I can't say I agree with you on this one. I doubt there is a pilot here that doesn't want those 76 seaters to climb aboard the mainline. The problem is that Management has firmly adopted the "Too expensive to operate as mainline aircraft" philosophy. I don't see that as changing anytime soon. I also don't see it as somehow our fault. Just ask one of our former furloughed pilots if he/she would have been "above" flying a mainline 76 seat RJ. NOT

 

Yeah but none of them make sense.

 

Then we need to get our act together and buy them before ALK does!

 

We shall see. ALK buying them works better for DAL not DAL pilots. No CAPEX and all of that virtual network feed......

 

Funny. They do if you understand the two three step process and how to get there.

 

35% of the seats under the TA. Our current PWA only limits them to 50%.

Not saying you didn't know this, but there are still a ton of guys that don't understand all the IMPROVEMENTS to our Scope section as proposed in the TA.

We have improvements in nearly every area of Scope.

If your (again, not specifically you ACL) main issue is "not one more large RJ" then you might be justified in voting NO.

If your main issue is simply improved scope language, as a whole package, then you need to seriously consider the major scope improvements (JV, Codeshare, ALK language, Holding Company, Turboprop Exception Deleted, etc) that you would be rejecting if you vote NO.

Not telling anyone how to vote, just suggesting you make a decision based on the facts, and not what the various agendas on APC or the ALPA forum are pushing in your face. Be honest with yourselves whether you fully understand the Scope language (or whatever your key issue is.) If you don't have a full grasp, then call a rep, the DPN phone center, and read the mountain of info that's been put out.

Simply put, take the time to decide FOR YOURSELF, how you feel about the language. Don't rely on others (potentially with agendas) to educate you.

 

Is not a stand alone issue for me, but I did know that.

As for AS, its an improvement in the language, but not something that will force the marketing or network to change. DAL would not have given it to us if it effected the feed. Remember that as well. Its insurance, but we currently have a limit on total seats on a flight 50% and a total seat count. As noted:

With respect to flight segments of AS in a city pair, no more than:
22 a. 50% of the passenger seats may be occupied by passengers traveling under the DL
23 code in any month, or
24 b. a monthly average of 86 passenger seats may be occupied by passengers traveling
25 under the DL code per flight segment

Ref Live contract 1 O.5

That is enough protection for me right now to fix the rest of the TA.

 

Finally the reinforcements have arrived.

 

In 10 years I see them very much the same but only about 30% larger. They will still have:

1. Top shelf management
2. Said management that believes only a SWA employee should ever be entrusted with the SWA brand.
3. Said management keeping their corporate debt extremely low.
4. SWAPA prioritizing scope over any other section in the contract.

That's why when I'm asked, I tell young people that SWA should be their first choice with FDX #2.

Carl

 

This question is a little off topic but related to the advertised growth connected to this TA, which base(s) will be impacted by the 737- 900 replacing 75s and 76s?