Thanks for the support Ballbreaker!!!!!!

We are not only bailing them out, we are insuring their mad scientist outsourcing scam becomes even more viable long term. If this was merely a bailout, we'd just be allowing 70 more 90 seaters for now while requiring the sunsetting of the next 70 existing 90 seaters to come off contract. But we're not. This is about far more than helping management out of multibillion dollar bad management mistakes. This is about giving them a permanent "NewCo" with 325 planes (for now, who knows how high we will go later).

Guess it was a temporary assignment for the DC-9. My bad.

I don't know your story or what you are looking for, but my advice to you would be to stay put.

SWA is a great airline and well run, but you work for one too. If I didn't work for FDX, DAL would be my next choice. Your managment is good management in today's airline world. 10 years is forever in the airline industry, 5 years is a stretch. 10 years ago FDX, UPS and SWA were just becoming the place to be while, AA, UAL, DAL, NWA had just become the places not be. (DAL has done an incredible job returning itself as a respectable airline. I know it is far from perfect, but all airlines are far from perfect.) Take a look at airline history, it has always been that way.

what happened to our proposed GUM base?

All the 50's we are "parking" are headed to GUM to start a LCC

It is still a plan on the shelf.Whether it is implemented likely depends on whether we get or need a HNL base. My guess: 6-8 months from now, we will know most of the answers.

What becomes obvious on this thread is that many pilots here seem to think WE are running this airline; that we should be calling ALL the shots. Who to hire. What aircraft to buy. What routes we should fly, Etc. I understand we all have a vested interest, but you guys make it sound as if we are in charge here. We aren't and probably never will be. Additionally, it probably wouldn't be a good thing if we were.

Control over our own destiny is somewhat limited. Would any of you strike over this TA if it came down to it? Have any of you figured out a time line for prolonged negotiations? Our current contract isn’t even amendable until Jan 2013. Meanwhile we have 598 RJ’s filling our gates. Do you really think we have the clout or leverage to force management into a scenario where they would buy these 76 seat aircraft and then have to park them in a few years? I doubt they could even get such a deal if they wanted to.

One thing in which we can all agree. Former Management ordered too many 50 seaters. Should we now punish them for it by making them eat them and thereby greatly reducing our financial bottom line? You know, this isn’t your last contract?

Lastly, this TA will probably pass anyway so we will not likely see what might have been. This TA is certainly far from perfect, but IMHO the risks of renegotiating a new one verses the possible perceived gains are too high. I could be wrong.

Probably a really good guess.

We don't run the airline. Our current management team seems to be doing a pretty good job of the macro airline running job.

We, as unionized employees, do control our contract. An important aspect of that contract (IMO the most important) is section 1. Outsourcing more viable mainline replacement jets is definintely something I would strike against - definitely.