SWAPA TA Failure and downgrades

[radarlove]

Voting down a TA is not breaking a window. We just preferred our current contract to the new TA, after 15 years. Says something about the TA doesn't it. Buying a new house is a more apt metaphor. A majority of us prefer the current 15 year old house to the 'new' one we were getting. All windows still intact, both houses. The new house needs some modifications before we move in and we don't want to be living in it was they turn off the plumbing or rip out the kitchen. besides, I want to see the new master bath and the granite countertops before I pay for it. (veto power on the open time changes)

The next step is obvious, so much so that most people don't need it pointed out. We go back into negotiations and we fix it. Figure out what the main sticking points were and make it better. It ain't personal. It is business. then again, I'm not the guy whining about the 1000 a month that "you guys" cost me. We, as a group, turned this TA down. We, as a group, will make it better.

Never mind

 

[shearedshaft]

What does never mind mean?

Whatever, Firstthird, you've made zero attempt to articulate the "why". I asked you ten direct questions, I'll try some more. Why is the current status of zero codeshare restriction better than some codeshare restrictions? Why is no raise better than a raise? Why is ELITT getting abused better than ELITT for everyone to use? Why are lances somehow a protected class?

Hell, now we're up to 14 questions. You've made your choice, it's costing us all $1,000 per month. Don't you think it's time to justify it?

 

[firstthird]

1 - we have protection in SL32, no codeshare unless we grow 5% a year.
2 - we'll get a raise and it might even match every other workgroup rather than 6% over 5 years. that isn't even close to inflation. you might count that as moving forward, I count it as moving backwards.
3 - the entire open time system shouldn't be distorted to change the behavior of a few. hard cases make bad law. writing the contract to kill the 'tournament level players' is ridiculous.
4 - lances aren't a 'protected class.' rather they were one segment of our pilot group that got singled out to take a huge pay cut while most of us got modest raises.

I've been arguing and debating this TA since it came out. You, by your own admission, were late to the game. I'm a little tired of pointing out all the deficiencies for the deficient of understanding. I get that you are a PHX guy who was flying with a bunch of yes guys and thought this thing was going down. I'm a MDW guy that also flew with some yes guys. some of which I may have converted. I did something about it. You are whining about it after the fact. I'm not the one that has to justify jack. You are the one that should justify your "I lost my 1000 dollars a month" when you were too disinterested, uniformed or just plain lazy to get involved when it matterd, pre- NO vote. my side, the No voters, won this round. you'll end up with a better TA because of it. You are welcome.

 

[firstthird]

1. Restricting ELITT weekends helps the senior guys who fly during the week make use of ELITT.
2. Restricting number of lance duty periods to nine helps FOs use ELITT, net zero will go positive for once
3. Restricting first year guys to only getting second-year pay above their line total helps FOs who use ELITT, because they won't dump trips
4. Reducing the lance captain program by half won't change lance giveaways, because there aren't even enough turn lines to fill up 3.2%
5. Grandfathering lances is moot, downgrades are taking care of that
6. The payraises were fine, ranging from 6% to 10% in the worst recession in 50 years.
7. The TA offered restrictions on domestic codeshare and RJs which don't exist in our contract and are welcome.
8. The TA restricts far-international codeshare completely, like domestic.
9. The TA changes JA pay to double time
10. The TA changed overfly pay to only five minutes.

1 - restricting ELITT decreases all of our flexibility. it is restricting, not opening up.

2 - limiting lances to 9 duty periods will not create a positive net zero for FOs. there are other FOs who give away everything to play the VJA game, very successfully I might add because the company has manning so screwed up and has for years. it would be ZERO most of the time regardless. what it does do is restrict lanes ability to make money.

3 - screwing probation guys who aren't even here yet was one of the worst parts of this TA and you quote it like it was a gain. we all benefited from this and now you want to pull up the ladder. too bad you aren't a 60 something captain, you'd fit right in, except some of those guys even voted no because they were looking at how the TA affected the whole group, not just themselves, you should try it.

4 - cutting half the lances definitely affects the 100 guys that lose their star

5 - no they aren't, if you understood the current contract and the RLA principle of 'status quo' then you'd know that the current lances will keep their stars (CWA software programming issues not withstanding, do we get our IT guys at a 2 year tech school or what?) but since you apparently don't understand our 15 year old CBA, I'm not really that surprised that you don't really understand all the ins and outs of the TA either.

