SWAPA "AIP reached with Company"

[humveedriver]

Max will be in the TA. Just like paltry raises, a bonus scheme, Section 1 givebacks, along with a few hidden work rule gems that will only be discovered after you are bent over by scheduling!!

Hint to those of you that just want a deal. Watch out for the smoke and mirrors boys cuz' the show is about to begin!!

I'm still working on my no vote criteria. Some stuff is going to change. Whether we want it to or not. So we would be either delaying the inevitable or setting our selves up for one grievance after another. But anything that makes me work harder than the rented mule that I am now, is definetaly going to get a no vote out of me. I believe duty day was the number 1 killer and unifier for the FA no vote.

 

[FOAgain]

I'm still working on my no vote criteria

Change to scope? Voting nope.

 

[MDW]

Humvee, our duty day rules are already less restricting than the FARs. They couldn't get any worse.

 

[Tripower455]

Humvee, our duty day rules are already less restricting than the FARs. They couldn't get any worse.

Good thing we rushed the 117 SL, or the company might've been able to really abuse us!

 

[Flycatcher99]

Humvee, our duty day rules are already less restricting than the FARs. They couldn't get any worse.

Like you all, I'm no fan of the work rules, but this comment makes no sense. No company duty day rules (or any other rules) can be less restrictive than the FAR's. It's the more restrictive of the two.

The problem was that with few exceptions (10 hours rest instead of 9 reducible to 8), part 117 relaxed and convoluted many of the previous restrictions. That the company rules happily went along was not the original problem.

 

[FlyinGuy]

There is two parts to the "working mule" that most of us are feeling now days. First, FAR 117 is less restrictive. Second, SWA has told scheduling to squeeze the turnip to achieve more ROIC. They could have worked us harder under the old rules, but they chose not to. The new philosophy is to put a tremendous strain on the entire operation to increase profits.

This AIP is probably DOA. If SWA wanted Section 1 relief, they should have thrown a ton of money our way (I still would have said no, but many would have taken the bait). They tried to go cheap and I believe it will backfire. We shall see.........

 

[Flycatcher99]

There is two parts to the "working mule" that most of us are feeling now days. First, FAR 117 is less restrictive. Second, SWA has told scheduling to squeeze the turnip to achieve more ROIC. They could have worked us harder under the old rules, but they chose not to. The new philosophy is to put a tremendous strain on the entire operation to increase profits.

This AIP is probably DOA. If SWA wanted Section 1 relief, they should have thrown a ton of money our way (I still would have said no, but many would have taken the bait). They tried to go cheap and I believe it will backfire. We shall see.........

I agree. I'm thinking this AIP will go nowhere, and I seriously doubt it makes it past the board. Word coming back from domicile reps is that there is a lot of dissatisfaction.

 

[outerlimits]

I agree. I'm thinking this AIP will go nowhere, and I seriously doubt it makes it past the board. Word coming back from domicile reps is that there is a lot of dissatisfaction.

Is it true you guys are giving in to codeshare .

I would say bad for you ,good for me

 

[shootr]

No, not true. While the NC may have given in, neither the BOD nor the pilot group have, yet. I'll vote no on any Section 1 give-backs, regardless of pay-rates/bonuses.

 

[Flycatcher99]

Especially after we fought so hard for section one protections during the last go around. It's a big reason TA1 failed that time. Got less pay on TA2 with a better section one.

I have to think this group (even discounting the former AT folk) is much more averse to signing off on a deal that bends on code share, even with substantial raises. Of course, by "substantial", I mean what the company would figure to be substantial, and what we would figure to be roughly COLA. IOW, a less than flattish contract, if my buying power is just catching up to life and I'm giving up code share protections.

Thus my doubt that this even goes past the BOD.