How will you spend your ExTO?
07-11-2020, 08:24 PM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 459
Originally Posted by Ihateusernames
Unlike this place. GMAFB.
I’ve come to accept that the SWAPA forum is a vocal few and not generally representative of the pilot group. It’s good for a few tidbits of info before the SWAPAFORUMISMYONLYHOBBY mafia takes over.
07-12-2020, 01:28 PM
#62
New Hire
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: B717 CA
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by WHACKMASTER
Yup. It’s pretty obvious that they’re not seeing enough VSP/ExTO applicants as they need to meet the suppressed demand. It doesn’t take a genius to read between the lines.
That said, I’m taking an ExTO and for those that qualify for VSP, I think you’re absolutely crazy if you don’t take it. It’s not like you’re gonna be able to crush 150 TFP/month going forward. With all due respect, everyone’s situation is different but 192K a year to go away? Why can’t I be older?!
That said, I’m taking an ExTO and for those that qualify for VSP, I think you’re absolutely crazy if you don’t take it. It’s not like you’re gonna be able to crush 150 TFP/month going forward. With all due respect, everyone’s situation is different but 192K a year to go away? Why can’t I be older?!
I’m curious why you think you’re not qualified for VSP. You absolutely are! I know of at least on person in their 40’s who is taking it. Do you have some different info?
07-12-2020, 02:56 PM
#63
weekends off? Nope...
Joined APC: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,941
Originally Posted by jeffmiller110
Hello Whackmaster,
I’m curious why you think you’re not qualified for VSP. You absolutely are! I know of at least on person in their 40’s who is taking it. Do you have some different info?
I’m curious why you think you’re not qualified for VSP. You absolutely are! I know of at least on person in their 40’s who is taking it. Do you have some different info?
07-14-2020, 03:10 PM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 147
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes!"
Why don't we wait until the time comes to decide if concessions are what we need/want? There are many creative ways to skin the cat. The above posters are correct in that concessions are a dangerous thing. And it does take a long time to recover. What about snap-back clauses? What about some creative stock/profit sharing incentives once things return to profitability. We have certainly come a long way from the days when SWA employees were taking money from their paychecks to pay for fuel. Different eras I get it, and I don't want to argue about why we have gotten to where we are. Sadly I believe we are too large and past the point where the old ways of working together will return. And maybe they shouldn't. I came to Southwest because they were different. I just didn't realize how quickly that decision would be tested.
Why don't we wait until the time comes to decide if concessions are what we need/want? There are many creative ways to skin the cat. The above posters are correct in that concessions are a dangerous thing. And it does take a long time to recover. What about snap-back clauses? What about some creative stock/profit sharing incentives once things return to profitability. We have certainly come a long way from the days when SWA employees were taking money from their paychecks to pay for fuel. Different eras I get it, and I don't want to argue about why we have gotten to where we are. Sadly I believe we are too large and past the point where the old ways of working together will return. And maybe they shouldn't. I came to Southwest because they were different. I just didn't realize how quickly that decision would be tested.
07-14-2020, 04:32 PM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 187
Originally Posted by flensr
No concessions is a nice sentiment.
That said, I can't stay here on 55TFP, and I'll probably have to move and disrupt my whole family and kids' school if I get furloughed. So EXTO, VSP, and furlough would all force me to move in addition to trying to find another job. After 26 yrs in the AF, I don't want to move again. So if I was offered an opportunity to, perhaps, *vote*, lets just say, on an offer to drop my min guarantee to 70 (about what I need to live here) for x months, WTF am I supposed to do? I'm in the bottom 10%, furlough bait all over me and I can't wash it off.
I get it that someone who already makes more than me who isn't at risk of furlough may not be inclined to approve any temporary pay cut. Those people likely took it in the shorts during previous downturns and they've paid their dues. Furthermore, If they could handle a pay cut now (mathematically or emotionally, doesn't matter) they'd be taking VSP or EXTO anyhow. But on the exact same line of reasoning, why should I vote to get my pay cut to zero and have to move in order for someone, who again already makes more than me, to not also take a hit?