6 - 6% over 5 years. we weren't in the worst recession in 50 years when we started negotiations 3 years ago. inflation is likely to get worse not better with the way the feds are spending. 10% is a pipe dream. no way we were gettning much over 1% for those last 2 years, when every other group got 3% or so.

7 - restrictions on RJs were good. I expect to see the same in TA2. we have no codeshare w/o 5% growth in SL32. you may say that the company won't honor it, well, guess what, they might not honor the TA either. either we are dealing with men of honor on the other side or not, if not, God help us all.

8 - far int'l was the one place that SWA isn't likely to codeshare or go anytime soon anyway, certainly not in the next 2 years when or next contract is up. that protection wasn't worth much. we've already delayed the westjet and volaris codeshare.

9 - 2xJA was a good thing. there was much about the TA that was good, too bad it came wrapped in a crap sandwich.

10 - the TA took away the minimum .72 mach adjustmetn. I've seen it debated both ways but tend to agree that the .72 was worth more than the 5 minutes from 12.

there are answers. they might have helped you pre vote. you might get better answers on a SWA pilot forum instead of airing your whining complaints about your $1000 on FI. I'm a senior FO. I stood to gain as much straight pay rates as anyone but it wasn't worth it to me due to the stuff that came with it.

14 answers. not hard to do. won't convince you I'm sure but maybe you'll pay more attention next go round. I'm pretty tired of all the little girl yes voters that were too scared or wimpy to say they were voting yes on the van or at the bar. have the courage of your convictions in real life as well as on flight info. maybe you'll learn something pre-vote next time.

 

[scoreboardII]

Sheard, OK, play the other side of the argument, why was this TA so good for the 51.8 % that voted NO?

Please detail why the guy on reserve for the next few years still gets a B scale paychart, explain why it's good to be JA'd on your last day, explain why it will be good to have two weekends a month go ELITT red instead of one, etc, etc...

I know why your pissed:

That's $12,000 per year, or more if you're a senior dude.

Your a senior dude and missed out on a new Lexus Payment...

 

[GuppyWN]

The TA was a good first step. It just didn't merit being a binding contract YET. There is work to be done and it is my hope that SWA and SWAPA get on it post haste.

I love SWA and I want nothing but success for every pilot and the company. There is a middle ground, we just aren't there.

Some of the things I would like to see changed.

• one leg on SWA codeshare is a must
• unlimited distribution of other airlines tickets is a no no
• beta test any new open time system. It's only a side letter away
• no further restriction of ELITT
• same pay increase as our SWA peers
• eliminate Allegheny Mohawk/ Bond language
• on line JA only turns us all into reserves on our last leg - no sir.
• reserve pilots are real people too. TA offered little improvement

As far as the reduction of captains. It was going to happen whether we rejected the TA or not. All the company did was create more lance captains so I don't really see the benefit of this decision except that they can write fewer captain reserve lines.

Let's all try to pull the rope in the same direction and let Mr. Kelly and SWAPA work out the details. In the meantime I will treat our customers just like I always have - with respect and gratitude.

Gup

 

[shearedshaft]

1 - restricting ELITT decreases all of our flexibility. it is restricting, not opening up.

2 - limiting lances to 9 duty periods will not create a positive net zero for FOs. there are other FOs who give away everything to play the VJA game, very successfully I might add because the company has manning so screwed up and has for years. it would be ZERO most of the time regardless. what it does do is restrict lanes ability to make money. [\quote]

You say "give away everything", which is fine. Just don't pound on ELITT to do it. Use TTGA. I think you're wrong, by the way, the real motivation is pushing regular line flying to ELITT to pick up at 40% premium captain pay or second-year pay. Stop doing that and everybody can start using ELITT, not just lances when it first opens up, and weekend guys trying to move their schedule to weekdays.

