Originally Posted by Roadie85 (Post 962702)

Flew on SWA yesteday and was talking with the F/A about her trip and minimum daily pay. Her 3 day was worth 20:15, 16:05 block time. They have a 6:30 min pay/day. Pilots couldn't remember their rigs but said they were the same or very close. Trip rigs determine how many days at home we get. One of the areas of our contract that needs to be improved.

Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 962670)

While I agree we shouldn't have to entertain "giving up" anything to get the basic foundation of one of (if not the) biggest domestic carriers on earth, and I know you know this already anyway, but the more scope you give up the more it hurts your ability to get pay. Case in point, SWA didn't get their pay by selling scope but rather they have their pay because they retained extremely tight scope (plus competent management, go figure). Give SWA management 250ish large RJ's to shop to the lowest bidder as well as some very questionably structured 737 domestic scope like AS and SWA would clearly not have the pay they do now.

Scope sales didn't pre-pay our future raise. Scope sales are helping to make future raises that much harder to get. Ironically we will likely be told again about the wonders of "bargaining credits" and how "costly" re-insourcing flying is, thus starting the race with our shoes untied anyway.

Originally Posted by Columbia (Post 962720)

Yep-pretty common at wn to fly 12-13 days/month, 80 hours and credit 110-120 hours. I know there are those who say pay rates are only part of the picture, but holy hell, that picture looks like Ft. Knox.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 962625)

For that glorious day when the TA is announced, we ought to assign teams by nb and wb line holder and reserve and jump into stuff like section 23 then post. may even be worth hiding it in a far off thread.

Originally Posted by capncrunch (Post 962738)

When that day comes, do you think that we will be told that it was the best they could do, it's a great TA and go ahead and sign it?

Originally Posted by capncrunch (Post 962738)

When that day comes, do you think that we will be told that it was the best they could do, it's a great TA and go ahead and sign it?

Originally Posted by satchip (Post 962752)

Isn't that just human nature? If you were on the Neg Com and worked your butt off and finally got a TA would you not say you did the best you could and recommend it? Humans in general and pilots in particular don't like to admit failure or weakness.

The RLA punishes labor for not coming to an agreement. When one side can just run out the clock till circumstances are more favorable it behooves a team to bring back something with improvements before the market turns bad and unfavorable.

It goes back to the question ACL posted a while back. Would you want something medium now and scheduled pluses or wait years looking for the big score. http://qrc.depaul.edu/StudyGuide/Com...s/image002.gif only works when P>0.

Originally Posted by satchip (Post 962752)

I

It goes back to the question ACL posted a while back. Would you want something medium now and scheduled pluses or wait years looking for the big score. http://qrc.depaul.edu/StudyGuide/Com...s/image002.gif only works when P>0.

Originally Posted by tsquare (Post 962755)

Yes you are correct that it is human nature. I would rather they publish the TA and shut the hell up about it. Let it stand on it's own. If sections need "explanation" then they are too complicated and too subject to lawyering. We are paying those dudes $500/hour to take a dump as long as they are thinking about alpa, so they can sit there and write a layman's TA... then go back to wherever lawyers come from.

Oh, and it doesn't work if n=0 either..