FIIGMO

I think it is the same revenue and yes it has a bad connotation because the traveling public wants something for nothing. So we give them something for next to nothing and if the want extra they will just pay for it. I am sure all airlines would love to get rid of the nickel and dime and just charge what it costs. I agree though it sounds like we are getting something extra but I feel reality is different. SWA does not charge for bags for now (airtran still does and I bet SWA will bite the bullet and assume that little tid bit) but SWA also is not any cheaper than many airlines. Multiple stops, higher fares that one cant compare on the open market without a lot of work. SWA just appears to be cheaper and on the higher road of not charging for bags. But they are not stupid they make money for a reason, by forcing the traveler through their well thought out revenue system. As they get away from their system (al la ATL and angry airtran employees) they may just have to start charging for bags too.

SVA402

That's what I was trying to say. It can't go back to AF in the spring, if DL is getting it in the spring...

johnso29

Anybody think the NBA lockout will effect our 4th qtr profits since we charter most NBA teams?

Carl Spackler

Yes...better that you bloviate and lie for the MEC while on full flight pay loss slowplay.

Gotta love these MEC administration bureaucrats. They so desperately want to keep their status quo of staying home with their families on full flight pay loss, that they lie about other people. For those who are on the fence about DPA and the current legal representation we've chosen of the Seham law firm, please read just the latest accolade of their legal prowess. Sorry for the large picture:




Carl

80ktsClamp

I noticed quite a few NBA charters (as well as other charters) in the ATL 320 bid pack for next month.

80ktsClamp

Whoops. Didn't read the date, did you?

We start flying SEA-CDG in a year and a half from now. March 2012...

80ktsClamp

I consider the lance captain thing a major concession. It reduces captain seats by a fairly significant margin. It would even more with us spread out over all our different categories.

As far as the rest... sure, it would be way better for the most part.

GBU-24

Are all those charters already bought and paid for?

nwaf16dude

I'm confused...again

Smokey23

A concession for who? Our management are the ones who want to get rid of the program in a bad way, not SWAPA. The main thing that we pilots have enjoyed about the Lance program is that it increases one's choices and it is a major facilitator of trip trading. IOW, it allowed us all to be more productive (I know....I know...that's anathema to your culture .) For the FO who lives in a senior domicile and doesn't want to commute for an upgrade, it lets him have both. For the captain who is trying to give away a so-so trip, odds are it's a Lance who will pick it up. For the mid-to-junior FO looking for a little open time beyond what the company has available, it will probably be found on the give-away board from a lance. As far as less captain seats, that's largely an illusion. Lances are captains. Before some restrictions were put on the Lances in our last contract, most were virtually never flying as FOs, and a few years ago the highest paid pilot at SWA for the year was a Lance (he reportedly grossed well north of $400K)

The company is convinced that the Lance program now costs more than the value it produces. It was born out of the hyper-growth early years when guys were upgrading at <3 yrs. When Herb would find a good deal on a couple more -200s and drop them on Crew Planning, they needed to be able to staff those aircraft right now, and the Lance program gave them that flexibility. In the no/slow growth mode we are in now and for the near-future, it probably is a bit obsolete, but I and many of us will be sad to see it eventually go. Our collective QOL will take more of a hit than many here realize.