Southwest Airlines Considers The Airbus A220
10-27-2020, 02:01 PM
#183
On Reserve
Joined APC: Oct 2020
Posts: 10
Just an observation. Don’t know what it means. But this thread about the A220 has been up for less time than a thread about concessions. This thread has ~180 posts and 60K views as of right now while the concessions thread has ~125 posts and 30K views.
The thing is pilots have very little control over whether or not the company buys the A220. We’ll decide what pay rate we fly it for and vote on some ancillary items that go along with creating a new fleet type. All of this is IF the company ever decides to pull the trigger on an A220. If it does do that, all of those votes will be quite a ways down the road.
Meanwhile, we have our CEO demanding concessions to prevent furloughs RIGHT NOW. If our union puts any kind of concessionary side letter out for a vote, that will be coming much, much sooner than any vote on matters related to the hypothetical acquisition of the A220. The outcome of that vote could have a much greater impact on our careers than the possible/maybe/someday vote on an A220.
Shiny new jet syndrome? Squirrels?
I don’t know what all of that says about pilots but we have historically been known to be our own worst enemies.
The thing is pilots have very little control over whether or not the company buys the A220. We’ll decide what pay rate we fly it for and vote on some ancillary items that go along with creating a new fleet type. All of this is IF the company ever decides to pull the trigger on an A220. If it does do that, all of those votes will be quite a ways down the road.
Meanwhile, we have our CEO demanding concessions to prevent furloughs RIGHT NOW. If our union puts any kind of concessionary side letter out for a vote, that will be coming much, much sooner than any vote on matters related to the hypothetical acquisition of the A220. The outcome of that vote could have a much greater impact on our careers than the possible/maybe/someday vote on an A220.
Shiny new jet syndrome? Squirrels?
I don’t know what all of that says about pilots but we have historically been known to be our own worst enemies.
10-27-2020, 02:33 PM
#184
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: Airplanes
Posts: 1,378
Originally Posted by SkyJunky
As I was reading this thread, this is exactly my thoughts... I would be wishing we were a single fleet type again. Flown many different airplanes in the past... the new shiny toy aspect goes away quickly. As you said, and similarly, Just ask the folks that were all trying to bid back into PHX when they decided to go try ETOPS out, then COVID hit before their lock expired.
TN spoke at my FO leadership training back in March... he mentioned that one new fleet type doesn’t really solve our problem of fleet diversification. We’d need several different fleet types... obviously that’s expensive. So our risk is better mitigated with a single fleet type.
Who knows the metric they use to justify the economics... perhaps the A220 really does offer great fuel savings for us and opens up service to new and smaller markets that the 737 didn’t make sense to operate into... but as far as our QOL, I only see that being chaotic and detrimental.
But this is just another drop in a pool of opinions ...
TN spoke at my FO leadership training back in March... he mentioned that one new fleet type doesn’t really solve our problem of fleet diversification. We’d need several different fleet types... obviously that’s expensive. So our risk is better mitigated with a single fleet type.
Who knows the metric they use to justify the economics... perhaps the A220 really does offer great fuel savings for us and opens up service to new and smaller markets that the 737 didn’t make sense to operate into... but as far as our QOL, I only see that being chaotic and detrimental.
But this is just another drop in a pool of opinions ...
10-27-2020, 04:13 PM
#185
At your mom's house
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: cpt 737
Posts: 2,672
Originally Posted by YellowSnowman
Just an observation. Don’t know what it means. But this thread about the A220 has been up for less time than a thread about concessions. This thread has ~180 posts and 60K views as of right now while the concessions thread has ~125 posts and 30K views.
The thing is pilots have very little control over whether or not the company buys the A220. We’ll decide what pay rate we fly it for and vote on some ancillary items that go along with creating a new fleet type. All of this is IF the company ever decides to pull the trigger on an A220. If it does do that, all of those votes will be quite a ways down the road.
Meanwhile, we have our CEO demanding concessions to prevent furloughs RIGHT NOW. If our union puts any kind of concessionary side letter out for a vote, that will be coming much, much sooner than any vote on matters related to the hypothetical acquisition of the A220. The outcome of that vote could have a much greater impact on our careers than the possible/maybe/someday vote on an A220.
