SWAPA TA failure just cost me $1,200 per month

[FlyinHigh737]

Regardless where you were on the vote, the day when we as pilots think we can make management decisions with regards to the companies future, is, at best naive'. We mitigate as best we can and then watch our culture vaporize. I, for one think that all the name calling on this board from my fellow pilots is non-productive. Some of the "no" voters engage with your the comments and substance, and not name calling. All this from an FO that did read the TA and still voted "yes". Support your argument and open your ears, you could be wrong, or very spot on.

 

[murano]

Regardless where you were on the vote, the day when we as pilots think we can make management decisions with regards to the companies future, is, at best naive'. We mitigate as best we can and then watch our culture vaporize. I, for one think that all the name calling on this board from my fellow pilots is non-productive. Some of the "no" voters engage with your the comments and substance, and not name calling. All this from an FO that did read the TA and still voted "yes". Support your argument and open your ears, you could be wrong, or very spot on.

What would you rather have? A contract which limits codeshare and outsourcing or "culture"? Keep in mind that most pilots that have voted no on this contract still love SWA. We just refuse to have our jobs outsourced. We refuse to take raises that are 50% lower than all other work groups. We refuse to change an open time system that is not broken. We refuse to give 100+ lances a 30% paycut. What do you think that would have done to our "culture"? I can guarantee you that if this thing would have passed by as much of a small margin as it failed, the culture would have been destroyed at a much faster pace.

 

[Beechball]

Regardless where you were on the vote, the day when we as pilots think we can make management decisions with regards to the companies future, is, at best naive'. We mitigate as best we can and then watch our culture vaporize. I, for one think that all the name calling on this board from my fellow pilots is non-productive. Some of the "no" voters engage with your the comments and substance, and not name calling. All this from an FO that did read the TA and still voted "yes". Support your argument and open your ears, you could be wrong, or very spot on.

FlyinHigh737,
From what you post as equipment that you've flown....I'm assuming this is your first airline. You flew a Diamond Katana (piston SEL) and a Beech Premier Jet.....then a 737. There's a lot of us that have flown in the airline industry before coming to SWA where we have gained a lot of insight into the inner workings of airlines. You may have read the whole TA, which is awesome and thank you, but there are issues that in the TA that are common to carriers that are out there now.

We had an AA F/O on board yesterday that said they were cheering that we voted down the TA. The TA is not about whether it's "good for me" or "doesn't affect what I do," it's about is it good and fair for others. Those "others" may not be in our company as other airlines look at what we approve to direct their employees' work rules.

What I was lead to believe when the TA was being worked on was that it was just going to "clean up" our current contract....not change it. For an employee group to turn down raises, no matter how small or large they are, it sends a message that there are definitely other issues that need to be addressed.

The neat thing about life is that there are no rights and wrongs in opinions. Rights and wrongs are our own beliefs of what is right and wrong. When it comes to the TA...if one person interprets what it says as one thing, and someone else interprets it to say something else...it means that there is problem in the wording in that it is definitely not clear cut. If it's not clear cut, then the company can interpret it one way and do what they want.

There are things to be fixed. Unfortunately the company has always hired many pilots that never had airline experience prior to SWA, so the company always got what they wanted. Those days are over. Saying "No thanks" to a TA is not going to dissolve a company. Mis-management dissolves companies.

As a pilot, I know I'm not the CEO of the airline and voting for or against a TA is not an attempt to control the company. Each vote should be each employees' opinion of whether they think the TA is good for or bad for the group as a whole. Unfortunately, I've heard too much from the captain side that said "This TA doesn't really affect me." It's very sad that people can't think beyond themselves.

 

[AAflyer]

FlyinHigh737,
From what you post as equipment that you've flown....I'm assuming this is your first airline. You flew a Diamond Katana (piston SEL) and a Beech Premier Jet.....then a 737. There's a lot of us that have flown in the airline industry before coming to SWA where we have gained a lot of insight into the inner workings of airlines. You may have read the whole TA, which is awesome and thank you, but there are issues that in the TA that are common to carriers that are out there now.

We had an AA F/O on board yesterday that said they were cheering that we voted down the TA. The TA is not about whether it's "good for me" or "doesn't affect what I do," it's about is it good and fair for others. Those "others" may not be in our company as other airlines look at what we approve to direct their employees' work rules.

What I was lead to believe when the TA was being worked on was that it was just going to "clean up" our current contract....not change it. For an employee group to turn down raises, no matter how small or large they are, it sends a message that there are definitely other issues that need to be addressed.

The neat thing about life is that there are no rights and wrongs in opinions. Rights and wrongs are our own beliefs of what is right and wrong. When it comes to the TA...if one person interprets what it says as one thing, and someone else interprets it to say something else...it means that there is problem in the wording in that it is definitely not clear cut. If it's not clear cut, then the company can interpret it one way and do what they want.

There are things to be fixed. Unfortunately the company has always hired many pilots that never had airline experience prior to SWA, so the company always got what they wanted. Those days are over. Saying "No thanks" to a TA is not going to dissolve a company. Mis-management dissolves companies.

