Bar, while I agree that we outsource way too much of our work, wow, I’m pretty sure you just offended me! So [all] 767 Captains are “Those that have theirs?” and “[We] don’t care what happens to anyone [else]?” That’s quite a blanket statement. Secondly, although we have more Captains than FO’s, I’m fairly sure that your contract vote counts the same as mine or any other Captain’s. How is it that we are “firmly in control?” I simply didn’t know I had that much clout. Hmmmmm.

 

You are missing the bigger picture here too though Carl. The commuter flying was cancelled shortly after the merger was consummated, so that is not an issue. But since AT was a wholly owned subsidiary, THEY were a violation of the SWAPA scope clause, hence management's interference in the SLI process. AT could not fly under the SWA code as a separate entity, and management could not afford to do that. That is why GK went all Carl Icahn on them. Many think that this was a bad play though because he made second class citizens out of the AT pilots, and that will transfer to the group as a whole. Maybe.. maybe, they will be blinded by the money, but who knows? I would think that a AT captain that has been forced out of his seat would retain a fair amount of bitterness... I can't imagine that they would not. Your own Red/Green show should give you a better insight into that. My question is that SWAPA had a bunch of leverage to get contract improvements here, and chose not to do so, but rather let management come in and lower the hammer on their soon-to-be co workers. No way you can convince me that this was not a seniority grab based on that observation alone. Now comes all the lovey dovey stuff... and hopefully the AT guys will forget.. Point is though, you think it is management looking out for it's pilots, I see that very differently. Let's suppose that SWA made a run at an AK merger/purchase.. combination.. There will be those that argue that that would be a merger of equals.. I fail to see any difference in the AT merger save the payrates.. all 3 carriers fly 737s... period. I digress. Do you think the AK pilots would stand for being stapled in the same manner as the ATI guys? SWA management would be FORCED to come in with the same heavy handed tactics as they did with AT because of that scope clause. My bet is that if this scenario were to come up, that SWA management would get rid of that scope clause , or they would be forced to structure it in a different way.. as in maybe AK would be the surviving carrier. Thoughts?

 

That is off the Council 66 FB page. Any info on what kind of changes are coming?

 

What are the options/cost for a commute to NYC? Crash pad or hotel?

 

LOA 31. Yesterday evening, your C44 representatives were informed that the Negotiating Committee had reached a tentative agreement with the company regarding beneficial changes to Section 23G5 and 23K of the PWA. This tentative agreement is titled LOA 31 Scheduling Modifications. We will be briefed at the upcoming MEC Meeting and will provide you with additional details as they become available.

 

You have a rudimentary understanding of our contract at best. The AT purchase was NOT a violation of our contract. There is a provision to run a wholly owned subsidiary for 24 months after final closing. After that 24 month window all flying must be done by SWAPA pilots. We do not allow ANY domestic code share period.

SWAPA took an immediate stand that they would not release the company from section 1 protections to facilitate this transaction. SWAPA's assertion was that you made this deal without our consent knowing full well the stipulations regarding acquisitions in our current CBA.

The leverage to make contract improvements that you speak of would have been made at the expense of relaxed scope to allow the company to realize synergies earlier in the transaction. That was a deal that SWAPA was unwilling to make. We will not sell our scope for monetary short term gain. Scope is like a religion here. Any scope give concession will never be regained going forward.

You correctly assert that management is not in fact looking out for the pilots directly. But, management is most definitely looking out for the PRODUCT. The reason we do not outsource or codeshare is built around control of the product that is produced. Southwest wants complete and total control of the product they provide to paying customers. For these and many other reasons codeshare is not done at SWA.

You state that management would get rid of the scope clause in order to facilitate an acquisition on a larger scale is completely incorrect. Management cannot nullify any portion of our CBA without OUR CONSENT. Our consent will never be given. We like the way the agreement is written. It provides many disincentives for anything other than internal growth. Our section 1 also provides protections against structuring any deal where another entity would eventually be the surviving carrier after a merger.

SWAPA's scope provides for any flying done for Southwest Airlines, in any capacity, will only be done by SWAPA pilots on the SWAPA Master Seniority List. We do not budge on that. We will not even allow a SWA sticker on another aircraft unless it is flown by a SWAPA pilot.

Pilot grievance at Southwest Airlines turns into a good deed | Airline Biz Blog | dallasnews.com

 

It's about time. I wonder if they'll disclose what was used as leverage?

 

Yup, and the best money saver would be to have no employees or jets and just be a ticket reseller, AKA Ticketmaster, on "branded" lift.

Someone pointed out you can already by a ticket on DAL from SEA to SYD via LAX and never actually fly DAL metal

 

You think that the over 60 group would leave to keep pilots from being furloughed. You are dreaming. They care about number one, regardless if it smells like number two.

 

It would not be a move by choice. I am quite happy where I am, but I highly suspect that I will be not just kicked off, but shot off my current seat.