Shiny new jet syndrome? Squirrels?
I don’t know what all of that says about pilots but we have historically been known to be our own worst enemies.
The thing is pilots have very little control over whether or not the company buys the A220. We’ll decide what pay rate we fly it for and vote on some ancillary items that go along with creating a new fleet type. All of this is IF the company ever decides to pull the trigger on an A220. If it does do that, all of those votes will be quite a ways down the road.
Meanwhile, we have our CEO demanding concessions to prevent furloughs RIGHT NOW. If our union puts any kind of concessionary side letter out for a vote, that will be coming much, much sooner than any vote on matters related to the hypothetical acquisition of the A220. The outcome of that vote could have a much greater impact on our careers than the possible/maybe/someday vote on an A220.
Shiny new jet syndrome? Squirrels?
I don’t know what all of that says about pilots but we have historically been known to be our own worst enemies.
10-27-2020, 05:48 PM
#187
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,256
Originally Posted by hoover
I think because everyone knows the union is not putting the company's concessions out to vote. They'll say no for us.
Maybe this time will be different but I doubt it.
What wouldn’t surprise me is a 10% concession package gussied up a but to make it a little more pilot-palatable and so that SWAPA can save face to make it look like they fought the good fight. I really hope I’m wrong about that. I’d be thrilled to be wrong.
10-27-2020, 07:44 PM
#188
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Position: DOWNGRADE COMPLETE: Thanks Gary. Thanks SWAPA.
Posts: 6,616
Originally Posted by Lewbronski
I wouldn’t be super-confident in that idea. Hope you’re right, but this union has a long history of dropping the ball. Maybe this time I’ll be pleasantly surprised. “SWAPA 2.0” is the same group who all signed their names to the cover letter of “The Platform” vowing to a man that they wouldn’t accept less than The Platform - and then settling for $1+ billion less than The Platform while claiming that despite what their signatures attested to, they never intended to achieve The Platform. They also brought us the MAX MOU - nothing but good will from the company in exchange for the pilots giving the company relief. SWAPA 2.0 is the group that put out the sub-Platform TA2 for a vote after succumbing to arm-twisting from the company telling them if they didn’t put it out for a vote they’d spread rumors among the pilots that SWAPA withheld a really good deal from them. And then the SWAPA President sealed the fate of the vote by recommending/not-recommending a yes vote by telling everyone he was voting yes on TA2. Why he did that when The Platform was his baby and his signature was at the top of the letter saying he wouldn’t accept less? No idea.
Maybe this time will be different but I doubt it.
What wouldn’t surprise me is a 10% concession package gussied up a but to make it a little more pilot-palatable and so that SWAPA can save face to make it look like they fought the good fight. I really hope I’m wrong about that. I’d be thrilled to be wrong.
Maybe this time will be different but I doubt it.
What wouldn’t surprise me is a 10% concession package gussied up a but to make it a little more pilot-palatable and so that SWAPA can save face to make it look like they fought the good fight. I really hope I’m wrong about that. I’d be thrilled to be wrong.
Anyone that votes yes to this automatically loses 50 IQ points in my eye........and a lot of respect.
10-28-2020, 09:19 AM
#189
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 191
No way we go with A220. This is all posturing by GK. If we have two types on property, one will be the max, and the other will be a transatlantic wide or narrow body (787; or 321XLR). My money would be on the 321XLR in case the max goes TU again, we can still function with a common 320/321 type rating.
10-28-2020, 09:44 AM
#190
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 508
Originally Posted by KPer
No way we go with A220. This is all posturing by GK. If we have two types on property, one will be the max, and the other will be a transatlantic wide or narrow body (787; or 321XLR).
I'm not singling you out, but it cracks me up when us pilots speak in absolutes like this as if we are so profound. It kinda reminds me of the rhetoric about a year ago when DL, AA, etc. pilots on these very forums claimed there's No Way there would ever be furloughs at the legacies in this generation of pilots due to "pilot shortage" and retirements. Or Dougie fresh claiming AA will never lose money again. None of this conjecture aged well at all within a year's time. We're all just along for the ride at this point. Buckle up!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
