Originally Posted by journeybird

Asking honestly, do you really think it will go that way?

Amongst international scope relief, built in island scope relief, new airframe, I truly wonder how much negotiating power we actually have.

Originally Posted by flyguy81

No side letters until they fix the mess they caused with staffing.

Originally Posted by mulcher

Ah yes create a mess then negotiate to get rid of the mess they created. Golden. The rest get nothing but we vote yes because it fixes it, This pilot group is dumb enough to vote for it. That’s the sad thing.

Originally Posted by rickair7777

For clarity, I'm dead serious, not pulling back. Confirmed this evening it is in fact a pilot base.

The crashboat comment was intended to be humorous, the pilot base part was not.

Originally Posted by flyguy81

We have all the power in re: scope and new airframes. No idea what the company has up their sleeve, but outside the Max, they can't do anything without our approval. And I'm not inclined to give in on anything....

Originally Posted by at6d

When I posted this poll, I took the company referenced airports in order of RON aircraft. SAN is number 4 on the list making it a possibility…but I’m not sure the benefit vs STL or MCI.

This next vacancy will be very interesting—I wonder if the company is weighing another domicile based on fallout from these displacements vs morale and future recruitment.

Originally Posted by REF 5

One of the reasons why the displacements are happening is because of the single fleet type. These displacements wouldn't exist to the extent if their was another fleet type on the property. The other airlines don't play like that because it pretty cost prohibitive to move planes around at network planning's whim every month. I'm not saying to give up scope or turn away from it but at the same time don't shoot yourself in the foot either. Another fleet type pretty much neutralizes the company AND we don't have to give anything for it. Many of us come from other airlines that had multiple fleet types and never had these kind movements outside of closing a domicile and/or retiring a fleet type. The company would love for the pilot group to demand new displacement language knowing damn well they'll never use it to the degree they have.

Originally Posted by REF 5

Their is a short window here but ALK and SWA are both in a transition. Following the acquisition of Hawaiian Airlines, which utilizes expensive widebody aircraft and produces low yields, Alaska Air Group reported HA incurred losses exceeding half a million dollars a day. Which brought down earnings this past quarter as well as forecasting a loss in the first quarter. Very rare for ALK. It will be short lived as ALK pivots and redeploys those airplanes to potential better yielding markets as well as streamlining the fleet(rid of 717's and A321's). Mergers are very expensive, time consuming and require much effort by mangement to put together. So SWA definitely sees some openings. It's not a coincidence that SWA is opening a 12,000 square foot, two floor lounge in HNL. Remember, airlines are required to report 10% of their fares to the DOT. Modeling does the rest. So SWA knows what is bleeding and what is profitable. All airlines do this. SWA has a 33% market share vs ALK's 12%(3rd) in SAN. Either way, SWA opening a base or not in SAN doesn't really change those dynamics. Operationally though, single runway operation? Don't know but SWA decision's these days doesn't surprise me.

Originally Posted by rickair7777

For clarity, I'm dead serious, not pulling back. Confirmed this evening it is in fact a pilot base.

The crashboat comment was intended to be humorous, the pilot base part was not.