SWAPA might like SWA proposal

[ASADFW7]

It is sad the narcissistic posting of partial details when all sides have been asked not to post anything yet, as well as non disclosures.

 

[Flycatcher99]

When I've spoken to 1/3 of our MEC officials and they're all saying the same thing? Yeah, I feel pretty comfortable relying on it. Some are saying more than others, some are more positive, some are more negative, but the basic info is the same.

Additionally, a few things I posted above are being posted on our internal forum directly from the MC to counteract some bad info that's being passed around 3rd and 4th hand and getting people really riled up, so yeah, what you see above I think is pretty dang accurate.


I think I already said that it was obviously not the entire picture, just a few snapshots. I'm not trying to aggravate anyone, just passing on some basic info. If no one wants it, I'll stop passing it on. Jeez, talk about shooting the messenger...

I'm not shooting the messenger. I'm only pointing out the difference between ALPA protocol (leaking bits of information prematurely, perhaps for ulterior purposes in some cases) versus SWAPA, who has been absolutely tight-lipped, as Rob alluded to above, as it should be.

It's a huge difference in levels of professionalism. And, by the way, a resulting difference in reliability, no matter how many sources you quote.

 

[Lear70]

Unfortunately, MKE will probably close. I can't make a guess on MCO. Can someone share the number of pilots currently based in MCO with the number of gates used? Thanks.

44 717 CA's
43 717 F/O's
29 737 CA's
25 737 F/O's

They upgraded 5 MCO F/O's to CA end of last year and didn't hire pilots to replace them so we're a bit short-staffed on the F/O side.

Gates 90-97, 8 gates.

We're told MCO was opened post-constructive-date so even though it was PLANNED and the vacancy was being bid on when the notice came out, that it's not recognized as a 737 base and, thus, all 737 pilots will be considered ATL-based - no base holding rights for 737 crews, we all get displaced once we go through training.

The 717 pilots, since it's fenced and a different fleet type in MCO, get to stay in MCO (at least unless and until those planes are re-deployed elsewhere).

 

[Lear70]

It is sad the narcissistic posting of partial details when all sides have been asked not to post anything yet, as well as non disclosures.

I didn't get a memo not to post anything... it's being discussed on our internal forum. Did you guys get some kind of memo we didn't?

 

[Lear70]

Every gate in ATL will be filled with an RON aircraft, that seems to be the one constant in our system. Wherever we go, every gate is pretty much full the next morning..even in the hubs/bases. I would say it points to complete gate utilization from the beginning of the day to the last arrival.

Nashville's not. There's at least 15 gates and only 5 RON aircraft on a regular basis (according to our BNA gate agents). Not that it means anything, just throwing it out there.

 

[400ADude]

I'll add let's look at MDW as an example. I would assume ATL would eventually have more departures than MDW. Chicago currently has 1,061 pilots.

It will not be as big as Midway. Chicago as a town has twice as many people (local traffic) and is a great location in the middle of the country for a stop on the way to the east or west coast. Atlanta doesn't have enough local traffic and is too close to MCO IMHO.

 

[Empennage]

It will not be as big as Midway. Chicago as a town has twice as many people (local traffic) and is a great location in the middle of the country for a stop on the way to the east or west coast. Atlanta doesn't have enough local traffic and is too close to MCO IMHO.

So ATL is to have fewer daily departures than MDW? That's not what I'm hearing.

 

[ASADFW7]

The SWA guys are in lock down out of respect for the process. We want a balanced discussion in the proper context of the whole agreement not to keep slinging mud and pissing each other off. Both sides have lumps in the deal so the context of what was the negotiated middle ground is bound to keep brining up heated discussion. Our executive wants us to wait till the final wording comes out.

 

[Roomwithaview]

Lear 70

Thank you for sharing what you have. This Southwest pilot appreciates it. I won't shoot the messenger. This is a rumor board and people are free to view the information for what it is.

RWAV

 

[CaptAntoineMack]

Thank you for sharing what you have. This Southwest pilot appreciates it. I won't shoot the messenger. This is a rumor board and people are free to view the information for what it is.

RWAV

I agree. I just hope all on this board will be as mature as you with this "rumored" information. Somehow I doubt that will happen.

 

[Roomwithaview]

SnoopDawg

I agree. I just hope all on this board will be as mature as you with this "rumored" information. Somehow I doubt that will happen.

I'm not really sure what that means. It's not like it is a loaded weapon or nuclear missile. It's what some Airtran pilot who I assume will soon be a Southwest pilot is telling us his MEC is telling him.

RWAV

 

[flynvixen]

Greed is good, do you want to join my cartel in Atlanta?

