SWAPA TA2 heads to the membership for a vote.

[shootr]

Granfathering the lances was NOT all about the 200 or so lances. For me, doing away with them was just another way of taking current flying done by the FO's to the CA side. Junior FO's are getting good turns from the lances. The former lances would have kept this flying, thus keeping more open time available to the senior side of the CA list. Due to flexibility loss, I also think it would have had a negative impact on junior CA's. Who would take their F-S-Su 19.5 trip, allowing them to pick up something better? Keeping the lances for now is helpful to the bottom 2/3 of the entire seniority list.

 

[scoreboardII]

This will pass.

 

[shootr]

without a doubt

 

[ableone]

I was a no voter and may very well be a no voter, again. However, I am open to the idea that the QOL/scheduling fixes may have more value than the SLIGHT loss in pay from TA1 to TA2. Waiting for the final language...

Who do you work for, able? Just sayin'...

shootr

I am not talking about the pay rates. I agree that scheduling enhancements may be well worth a lower hourly, or in your case trip rate.

I am talking about the overall price of the package. It is my understanding that the TA2 package is worth millions less than the TA1 package. If this is true you would be well advised to vote no, regardless of how you voted in TA1.

If TA2 is worth less than TA1 and you approve it the company will know that in the future they can always win 50%+1 by threatening that should the membership vote no, the next package will be worth less.

You don't want them operating this way. You will be at a strategic disadvantage in every future negotiation.

 

[Daddy]

No, I read them. Sorry to bunch you in with the lances, it just seems that four out of five forum posters on both TA1 and now TA2 are lances complaining.

Sheared,
I feel the same way as shootr...you do not seem to be comprehending some of the concepts here and just defaulting to an answer that everyone must be a lance if they are posting here.

For all,
There is not much to discuss on this TA...it is going to pass by at least a 2 to 1 margin. We were not able to gain that much in pay because of the pay rates of other narrowbody pilots. We did make gains in other areas like scope and that will have to do for now. I think most in SWAPA will agree that we could have done better, but not with the current SWAPA leadership. We'll try again in a couple years with a new BoD and front office.

 

[gutshotdraw]

Outsider question: Where are all the foam-at-the-mouth senior folks who were screaming "we'll never do this well on a new TA. Gary is laughing at us" when TA 1 failed? Sounds to me like the TA 1 no voters got it right.

 

[shootr]

Most yes voters I have spoken to agree that the no vote was useful and helpful to our cause. Of course hindsight is 20/20. Easy to say we (the no voters) were right after seeing what happened.

 

[gutshotdraw]

When is the vote?

 

[shootr]

October 2 - November 1

 

[FR8dognit]

When is the vote?

Opens 2 OCT
Closes 1 NOV

prediction PASS 74%-26%

Me...voted no the first time around...will probably vote yes this time. This contract was not about pay rates for me. It was all about scope and codeshare. After looking at TA 1 some other things [open time, ELITT, ETC] came to light. They appearantly have fixed most of the things that caused me to vote no.

Just from talking to folks around campus, I suspect there are many people that voted no the first time around that feel the same way I do. It is time to put this one behind us.:smash:

 

[Widow's Son]

I can give you about $40 million reasons, plus one or two more, that the TA1 NO voters got it WRONG.

Both the lance issue and the open time issue would have been fixed after TA1 as good as they are with TA2

Got to vote yes this time as we sure as heck can't afford TA3

 

[shootr]

Both the lance issue and the open time issue would have been fixed after TA1 as good as they are with TA2

Now that is a good one! Yeah, the company would have done those things because they were the right things to do! Just like rigs and flying for free on overlap... Dude, you don't know your own company.

Oh, and don't forget the scope/codeshare changes TA1 to TA2.

shootr

 

[Widow's Son]

Now that is a good one! Yeah, the company would have done those things because they were the right things to do! Just like rigs and flying for free on overlap... Dude, you don't know your own company.

Oh, and don't forget the scope/codeshare changes TA1 to TA2.

shootr

Yes I do. I've been here at least four times longer than you. A Chief pilot told me to my face that Chuck admitted that the lance thing in TA1 didn't work out as planned because it was put together before the shoulder cuts. The CP's encouraged him to do the right thing and his answer was that he would but only after enactment to not appear to pandering for votes or opening up a can of worms for all kinds of other changes as well.

As far as the open time system goes, nobody has more incentive to create a user friendly open time system than the company because the easier it is to use and the more popular it is with the pilots, the more flying they get done at straight time. We have always had test periods when we've made changes like that. The reason a test period wasn't specified in the TA1 was because it was taken by both sides as a given, and the software wasn't even beyond the conceptual change yet. That is why it was so easy to get a test period this time. The company WANTS a test period for their own protection.

As far as your big scope enhancements go, most of that was eliminated with the F9 deal falling apart. The drop from 6% to 4% puts the near international limit right at about where the experts think the whole market potential is. Definitely not worth 40 million bucks.

 

[shootr]

This is not the SWA management team you had when you got here four times longer than I've been here. If you don't think we need written protection in our contract, that is just your opinion. I promise you that you are in the minority on that issue and don't think it will change before you leave. Perhaps I have four times as much time left here than you and specific protection is more important to me and many others than you can comprehend.

"A chief told you to your face?" The chiefs here have never put out any incorrect information, have they?

shootr

 

[StopNTSing]

Yes I do. I've been here at least four times longer than you. A Chief pilot told me to my face that Chuck admitted that the lance thing in TA1 didn't work out as planned because it was put together before the shoulder cuts. The CP's encouraged him to do the right thing and his answer was that he would but only after enactment to not appear to pandering for votes or opening up a can of worms for all kinds of other changes as well.

As far as the open time system goes, nobody has more incentive to create a user friendly open time system than the company because the easier it is to use and the more popular it is with the pilots, the more flying they get done at straight time. We have always had test periods when we've made changes like that. The reason a test period wasn't specified in the TA1 was because it was taken by both sides as a given, and the software wasn't even beyond the conceptual change yet. That is why it was so easy to get a test period this time. The company WANTS a test period for their own protection.

As far as your big scope enhancements go, most of that was eliminated with the F9 deal falling apart. The drop from 6% to 4% puts the near international limit right at about where the experts think the whole market potential is. Definitely not worth 40 million bucks.

If we had voted in TA1, we would be well on our way right now to binding arbitration with the F9 guys....and the corresponding train-wreck that would ensue. We would have blood on our hands from the forced-downgrade of many of our most junior captain brothers & sisters, despite no furloughs off the bottom of the list. We would have made a marked shift from the current balance of seniority-based and first-come/first-served awards for open time and reserve flying, to more seniority-based awards. We would have more potential code-sharing that would quite possibly slow organic growth and upgrades.

But if you're as senior around here as it sounds, I guess none of the above really affects you. Sorry your raises & retro have been delayed. Next time you vote, please don't forget that you were junior once, too (even if it was only for 3-4 years). The guy now sitting to your right isn't getting nearly as good of a deal as you got.