I believe the margin would be a lot higher if taken today. Now that the pilots have seen that a lot of other pilots voted no, I think a lot of guys that were on the fence and ended up voting yes would probably vote no if given the chance to do it over again. Pilot psychology is a weird thing, and it takes a lot of union work to start to figure it out.
It amazes me that you've learned nothing from the past 20+ years of scope losses. Your attitude is exactly why more than half of UAL and DAL flying is done by other than DAL and UAL pilots.
Since you have such a fundamental lack of understanding, I'm left to ask the same thing as the other posters here: what is your background in aviation? Did you come from a unionized part 121 carrier? Did you only fly non-union non-sked maybe?
Nope, ALPA for years. They did a great job on scope. The APA over at American did too.
Like I said, our current contract has zero scope protection. Our negotiated one had pretty good scope and codeshare protection, except for limiting the already signed contracts (remember, our current contract had no restrictions, they went and signed on the dotted line, nothing we could do about it) to 6% of our overall seat miles.
Not a worthwhile restriction, since the whole Canada/Mexico/Island market is less than 6% of our capacity regardless.
So I'll answer the question a different way: Would I vote to go on strike over an agreement that completely limited domestic, completely eliminated far-international and limited near-international to only 6%? No I wouldn't.
Outsourcing sucks. So let's limit it. Status quo is zero limit, the TA had significant limits. So you choose status quo? "Yeah Bob, I'll take zero restrictions for $1,000 per month!"
And I think you're wrong. If the contract was presented again, in its current form, I think it would pass handily. The no voters are the dog that caught the station wagon. Now they have it, what next? Well, no raises and a new, untrained NC to start.
But maybe SWA will fall over in trembling fear and we'll cancel our codeshare agreements with Westjet and Volaris because the pilots voted no by 100 votes.
Or maybe the opposite will happen, they'll take the fact the pilots turned down a chance to restrict codeshare, and we'll see RJs in Houston. They've changed their minds five or six times in the last year, why not one more?
If you honestly think "growth" for SWA is near-international, you've never seen the population maps airlines use for route planning.
And by the way, you talk about "more than half" of flying for UAL and DAL being done by non-mainline pilots. Right, that's my point. RJs fill the ramps like maggots. Our TA would have cut that off at the knees, no RJs at all. That's a good thing.
Right now? Any amount of RJs at any time.
