Zard

He’s got a legitimate gripe. SWAPA has revised pay rates higher as the market moved multiple times during contract negotiations. Not planning for dragged out negotiations and revising asks based on polling data as the market moves is a strategic oversight.

I suspect a lot of things that were polled pre-Covid are now much different in the minds of pilots.

Would you rather find out now that your NCs asks weren’t even ratifiable now or during mem-rat?

Caveman

Ahhh yes (pun intended)

The Ole if you don't like it here, apply there arguments are back!

Turd polishers are beginning to unite as thoughts of 300 per trip fuel fantasies about the greatness they can achieve with that rate.

Its almost as if some think its so great they might do it for free.

RJSAviator76

Get real… if someone is that unhappy and miserable, and furthermore has absolutely no faith in our union before it even presents anything, after the most successful SAV industry-wide, and commitments to not present anything that’s unratifiable ie play the “vote-it-down” game, applying pressure in the way we are finally starting to…. then yeah, why promote apathy, resignation attitude because they just happen to be that friggin miserable. Life is FAR too short to be miserable.

e6bpilot

Dude, you don't have to mansplain how it works to me. I get it. I personally despise being tied to flight attendants for anything and don't hang with them at all. I never have. I am all for separating the hotels, but it wasn't a mandate.
That being said, you can't get upset with your NC for not achieving something they weren't asking for. If they were to do another round of SEP, that would be a huge delay in negotiating. We are the ones who are negotiating In good faith while the idiots at the company are dragging their feet. In order to advance down the road of the RLA, we need to stay with that tactic. That is the way this process works.
We get a TA, vote it down, and start over. Or the company keeps dragging it out, we get an impasse declared, and we move one more peg down the RLA board. We don't just open and close sections at will or start polling because there are a few loudmouths who are mad about one particular issue. The process doesn't bend to the whims of the angry few.
No matter what the TA looks like, there is going to be an angry group that didn't get some ask that they wanted. That's fine, but it is what it is. They will vote no (or not) and then tell everyone how they voted no for the next 10 years to make themselves feel smart. Those smart guys will preach to the uneducated masses how stupid they are. And the world goes around. And life goes on.
I am not trying to lower expectations. As Zard said, I want the golden goose to scream its safe word. I am angry and have my torch and pitchfork ready. I am already doing personal risk assessments when it comes to things like single engine taxi and carrying writeups. I am ready to take this thing to its logical conclusion, whatever that is.

mulcher

Typical response. Have you considered it? I’ve explained I would just ride this clown show out. DAL would be a commute but thanks for your input.

mulcher

A lot of ignorance it that post. WAFJ you are! My life is great. But keep ASSuming. I’m seeing reps on SWApA forum already capitulating on lagging contract items. So color me not surprised. Keep voting in lagging contracts. The company LUVs you. Now tell me you are a 16%er. Get a life and apply to Delta! He will be giddy for $300 tfp rates. Yet both FAs and mechanics will be the highest paid in the industry. Despite being on 737 vs 777 or 786. Dispatchers also I believe.

JohnBurke

Of course it does...because the SIC is also an airline transport pilot. Think.

In years past, SICs weren't given type ratings, then eventually "SIC type ratings, upgrading to a "full PIC type" upon upgrade...which was idotic, but a cost-saving measure and a control measure. Today, the full type is common. In fact, we don't call it a "full type," or a "PIC type," but merely what it is: a type rating.

Let's not forget that long before the FAA required SIC's to have an ATP, SWA required everyone to arrive with a type. Go figure. Further, it was standard on most properties for a very long time to require, at a minimum, that one show up with the ATP written done. This was a time when to get the written, one had to show up at the FSDO with logbooks in hand, and the FAA would verify those hours and vett the pilot: the signoff meant that the pilot had met the ATP experience requirements and that his logbook had been checked by the FAA...and that was a long time before Colgan was a blip on the historical oncoming horizon.

Whereas the SIC has a type rating, and magical "PIC type rating" at that, and whereas the SIC is required to perform to the same, universal standard on a type rating as for the ATP certificate (All type ratings are done to ATP standards, of course, regardless of certification level), the requirement for the SIC to hold an ATP certificate when engaged in airline transport operations, isn't really rocket science.

The requirement for a SIC told hold ATP-level pilot certification is more recent, a result of Colgan, but not the experience requirements for the ATP, nor the existence of the ATP. 1,500 hours as a minimum (amended by specific alternate requirements) isn't very much at all. That anyone would whine or winge about it is idiotic, and once one has more than 1,500 hours (a paltry number), it's irrelevant. What the youthful crowd is whining about is the need to actually lift a finger to go get 1,500 hours before they can qualify for their ATP.

The minimal standards to qualify for the ATP certificate were set long ago. It's not much.

There was a time, not so long ago, when we needed 3,000 hours to get on with a commuter or "regional," and we actually had to go out and fly clapped out equipment in the clag and ice to get it...with the advent of pay to play and the 250 hour hero, for a time that went away, and now that 1,500 hours is required, the wailing and lamenting can be heard from the heavens; that pitiful sound of the self entitled crying themselves to sleep at night for their suffering an anguish as they slog their way to that nearly insurmountable precipice: 1,500 god damn hours. My heart bleeds.

[QUOTE=e6bpilot;3646531
No matter what the TA looks like, there is going to be an angry group that didn't get some ask that they wanted.
[/QUOTE]

Republicans?

MatthewAMEL

$300/trip isn't even close. Anything less than $350 and I don't even read the TA.

RJSAviator76

Yep. Sure did. And to where I stand, I'm 'past V1' in my situation/age/hiring matrix. UAL doesn't make financial sense, DAL would be a commute forever, so no... The decision was unemotional.

You're really showing how great your life is on this board by getting pi$$y over trivial BS. People with great lives generally don't. On the other token... what is it with you negative nancies and putting words in people's mouths? $300/TFP? Now you're talking out your a$$, and in any case, that would be the easiest NO ever. Don't give us the industry-leading benefits (LTD/STD)? I won't even bother reading the rest of any agreement before clicking NO. Don't address the work and training rules that reign in the insanity coming out of Dallas? That's a NO from me.

As I said before, I expect to be dazzled in this contract. And I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise. A weak-kneed rep? Start the recall process, or vote them out.

But what I can't stand is the holier-than-thou peanut gallery putting words or numbers in people's mouths, spreading FUD about our union while they're negotiating for us, and spreading their general misery and dissatisfaction WITH THE UNION before so much as anything was even presented.

So.... if you don't like it, or have no stomach to back the union, there's no reason to be miserable. Plenty of other options.

mulcher

Pot me kettle. While we agree on most things. We have already accepted two industry lagging items in our negotiations. How many more will be acceptable? Call me very skeptical of Casey and I have my reasons. I hope I am very wrong. But your hypocrisy says a lot. 38% like the FUD last time. The company could have tweaked the retirement a few percent and easily got the 51% solution. Imagine if guys like us didn't call SWApA out on that.