SWAPA TA Failure and downgrades

[firstthird]

I wish he would have spoken up a little earlier.

me too. the no vote might have been bigger.

 

[PCL_128]

Why are you worried about domestic code share? If SWA management was going to enter into domestic code share arrangements, they would have done it long ago. It's important to have those protections in whatever contract you get, but your priority right now should be locking them out of international code share before it gets too big. Your flying is being stolen from you and you're being distracted by the red herring of domestic code share.

 

[PropPiedmont]

...Or maybe we'll be told that the economic conditions are completely different now then they were when the raises were negotiated (oh wait, Gary has already said that, hasn't he? Not a chance his negotiating team will say it too, now is there?) and if we want that, we have to give up this.

Well, there you go. There's the answer to your concerns about the downgrades. It's not because of the TA rejection, but due to the economic conditions. Calm down Tanker.

 

[shearedshaft]

Well it sounds like you are falling for every single management trick in the book and was just wondering if this was your first airline or not. So is this your first airline?

What trick have I fallen for? SWA is very happy that they don't have to pay out retro and higher wages for the pilots right now. Is that a management trick?

I read the Dallas news when Gary Kelly was reported saying that regarding the pilot contract, we're in new economic times. You seriously think I'm wrong about our new NC (may they show up soon) won't hear the same thing the CEO is in the newspaper saying about his own negotiating plans? Christ, he said it out loud, I have a fair idea that their position is the following:

1. Be really nice to the pilots
2. Drag their feet
3. Say, "These are tough economic times" over and over
4. Finally agree to something at least a year from now, if not two years.

Maybe I'm wrong, but who give a whip if I am or not? I'm just making a prediction that you guys cost me a bagload of money.

So far, I haven't heard a single person argue differently, so I'm all ears.

Why would the company give us bigger raises and retro right now, given the choice not to? I could see them honoring a prior commitment (hey, Gary Kelly said that too), but I can see them attempting to not make a new commitment.

What does that equal? A long time to a new contract. Will we get retro and as big raises? Will we get bigger ones? Will he want concessions to keep from furloughing? I dunno. Do you?

 

[shearedshaft]

Well, there you go. There's the answer to your concerns about the downgrades. It's not because of the TA rejection, but due to the economic conditions. Calm down Tanker.

No argument. Downgrades are unrelated to the contract. (BTW, your Tanker Clown insult was the only one to get under my skin, so congrats, he's a d o u c h e bag).

My point was that voting no to grandfather the lances is fast becoming moot, the lance population will look a lot different by the time a new TA is presented than it did at the last TA.

 

[CaptSeth]

Why are you worried about domestic code share? If SWA management was going to enter into domestic code share arrangements, they would have done it long ago. It's important to have those protections in whatever contract you get, but your priority right now should be locking them out of international code share before it gets too big. Your flying is being stolen from you and you're being distracted by the red herring of domestic code share.

You remember ATA? I do.

Anyway, this is fun to watch. TIMMMBBBBERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[shearedshaft]

Why are you worried about domestic code share? If SWA management was going to enter into domestic code share arrangements, they would have done it long ago. It's important to have those protections in whatever contract you get, but your priority right now should be locking them out of international code share before it gets too big. Your flying is being stolen from you and you're being distracted by the red herring of domestic code share.

Because we're an all-domestic airline. RJs would fit nicely into some bean-counter's plans between many of our smaller stations that don't fly full.

We don't fly internationally. I would like us to do all that flying. But, nobody asked me. Canada is the size of the NY metropolitan area, passenger-wise, Mexico is devolving into a third-world hellhole. In the near-term, I'm not worried about Canada and Mexico.

But the proposed TA had SWAPA veto power for all other international codeshare. So proposed TA: no domestic, veto on international that doesn't include near international.

Current status quo? No restrictions on domestic, no restrictions on near-international, no restrictions on international.

So again, how is the TA worse than status quo?

But of course, nobody is answering my questions, because the answer is too uncomfortable for you.

 

[shearedshaft]

double post

 

[PCL_128]

Because we're an all-domestic airline.

You miss the whole WestJet and Volaris thing? That's the future of SWA growth.

In the near-term, I'm not worried about Canada and Mexico.

Sounds awfully familiar.

Legacy pilot circa early '90s: "In the near term, I'm not worried about a few little 50-seat RJs flying around. Leave it to the scooter trash."

