement before the planes start operation.

I don't remember anything in the CBA that would specifically prohibit management from creating a separate bid category for a new type, provided everything was done according to seniority. If I'm just not remembering it, by all means, point it out. But without that, the management rights clause would allow that without a problem also.

 

[Uncle Bunkle]

Can someone please post the contract that's in the wind? It could make for some interesting reading.

Here's a basic breakdown:

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/1995/jan/14/southwest-pilots-ratify-new-contract/

 

[GhettoBeechjet]

Nice play Bunkle

 

[GhettoBeechjet]

I haven't seen a flag tie since July. I'm a HOU guy, don't get to PHX much.

Seems to me that the Co. deal with JB would constitute a "major dispute"...which would be some leverage in of itself.

Can you name another carrier that was able to place into service another fleet type in absence of a pay rate for the new aircraft, PCL? Also, if the Faa is truly insisting on a subset of pilots to operate those aircraft, barring a SL, would that not also constitute a major dispute under the RLA?

Ty I would encourage you to talk to you rep about this. The line that PCL is touting is the company line which doesn't make sense for the reasons you listed. He seems to be trying to manage expectations. I'm not sure if he's doing it because he's in Mr. Babbitt's pocket, just out of pure hatred of SWA and SWAPA, or to try and make up for the inability of AAI ALPA to achieve any reasonable contract under his leadership. He's a smart guy who knows labor laws but when he makes statements like "you have no leverage" and "I wouldn't expect much from this contract" it certainly doesn't appear he's in the corner of the working pilots here as he claims to be. Sounds more like CDs communications than that of a pilot advocate.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Actually, Ty and Ghetto, I think the reason that PCL sticks to this line about "SWAPA having no leverage," despite the requirements triggered with a new fleet type, is strictly due to his view on ALPA and SWAPA. He believes that no pilot union other than ALPA is worth a crap, or actually does anything worthwhile, or should even be allowed to exist. He's pushed that view numerous times.

As far as the 737-Max goes, and the contractual requirement to reopen the contract to negotiate schedules, manning, and pay for a new type of aircraft, for him to say that it's "no leverage" is disingenuous at best. It IS leverage. It may not be something that the union can use as an absolute show-stopper, but it's leverage nonetheless. Gary opened the contract for the -800, and even prefaced delivery with having an agreement in hand. And that literally required nothing other than the agreement. The -Max, due to its differences, and the FAA's requirement of separation, will require all that, plus substantial differences in scheduling, and actual new training, which would also require additional CBA adjustment.

If Gary tried to cram it down the pilots' throats without an agreement in place first, it would trigger a substantive grievance (with a pretty good argument for the union), and substantial union discontent that would lead to picketing and obvious and visible-to-the public infighting. That leads to public apprehension about the company, and lower stock prices. That's leverage. MGary will feel that he needs an agreement prior to the -Max's arrival.

But on the other hand, maybe they're negotiating it now, with this section six. I don't know.

Bubba

 

[PCL_128]

You can trot out as many conspiracy theories as you wish, but I'm just speaking truth. I haven't even spoken to Randy in several years.

 

[Flopgut]

Actually, Ty and Ghetto, I think the reason that PCL sticks to this line about "SWAPA having no leverage," despite the requirements triggered with a new fleet type, is strictly due to his view on ALPA and SWAPA. He believes that no pilot union other than ALPA is worth a crap, or actually does anything worthwhile, or should even be allowed to exist. He's pushed that view numerous times.

Bubba

It's not like there's a whole bunch of non swapa posters on this thread. There's basically zero actual ALPA pilots posting. (Of course that doesn't stop you from insinuating there's a conspiracy) This is the opposite of the recent thread about the Delta TA where SWA posters interjected themselves every other post. For the most part, ALPA and ALPA pilots couldn't give a crap what you guys do. Just don't screw anything up, and when you need our help (like you often do) just show us the $.

 

[SWA Bubba]

It's not like there's a whole bunch of non swapa posters on this thread. There's basically zero actual ALPA pilots posting. (Of course that doesn't stop you from insinuating there's a conspiracy) This is the opposite of the recent thread about the Delta TA where SWA posters interjected themselves every other post. For the most part, ALPA and ALPA pilots couldn't give a crap what you guys do. Just don't screw anything up, and when you need our help (like you often do) just show us the $.

Settle down, Floppy. Read my post again.

I'm not knocking ALPA in the slightest, nor citing any kind of conspiracy (unless one guy can conspire with himself). I was merely relaying one guy's stated anti-SWAPA opinion. And that, of course, would be PCL_128. I neither said nor implied anything about anyone else, ALPA members or otherwise. I'm sure the rest of you ALPA guys are fine and upstanding union members, and are happy to cooperate with other pilot unions in our mutual endeavors.

Feel better now?

Bubba

 

[Flopgut]

Whatever Bubba. In full view of both the DAL TA thread and this AIP thread, there's darn near zero ALPA interest in what you're doing over there. If he wasn't former AirTran he might not even read this thread.

 

[humveedriver]

I'm still trying to figure out why so many SWA pilots feel the 737MAX is an un negotiated fleet type? None of us have seen the cockpit. I think most of us assume that we will not have to receive a new type rating to fly it (merely differences training). I've looked at our contract. Unlike other contracts I've seen, the SWA contract does not have pay rates for other aircraft. There is a side letter for 717 pay rates that equal 737 rates. And a side letter that says the -800 will pay the same as the -700. So if SWA orders 737MAX-7's and 737MAX-8's why would this not pay the 737 rate? I'm the last person to carry the company's water, but even I don't think three letters M-A-X is going to win us a grievance/arbitration.

 

[freightdogfred]

So him posting that SWAPA has zero leverage is anti-SWAPA, even if it happens to be true? A Union has 1 big stick to swing when the time comes. You see that ever happening around here? Informational picketing was even called off. Not to mention the "first deal is always the best" party line. Is the irony of this JB announcement on Labor Day weekend lost on you?

 

[redflyer65]

I'm still trying to figure out why so many SWA pilots feel the 737MAX is an un negotiated fleet type? None of us have seen the cockpit. I think most of us assume that we will not have to receive a new type rating to fly it (merely differences training). I've looked at our contract. Unlike other contracts I've seen, the SWA contract does not have pay rates for other aircraft. There is a side letter for 717 pay rates that equal 737 rates. And a side letter that says the -800 will pay the same as the -700. So if SWA orders 737MAX-7's and 737MAX-8's why would this not pay the 737 rate? I'm the last person to carry the company's water, but even I don't think three letters M-A-X is going to win us a grievance/arbitration.

The company can't have it both ways Humvee and that's were the rubber meets the road.

They want to pay the same for the MAX? Fine, but why would the FAA mandate subsets on NG/Max then?

I believe the FAA will hold firm on this and it will definitely help in our argument that it needs a re-opener.

There are enough systems/cockpit differences that they FAA won't want to mix a classic plane into the NG/MAX arena. Just my opinion.

 

[redflyer65]

Yes, it is different. We actually had leverage. You don't.

You did? Thanks for the Labor Day laugh PCL. I didn't see any leverage, and we haven't agreed to a crap deal yet either.