As a pilot, I know I'm not the CEO of the airline and voting for or against a TA is not an attempt to control the company. Each vote should be each employees' opinion of whether they think the TA is good for or bad for the group as a whole. Unfortunately, I've heard too much from the captain side that said "This TA doesn't really affect me." It's very sad that people can't think beyond themselves.

Excellent post!!

AA

 

[BoilerUP]

...its actually a Falcon 20, Westwind, then Guppy...

 

[Whataburger]

I read the original post and filtered it into my "B!tchboard to English" translator, and here's what I got:

"Me me me me me me, me me. Me me me me me me. Me me me me me me me me me me, me me, me me me me me me me me me me me!!!!!"

 

[Tripower455]

I see the big picture, and I fully understand both the TA and the side letters. From the sounds of you guys, you believed the hype and gave up all our raises and our codeshare protection.

We had no codeshare or scope protection in the TA. Section 1 was written for a very specific situation, that is apparantly not happening, and in any case, was not written in a way that would protect us anyway. It was written to make a merger more seamless and easy for the lawyers. It also specifically allowed RJs under certain situations. What "iron clad" protections did it offer? It was so gray and full of holes that there was little to stop Gary from doing whatever he wanted, and NO teeth whatsoever when he violated it.

This is because you don't understand ELITT and the damage that Lances do to your schedule flexibility, you don't understand the damage to your schedule flexibility first year guys do,

LOL.... The only "damage to my flexibility re: ELITT has been done by DTC. Period. And they were more than TWICE as restrictive in the new TA. Adn don't fall for the "DTC is there to restrict weekday flying from migrating to the weekends" nonsense. There is so little weekday flying when ELITT opens that it's statistically a non player, and 30/7 prevents it in most cases anyway. What DTC does is prevent WEEKEND TO WEEKEND trades. That alone has already cost me, under the current CBA, at 12 year pay, far more than $1200 per month, and would've been far worse with the TA.

and you haven't read word-by-word the code share restrictions in the new TA and compared them to the nonsense in SL32.

SL32 is not great, but at least it's not nearly as full of holes as the TA was. Granted, there are no teeth in it, but there weren't any in the TA either.

The new open time would have allowed us to actually bid on VJA instead of crossing our fingers, open time would have filtered direct to pilots instead of being slid to "favorite son" tournament players at the last minute.

Maybe, maybe not. With all of the productivity losses, I'd bet that the guys that didn't want to be JAed (IE the guys already on pairings) would be JAed far more often than they are now.

It wouldn't have made a difference to the lance giveaways, since the top 3.2% will still get the turn lines--there aren't that many turn lines. Ask a junior lance if they're getting turns. Nope, the junior lance is using ELITT and TTGA and screwing up the net zero.

It would make a difference in being able to give away Capt trips though. Now, there are a minimum of 8% Lances available to take a trip from me. The TA would've made it a maximum of 3.2%, which is less, making me less flexible too.

I can't understand why you guys don't want protection from RJs, I've heard several different times that Republic has been in talks with SWA. But we voted to allow RJs, so have fun, at least we didn't get raises to go along with our codeshare loss.

The TA specifically ALLOWED RJs! Did you read tha TA or just the SWApAganda pieces?

Signed,

14 year Capt that voted no........

 

[Tripower455]

What are you talking about dude? If a day is red, its red. It does not matter if the net zero is up to 100, if a Friday is red and you have a three day starting that day, you can't trade off it. DTC is not meaningless.

Amen..... DTC cost me $17K last year by restricting weekend to weekend flying. That, ALONE was enough for a no vote.... The rest of the BS (no scope/codeshare protection, JA at work instead of home, less flexibility/productivity etc) was just gravy.

 

[DH2WN]

It's funny how most negotiations go with union against company where we have FO's vs. union.

SWAPA is the turd

 

[Luckie13]

OK....this should bring some interesting responses. I'm not trying to stir the pot and I'm not a conspiracy theorist but just found a couple of pieces of an interesting puzzle.

1. WN just decided to delay the codeshare with WestJet.
2. May 1st RP (Industry News section) says "WestJet in mid-April
announced they are studying the prospect of adding smaller
planes to its current Boeing -737 only fleet for the prospect
of developing regional routes that might be abandoned by
Air Canada/Jazz. WestJet has 78 -737s in its current fleet and by 2013 plans to take delivery of 43 more."
3. New TA language specifically mentioned a situation concerning acquiring a company that already owned smaller planes.

Looking forward to reading the discussion.

 

[DH2WN]

OK....this should bring some interesting responses. I'm not trying to stir the pot and I'm not a conspiracy theorist but just found a couple of pieces of an interesting puzzle.

1. WN just decided to delay the codeshare with WestJet.
2. May 1st RP (Industry News section) says "WestJet in mid-April
announced they are studying the prospect of adding smaller
planes to its current Boeing -737 only fleet for the prospect
of developing regional routes that might be abandoned by
Air Canada/Jazz. WestJet has 78 -737s in its current fleet and by 2013 plans to take delivery of 43 more."
3. New TA language specifically mentioned a situation concerning acquiring a company that already owned smaller planes.

Looking forward to reading the discussion.

US companies cannot outright buy a Canadian company. Your conspiracy theory is seriously flawed.