That worked out well, didn't it? Your management has shown a propensity for wanting to outsource your international growth. You'd better stop it before it's too late.

But the proposed TA had SWAPA veto power for all other international codeshare. So proposed TA: no domestic, veto on international that doesn't include near international.

Near international is probably the only growth you can expect during the term of this agreement.

So again, how is the TA worse than status quo?

Management is stuck dealing with uncertainty right now. They know that if they expand code-share too much right now, then they'll be dealing with a nightmare self-help scenario when the pilot group revolts to stop it before it's too late. On the other hand, if they can bribe you to accept a TA with crappy international scope but no domestic code share (something they don't care about anyway), then they'll have several years under the new agreement to build up the international code share so it's too late for you to stop it by the time the next contract negotiations come around.

You're playing checkers while management is playing chess. Think!

 

[shearedshaft]

You miss the whole WestJet and Volaris thing? That's the future of SWA growth.



Sounds awfully familiar.

Legacy pilot circa early '90s: "In the near term, I'm not worried about a few little 50-seat RJs flying around. Leave it to the scooter trash."

That worked out well, didn't it? Your management has shown a propensity for wanting to outsource your international growth. You'd better stop it before it's too late.



Near international is probably the only growth you can expect during the term of this agreement.



Management is stuck dealing with uncertainty right now. They know that if they expand code-share too much right now, then they'll be dealing with a nightmare self-help scenario when the pilot group revolts to stop it before it's too late. On the other hand, if they can bribe you to accept a TA with crappy international scope but no domestic code share (something they don't care about anyway), then they'll have several years under the new agreement to build up the international code share so it's too late for you to stop it by the time the next contract negotiations come around.

You're playing checkers while management is playing chess. Think!

You make very good points, except for one important one: You propose self-help is a realistic outcome that might happen after a vote is lost with less than a one percent failing margin?

If this thing would have failed 70/30, I wouldn't be writing this, because I would have assumed I just didn't understand what is going on. But not with this margin. Instead, I think a lot of guys voted no because nobody ever bothered to tell them the "why" behind stuff in the changes. As I said, I had to figure them out on my own, on a long-haul with the new TA in hand.

Everyone, from the union to management just left us to figure out what they were trying to get done without saying anything about the matter.

If I were the company, I would be worried about exactly what you said. But not very worried. They got a 50% solution instead of the 51% solution. Self-help is not right around the corner.

And both Canada and Mexico are small. I wish we'd fly there though. But the danger (in my opinion, only time will tell) lies within the heart of what we do every day, which is fly point-to-point in the US, the danger doesn't lie in taking away something we don't even do yet.

How many flights do you think we're really giving up to Canada? To Mexico? Would I vote to go on strike over it? Nope. Would the no voters? I don't know.

Let's ask them. Would you go on strike to keep near-international from happening?

 

[PCL_128]

You make very good points, except for one important one: You propose self-help is a realistic outcome that might happen after a vote is lost with less than a one percent failing margin?

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.

How many flights do you think we're really giving up to Canada? To Mexico? Would I vote to go on strike over it? Nope.

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?

 

[shearedshaft]

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.

 

[PCL_128]

He's all yours, fellas. I'm done with him. He's obviously hopeless and clueless. I'm sorry you've got to deal with him.

 

[Herkdrv]

What trick have I fallen for? SWA is very happy that they don't have to pay out retro and higher wages for the pilots right now. Is that a management trick?

I read the Dallas news when Gary Kelly was reported saying that regarding the pilot contract, we're in new economic times. You seriously think I'm wrong about our new NC (may they show up soon) won't hear the same thing the CEO is in the newspaper saying about his own negotiating plans? Christ, he said it out loud, I have a fair idea that their position is the following:

1. Be really nice to the pilots
2. Drag their feet
3. Say, "These are tough economic times" over and over
4. Finally agree to something at least a year from now, if not two years.

Maybe I'm wrong, but who give a whip if I am or not? I'm just making a prediction that you guys cost me a bagload of money.

So far, I haven't heard a single person argue differently, so I'm all ears.

Why would the company give us bigger raises and retro right now, given the choice not to? I could see them honoring a prior commitment (hey, Gary Kelly said that too), but I can see them attempting to not make a new commitment.

What does that equal? A long time to a new contract. Will we get retro and as big raises? Will we get bigger ones? Will he want concessions to keep from furloughing? I dunno. Do you?

So once again what is your background?

 

[njcapt]

I think it's Tom Dean.