There's this grievance...

Let's see if our MEC traded something else for scope

Cheers
George

Ummmm really? I can't do it for less than $800.

How do you figure? Isn't the only extra expense a crashpad which run for $200 a month?

I’ve mentioned this before, but it seems that we have been losing ground on our Scope clause for years. Every contract that came out ALPA would say, “This Scope clause is rock solid.” Then the company would find a legal way around it every time. I don’t remember all the instances, but I do remember this one. Remember when: ASA was going to get 5 737 aircraft, but instead got the 146’s instead? Since several of them were configured for 88 seats, ASA just painted a couple of them all white while they were being our connection carrier. I know it was a long time ago, but it still happened. I wonder how long it will be before ALPA allows 100 seaters since the 50 seaters didn’t survive economically. When ASA was going to get those bigger Embraer aircraft, the company said they couldn’t allow the mainline to fly them because it was too costly, even though ASA rates were $2.00 more per hour. But hey, I have to remember that Bar said that “I’ve got mine, so what do I care?” Bar I’m just giving you a bad time in fun. :D

How about all of that food you eat out when not at home. I know when I commuted, I paid about 250 a month for a decent crash pad, and then a ton on fast and faster food that I would not have eaten if I was at home.

No one equates time and lost trips either.

Wow. Isn't that a breath of fresh air! Thanks for posting, Shoelu. :)

SWAPA wasn't afraid of arbitration, management was. SWAPA prepared diligently for the arbitration process, at great cost, and was ready to make what we all felt were compelling arguments in that process. Management on the other hand wanted a quickly resolved list. Since they have no codeshare options to begin realizing synergies absent a quick agreement, they made two proposals to speed this deal along. The second proposal was ratified by both memberships. SWAPA's highly paid consulting firms informed the membership that the deal on the table was more beneficial to the group than an arbitrated settlement, and advised us to vote yes.

Hopefully there will be no additional mergers on the horizon for SWA. SWAPA wanted no part of this one. Scope will not be relaxed in the future to enable management an ability to easily grow the airline externally. Surely you can see that controlling external growth is a huge benifit to the pilot group considering what is occurring at your own airline presently. The membership is already clamoring to increase the mergers and acquisition protections in our upcoming section 6 negotiations.

To answer the question as to what did we get other than seniority, we got the addition of the beneficial assets that AT brought to the table that management was after in the first place. On the seniority front we got an initial bump that will slowly be eroded away to the equivalent of an additional .02% gain at the time of my retirement for me personally over where I would have been with a stand alone SWA. In order to get more than that in the form of contractual improvements or compensation improvements we would have had to offer scope concessions to achieve those benefits. That option was never on the table, nor should it have been.

Yes we did get something and I am thankful for that, but,the banckruptcy payout was peanuts compared to what some of us would have accrued. It really depended on how long one had remaining to fly. Some of us were kind of in the dead zone. Not many years until retirement, yet not very much of a pay out either. Secondly, all of the pretend (Preferred ESOP) stock DAL was using to fund our 401k's was vaporized. Additionally, unless one put that pay out money in a shoe box waiting for the laws regarding taxing it to change, nearly all of it was taxable income added to one's normal year's earnings. That meant a very high tax rate for most of that money. Thirty plus percent of it was given to the Governement to spend. There were also some other smaller tax benefits that we didn't qualify for because of the pay outs, but that's a whole nother animal. Also, the PBGC account (if it is actually there when we retire) is about a third to half of the promised and earned annuity pay out. Better than nothing as you say, but still a kick to the financial groin. :(

Transportation between LGA/JFK adds up. Or over to EWR if you get a trip there, since NYC covers all three. May not happen to a line holder, but reserves can't be so picky.

PROBABLY the NYC 73N? Sounds like a diversion to me. Why would you give away what your choice would be when people senior to you could take it too? It's like showing your hand in poker. My bet, you're looking at something in DTW.

Yep. Even if you take the train/bus for 3 dollars (Or whatever it is) adds up. And sometimes, the amount of time spent on those things makes it not worth it and makes you get a cab which is at least 20 dollars. Even the Kew runner is 7 dollars. Add all this up, plus the food, it is AT LEAST (Most of the time MORE) 500 dollars to commute.