I'm not mad at anyone, won't be either. Everyone votes what they think is right. But damned if I'm going to vote myself out of a job so someone with a fatter paycheck and fatter 401k than me can avoid taking a small temporary hit like everyone else. I don't think anyone thinks we would be required to make permanent changes to the CBA. That probably wouldn't be legal anyhow, given that we're in negotiations. Remember, we're talking about specific changes for specific periods of time, not making permanent changes to a CBA that is expiring anyhow.
My respect to everyone taking VSP or EXTO. I'll be in their debt for the rest of my career. But the "no concessions" rallying cry works only up until the company drops the ultimatum and we vote.
Assuming we even get a vote, that is. Reading between the lines it sounds like a lot of people don't even want the choice, they just want to be told what's going to happen to them (and then later complain and second guess it, whatever *it* turns out to be).
There was a warning about rise in tribalism in a SWAPA communication a couple of months ago. Could this issue split the group worse than the tie dispute did last time. One mark of a person's character is if their ideals survive tough time.
That said, I can't stay here on 55TFP, and I'll probably have to move and disrupt my whole family and kids' school if I get furloughed. So EXTO, VSP, and furlough would all force me to move in addition to trying to find another job. After 26 yrs in the AF, I don't want to move again. So if I was offered an opportunity to, perhaps, *vote*, lets just say, on an offer to drop my min guarantee to 70 (about what I need to live here) for x months, WTF am I supposed to do? I'm in the bottom 10%, furlough bait all over me and I can't wash it off.
I get it that someone who already makes more than me who isn't at risk of furlough may not be inclined to approve any temporary pay cut. Those people likely took it in the shorts during previous downturns and they've paid their dues. Furthermore, If they could handle a pay cut now (mathematically or emotionally, doesn't matter) they'd be taking VSP or EXTO anyhow. But on the exact same line of reasoning, why should I vote to get my pay cut to zero and have to move in order for someone, who again already makes more than me, to not also take a hit?
I'm not mad at anyone, won't be either. Everyone votes what they think is right. But damned if I'm going to vote myself out of a job so someone with a fatter paycheck and fatter 401k than me can avoid taking a small temporary hit like everyone else. I don't think anyone thinks we would be required to make permanent changes to the CBA. That probably wouldn't be legal anyhow, given that we're in negotiations. Remember, we're talking about specific changes for specific periods of time, not making permanent changes to a CBA that is expiring anyhow.
My respect to everyone taking VSP or EXTO. I'll be in their debt for the rest of my career. But the "no concessions" rallying cry works only up until the company drops the ultimatum and we vote.
Assuming we even get a vote, that is. Reading between the lines it sounds like a lot of people don't even want the choice, they just want to be told what's going to happen to them (and then later complain and second guess it, whatever *it* turns out to be).
There was a warning about rise in tribalism in a SWAPA communication a couple of months ago. Could this issue split the group worse than the tie dispute did last time. One mark of a person's character is if their ideals survive tough time.
07-14-2020, 05:26 PM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,121
Originally Posted by KPer
I hear ya, and I was on the fence about a potential concessions vote until the VSP/ExTO offer. I can’t take either, but I sure as heck won’t vote for any kind of line guarantee reduction as long as we have guys/gals doing nothing and making 55TFP. More power to them and I wish I could take the offer, but I’m far from okay with coming to work for an extra 15-20TFP versus the ExTOers that don’t have to do a thing. I’m in the bottom 30% and certainly not out of the woods.
Not negotiating on the internet, but as a simple example based on how my last couple of months have worked out, dropping min guarantee to 70 and setting the cap at 89 would spread the pain pretty evenly while saving some jobs, and senior pilots would still be able to take and trade as high as they want, as usual. Again, open time will be more fruitful once VSP and EXTO takers stop flying.
And anyone who REALLY needs to keep flying 150TFP/month probably also has a massive sick bank they can tap. Nobody's going to starve except furloughs.
07-14-2020, 08:26 PM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Position: DOWNGRADE COMPLETE: Thanks Gary. Thanks SWAPA.