Only if your my FO..........you will enjoy it I promise

 

[CaptAntoineMack]

I'm not really sure what that means. It's not like it is a loaded weapon or nuclear missile. It's what some Airtran pilot who I assume will soon be a Southwest pilot is telling us his MEC is telling him.

RWAV

I am agreeing with you. And hope all will take any info on this or other forums as "rumors" until we hear from our respective MECs and BODs. And then after that conduct ourselves appropriately.

 

[Lear70]

I'm not shooting the messenger. I'm only pointing out the difference between ALPA protocol (leaking bits of information prematurely, perhaps for ulterior purposes in some cases) versus SWAPA, who has been absolutely tight-lipped, as Rob alluded to above, as it should be.

It's a huge difference in levels of professionalism. And, by the way, a resulting difference in reliability, no matter how many sources you quote.

Well, there's a bit of internal politics going on inside the MEC structure, which is why more details are going out.

Some sides are releasing some of the negative aspects without releasing the positives so the rest of the guys are releasing positive things to stop a groundswell of negativity from taking root.

Not all the details are getting out, but enough to get people to calm down and wait for the whole package. I know that's aggravating to you guys, all I can say is sorry, it's not me releasing it, I'm just passing some of it on.

 

[Lear70]

The SWA guys are in lock down out of respect for the process. We want a balanced discussion in the proper context of the whole agreement not to keep slinging mud and pissing each other off. Both sides have lumps in the deal so the context of what was the negotiated middle ground is bound to keep brining up heated discussion. Our executive wants us to wait till the final wording comes out.

I understand and can truly appreciate that approach and I agree the "middle ground" items are certainly going to be sore subjects for some people.

Unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag on this side of the curtain for some of the details and it's caused such an internal furor on our message board that other sides had to calm things down and the only way to do that was "rumor control".

I hope that information I posted wasn't seen as "slinging mud", just trying to answer a few rumors that were already flying on here about base size, stock options, etc so that the discussion here didn't jump the shark and get ugly again.

 

[Lear70]

Thank you for sharing what you have. This Southwest pilot appreciates it. I won't shoot the messenger. This is a rumor board and people are free to view the information for what it is.

RWAV

Thanks, I appreciate that. I'm sure I'll be pulling gear for you someday (since I'm junior to every one of you unless you were hired after 9/27), so maybe we'll get a chance to have a frosty one on an overnight somewhere.

I am agreeing with you. And hope all will take any info on this or other forums as "rumors" until we hear from our respective MECs and BODs. And then after that conduct ourselves appropriately.

True that.

 

[Roomwithaview]

Lear 70

I'm having a hard time following the math on this.

Can you explain for a gradeate of the Texas Public Edumicational System?

From a secondary source (MEC member, not MC), the ratios change quite a bit for different segments of our list. Most seniority lost is 35% (senior Captains going from #1 to # 1,680+), least seniority lost is 22% - the 3 year F/O's stapled to the bottom. Total 650+ AAI F/O's stapled.

 

[Roomwithaview]

Lear 70

See. I didn't get that out of your post.

Thanks, I appreciate that. I'm sure I'll be pulling gear for you someday (since I'm junior to every one of you unless you were hired after 9/27), so maybe we'll get a chance to have a frosty one on an overnight somewhere.

 

[Lear70]

Lear 70

I'm having a hard time following the math on this.

Can you explain for a gradeate of the Texas Public Edumicational System?

Heh heh... yeah, it's a lot of info and I don't have the exact ratios, but as explained to me, it works a little like this:

Your top pre-93 hires are on top and untouched.

Our #1 guy starts just below them and it's ratio'd pretty evenly for the '93 hires and our senior CA's (I don't know how many), but we end up with the top half of our CA's ratio'd in with your post-'93 CA's.

The next half of our CA's get ratio'd in with your top F/O's.

The top 150 of our F/O's get ratio'd in with your BOTTOM F/O's.

The remaining 650 AAI F/O's get stapled to the bottom of the pre-9/27 list, starting about year 6 F/O for us and lower.

Your post-9/27 new-hires are stapled below them. Our post-9/27 new hires are stapled at the very bottom.

Those are VERY rough numbers, but present a good broad picture of how it went. The average seniority gain on a combined list on the SWA side is 6%, the average seniority loss on the AAI side is 22%, with spikes among our senior CA's (up to 35%) and senior F/O's (up to 28% - mine is a 26% relative seniority loss).

edit: my first post said our "least amount" of seniority loss was 22%. It's not, that's the AVERAGE seniority loss. They said something about our mid-level CA's take the smallest loss, but I don't remember the exact number, sorry.

 

[SWA/FO]

Our post-9/27 new hires are stapled at the very bottom.

How many did you guys hire after 9/27/10?