3 - screwing probation guys who aren't even here yet was one of the worst parts of this TA and you quote it like it was a gain. [\quote]

How is not letting guys on probation pound on ELITT to change from first year pay to second year pay "screwing" them? They can give away their trips if they want, just don't use ELITT for what is isn't designed for. The company doesn't want every single probationary FO to give his entire line to ELITT and pick up everything at second year pay, if they did, they'd just pay each guy second year pay to start. I don't have any problem with this, I certainly wouldn't pay $1,000 per month to ensure that I can't use ELITT because some first year guy is able to play the system like a tournament player.

You still haven't addressed the fact that both of these techniques do, in fact, "screw" the senior line-holding, weekday flier who can't ELITT. Why is it ok to screw that guy by restricting tournament level playing?

4 - cutting half the lances definitely affects the 100 guys that lose their star[\quote]

No doubt. Have you asked flight ops why they wanted this? Looks like they're getting it through the back doo anyway.

[quoote]5 - no they aren't, if you understood the current contract and the RLA principle of 'status quo' then you'd know that the current lances will keep their stars (CWA software programming issues not withstanding, do we get our IT guys at a 2 year tech school or what?) but since you apparently don't understand our 15 year old CBA, I'm not really that surprised that you don't really understand all the ins and outs of the TA either.[\quote]

We'll see. If you could show me that paragraph that says they get to keep their stars, I'd appreciate it. It's been done in the past, but it's not written down.

6 - 6% over 5 years. we weren't in the worst recession in 50 years when we started negotiations 3 years ago. inflation is likely to get worse not better with the way the feds are spending. 10% is a pipe dream. no way we were gettning much over 1% for those last 2 years, when every other group got 3% or so. [\quote]

If you're a senior FO, you haven't looked at your pay scale. Senior FOs were going to get 10% hard raises, plus the 401 (k) bump.

About $10 per trip. That's a lot of coin you handed back to the company.

7 - restrictions on RJs were good. I expect to see the same in TA2. we have no codeshare w/o 5% growth in SL32. [\quote]

Again, go read SL32 instead of parroting. It does NOT say that the company will quit codesharing if they drop below growth goals. That's why I voted against it

8 - far int'l was the one place that SWA isn't likely to codeshare or go anytime soon anyway, certainly not in the next 2 years when or next contract is up. that protection wasn't worth much. we've already delayed the westjet and volaris codeshare. [\quote]

So this kind of codeshare is "good codeshare"?

9 - 2xJA was a good thing. there was much about the TA that was good, too bad it came wrapped in a crap sandwich.

10 - the TA took away the minimum .72 mach adjustmetn. I've seen it debated both ways but tend to agree that the .72 was worth more than the 5 minutes from 12. [\quote]

Get your calculator out again. Or better yet, start logging the time you fly below mach .72. You'll find that it wasn't worth $1,000 per month to keep the mach adjustment.

there are answers. they might have helped you pre vote. you might get better answers on a SWA pilot forum instead of airing your whining complaints about your $1000 on FI. I'm a senior FO. I stood to gain as much straight pay rates as anyone but it wasn't worth it to me due to the stuff that came with it. [\quote]

You gave up a lot of moolah, that's true. You're down at least $1,000 so far, not counting the $7,000 or $8,000 in retro you would be getting a check for in the next couple of weeks. So pretty soon, you'll have paid $10,000 for your general unhappiness.

14 answers. not hard to do. won't convince you I'm sure but maybe you'll pay more attention next go round. I'm pretty tired of all the little girl yes voters that were too scared or wimpy to say they were voting yes on the van or at the bar. have the courage of your convictions in real life as well as on flight info. maybe you'll learn something pre-vote next time.

Ok, will do. I'll have to, since the guys that didn't dig into the "whys" of the contract cost me a whole lot of money and quality of life by keeping ELITT useless and making me effectively write a check to the company for $1,000 per month. Nice work.

 

[shearedshaft]

messed up the quoting.

 

[rajflyboy]

Could it be.....

Just Another "Pay For Training" flying job some day??

 

[GuppyWN]

Shearshaft,

I'm calling you out. There is NO WAY voting down the TA is costing you $1000 a month.

What's costing you $1000 a month is Mr. Kellys decision to freeze growth which means you aren't getting the biggest raise of your career. We are all frustrated about that but let's not misdirect our focus to where it doesn't belong.

GUP is down $1000 a month because we have reduced flying. The TA would have only made it worse. Much worse. I know because I KNOW how to ethically use our current contract.

Gup