Some good ones near LGA. I would recommend Kew Gardens if you're not gonna have a car up there. I had a pad near LGA but mostly flew out of JFK on the 88 and it's $20-25 for a car to JFK from near LGA. I'm gonna get a beater if I get pushed back up there.

Man this AE sucks.

12 month equipment freeze for new hire pilots

Understatement of the day (unless of course you have a burning desire to commute to NYC). You should have at least posted a picture of a scantily clad cheerleader holding up a "Man ths AE sucks" banner.....

I would prefer that, but they are taking too many seats off of the 320. Of course I will have my 777B MD in! :D

Heard that too. Man that is going to irk them. Not that they have a say, but if you are stuck on a jet, lets say the 88 and you want to get to DTW, for now you are SOL.

What do you are, you will still be able to bid 88 RSV? :D

..........

What do you are??

Did Yoda get hold of your APC account? :D

If that's true, that's horrible. We are going to hire hundreds per year in a few years. There's no reason these pilots should be seat locked as new hires. I was placed in ANC as a new hire. To this day, I've never been to Alaska. I was able to bid out of there immediately. I strongly disagree with throwing new hires under the bus for our own gain just because they don't work here yet.

Darn "C" key. :rolleyes:

acl65, Sorry to sound cold, but Boo Hoo for them. We had to sit sideways for several years (four in my case) in a base of the company's choosing, and be on the "B" scale for five years. These guys have lots of choices so to be irked about a 12 month freeze seems pretty trivial. I would hardly call it throwing them under the bus as Hockey said.

I got to disagree. Do you really think it's right that Delta spends money training a new hire, just to have that pilot move to a different airplane weeks later? The only people that get a seat lock are pilots who are displaced. I don't consider a new hire to be a displaced pilot. They choose to come here, and then Delta spends good money to train them. I think it's perfectly fair to allow Delta to get some productivity out of a new hire before they spend even more money training them for another aircraft.

Also keep in mind a seat lock is not a base lock.

Another major contract change without memrat?

What did we give up this time?

Before we get too wrapped around the axle on this, perhaps we should wait to see what the LOA says. However, I think it would be prudent to let your reps know that we frankly, shouldn't be in a giving mood.

Waves,

With all due respect, I don't agree with the premise or argument of, "because my generation had to endure hardship, so should the next". I do agree with you, in that a 12-month training freeze/policy wouldn't be "throwing people under the bus" as Hockey44 stated, but to have it, just because "everyone needs to embrace the suck" as a new-hire on property isn't a valid reason.

Fly safe,

GJ

YGTBSM! A voice of reason on this board?:D

Yeah, even if true it's really throwing a guy new hire under the bus...a requirement to stay in the aircraft that he was hired to fly for 12 whole months but with the ability to move a base...and if we're training that much (remember, he's a new hire) he gets out of 23G recovery obligations.

That mythical new hire sure sounds screwed to me...:rolleyes: I'm betting if this reported change is true it will change our new hire applications by...ZERO!

I see nothing wrong with the seatlock... and it's certainly not throwing them under the bus. They just got hired with a carrier with a HUGE amount of retirements coming. I would have been perfectly happy with or without a seatlock on my initial NYC 88 award. I thought it was horribly inefficient that I could bid out of a plane they spent thousands of dollars training me on... and I only got 115 hours in it.

You, however, gained a bit of a reputation with the way you complained about your SO seat. ;) Absolutely amazing.

Don't think I've seen it yet, but Happy Veteran's day guys. To all of you who have served or were parents, siblings, children or friends of Vets. Thanks

Saw a great good news story that I will Share involving a vet and a dog!

http://a57.foxnews.com/img.foxnews.c...ns-Day-FNL.jpg

Veteran's Day: Wounded Warrior's Bond With Dog Saves Both | Fox News Latino

Have to disagree with the statement that new hires have lots of choices. Their choices are limited to the company's needs at the time. When I got hired at "Brand X", as I recall the choices were DTW DC9, MEM DC9, and ANC 742. Now, assuming I went to work at "Brand X" because I live in MSP and want to work in MSP (neither of which are true, thank goodness.... :) ), I think it's a good thing that I was afforded the right to bid that ASAP.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for seat locks to reduce excessive bidding around the system and unnecessary training costs. But to lock a new-hire with a family and a house and the whole deal in, say, DTW, into flying out of NYC or LAX (yeah, yeah, I know we don't actually fly out of LAX anymore..) for a year just because those were the company's whimsical needs at the moment is a cruddy deal. Odds are that guy will have applied to Delta because he has an expectation to drive to work.