Posts: 6,613
Originally Posted by flensr
Consider that it's still possible to pad your monthly totals with open time. My LG bar in July was around 19, and after just a few not very good open time pickups I'm up to 107. So basically 3 open time pickups and I'd be right back at our current min guarantee even if I had no LG bar and min guarantee had been dropped to 70. After VSP and EXTO folks leave, open time will get marginally better even if our schedule completely stagnates. I'm bottom 10% so if I can scrape up enough open time to hit the cap, most anyone else who cares to can do it too.
Not negotiating on the internet, but as a simple example based on how my last couple of months have worked out, dropping min guarantee to 70 and setting the cap at 89 would spread the pain pretty evenly while saving some jobs, and senior pilots would still be able to take and trade as high as they want, as usual. Again, open time will be more fruitful once VSP and EXTO takers stop flying.
And anyone who REALLY needs to keep flying 150TFP/month probably also has a massive sick bank they can tap. Nobody's going to starve except furloughs.
Not negotiating on the internet, but as a simple example based on how my last couple of months have worked out, dropping min guarantee to 70 and setting the cap at 89 would spread the pain pretty evenly while saving some jobs, and senior pilots would still be able to take and trade as high as they want, as usual. Again, open time will be more fruitful once VSP and EXTO takers stop flying.
And anyone who REALLY needs to keep flying 150TFP/month probably also has a massive sick bank they can tap. Nobody's going to starve except furloughs.
07-15-2020, 04:12 AM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 187
Originally Posted by flensr
Consider that it's still possible to pad your monthly totals with open time. My LG bar in July was around 19, and after just a few not very good open time pickups I'm up to 107. So basically 3 open time pickups and I'd be right back at our current min guarantee even if I had no LG bar and min guarantee had been dropped to 70. After VSP and EXTO folks leave, open time will get marginally better even if our schedule completely stagnates. I'm bottom 10% so if I can scrape up enough open time to hit the cap, most anyone else who cares to can do it too.
Not negotiating on the internet, but as a simple example based on how my last couple of months have worked out, dropping min guarantee to 70 and setting the cap at 89 would spread the pain pretty evenly while saving some jobs, and senior pilots would still be able to take and trade as high as they want, as usual. Again, open time will be more fruitful once VSP and EXTO takers stop flying.
And anyone who REALLY needs to keep flying 150TFP/month probably also has a massive sick bank they can tap. Nobody's going to starve except furloughs.
Not negotiating on the internet, but as a simple example based on how my last couple of months have worked out, dropping min guarantee to 70 and setting the cap at 89 would spread the pain pretty evenly while saving some jobs, and senior pilots would still be able to take and trade as high as they want, as usual. Again, open time will be more fruitful once VSP and EXTO takers stop flying.
And anyone who REALLY needs to keep flying 150TFP/month probably also has a massive sick bank they can tap. Nobody's going to starve except furloughs.
07-16-2020, 08:47 AM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2017
Posts: 533
For all those stating that we'd have to "fight so hard to get back to where we were" if we voted in some concessions to save jobs here. Have y'all never heard of snap back provisions? They're actually pretty simple and they work. As soon as we get to a certain level (whether it's # of flights, block hours, etc.) we snap back to pre concessions. Put it in the TA, a side letter, whatever you want. I'd vote to save jobs with the right language.
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
07-16-2020, 07:13 PM
#70
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2013
Position: CRJ FO
Posts: 47
Originally Posted by sMFer
For all those stating that we'd have to "fight so hard to get back to where we were" if we voted in some concessions to save jobs here. Have y'all never heard of snap back provisions? They're actually pretty simple and they work. As soon as we get to a certain level (whether it's # of flights, block hours, etc.) we snap back to pre concessions. Put it in the TA, a side letter, whatever you want. I'd vote to save jobs with the right language.
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
You still have given up lost income permanently unless those snap backs come with back pay or a premium to recover lost money. Same reason back pay after a drug out contract fight should never be allowed to be called a signing bonus. It’s not a bonus it’s money they hijacked from you and your family.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
JoeyMeatballs
Hangar Talk
51
08-31-2008 01:04 PM