Not looking out for the "yet to be hired" will bite us in the butt in the near long term. Stuff like this will drive qualified applicants elsewhere.

And... selling the not-yet-hired out has a pretty poor history. See "B Scale"...

Then again, if this last AE is any indicator, most of us are going to end up commuting to a base/seat we don't really want eventually anyway, so...

We are our own worst enemies. We, as a pilot group, and a unified front with ALPA behind us for contract negotiations:rolleyes:, (I know Carl, I know) need to start asking the company the same question they'll ask us in negotiations. WHAT IS IT WORTH TO YOU!!

Fly safe,

GJ

Disclaimer1: I'm not privy to the changes that have been implemented, but if they weren't worth the 12-month training freeze (if that too is real) then we just "gave back to the company", once again.

Disclaimer2: Above comments to quoted material are in no way meant to seem antagonistic or offensive. Only intention is to spur debate and offer differing perspective.

I'd like to see the new recovery language as well before passing judgement on this issue. However, I don't think it's unreasonable for a new-hire to spend 12 months in his assigned equipment, provided they are allowed to bid in seniority order on available slots for their class.

It wouldn't be a financial setback for the first 12 months either as 1st year pays the same regardless of aircraft type.

I do take issue with the "it sucked for me, so screw them" mentality. We need to avoid using junior pilots as negotiating chips.

This would not exactly be pushing them under the bus though, and if we get some serious gains in recovery obligations it might be worth it. It appears that the process is working itself out in this instance, and our ELECTED reps will consider the pros and cons and make a decision.

So far I've liked what I've seen out of the last few LOA's wrt training and scheduling improvements mid-contract. Hopefully this constructive mentality on the company's part will continue on through Section 6. It's encouraging to me that they're interested in looking for mutual "wins."

Slow,

Assuming the speculation is true. (Talk about a "double negative".):D You're in favor of subjecting a new hire in a January class awarded the 88 to less pay than a new hire in the March class awarded the ER, just because it's "our responsibility to save the company in their own training inefficiencies"?
(I know that first year, new hire pay is the same dollar/hour figure, but with "international override", the ER kids make more.)

Just asking because I want to be clear on everyone's position. How about establishing something to benefit both the company and ourselves at the same time? (Novel concept:rolleyes:)Thinking outside the box here. Why not "save the company" some money & make a little for ourselves while offering a 12-month seat lock for the first aircraft trained, but guaranteeing a "pay differential" for that person, so that if they would've been able to bid the ER, and can't due to the lock, can still have an opportunity to take advantage of their being hired three months earlier (seniority based system) instead of being discriminated against, due to the company's inability to plan accordingly.

Thanks again, fly safe,

GJ

Fly safe,

GJ

The key is in the details, and we are all just speculating at this point. :p

Consider it this way: one dropped trip with pay due to better recovery language is worth a whole lot of "protected" international override (at $4/hr). It all depends on how this is laid out. It could be a much larger gain for all pilots, including newhires.

It's an equipment freeze, not a base freeze.... new hires assigned NYC 88 would be free to bid any other 88 base on ensuing bids the first 12 months.

Like a previous poster said, 1st year pay is the same regardless of equipment.

I'm also going out on a limb here, but I don't think you'll see any new hire ER pilots again for awhile. With a few dozen MD90's on the way and 100 737-900's between 2013 and 2018 I'd say the junior equipment is fairly obvious (and both types of equipment where a new hire could probably get to most bases within a year)

The key is in the details, and we are all just speculating at this point. :p

Consider it this way: one dropped trip with pay due to better recovery language is worth a whole lot of "protected" international override (at $4/hr). It all depends on how this is laid out. It could be a much larger gain for all pilots, including newhires.[/QUOTE]

Agree. Devil is in the details. Just playing a little devil's advocate. :)

GJ

Fifi in NYC looks pretty junior right now.

Double post. :o Dang iPhone.