For real. Take your lame lover's quarrel/angry captain rant to the NCR page. Nobody cares.

 

This. Some of the comments on here are downright scary.

 

Because that's been the industry standard and I agree, it should be a nonstarter. But so what? If the company decides to drastically pull 737 flying from any established bases in favor of a smaller gauge, that's on them and our seniority system which will decide who flies what, where, when and in which seat. I don't see how we can dictate to the company what airplane they are allowed to order or what ratio of aircraft they can have. The only negotiations would be over pay and work rules as applicable. In fact, if they brought a smaller gauge plane, work rules would probably stay the same and only the rate could possibly be different if SWAPA negotiates it and the membership accepts it.


We actually agree on something? Wow....

I didn't bring up lower rates, but I do maintain that any Southwest Airlines passenger needs to be flown by Southwest Airlines pilots on SWAPA Master Seniority List, FULL STOP, and I don't care if it's a C172, E175, A320, B737 or A380. Seniority alone dictates who flies what, never the lowest bidder outside of our seniority list.

 

Amen!





.

 

You literally said “I'd much rather have our junior pilots fly the lower paying airplane”.


Since the topic was ‘what if we add a smaller airplane’ it could be inferred that this new rate would be LOWER than the current rate.

Maybe you didn’t mean it that way?


.



​​​​​​​

 

You're concentrating on the wrong point. I'm saying even if the smaller gauge plane paid less, I'd still want our pilots flying it, and not have it outsourced to Skywest or the likes "because it doesn't pay as well as the 737" as some people alluded to above that post.

 

Agreed. That's the trap ALPA fell into in the late 90s. "We're too good to fly RJs" or "My squadron bro shouldn't have to come here and fly RJs" led to a decade of parking narrowbodies and outsourcing.

I also disagree that a smaller gauge airplane will somehow lead to the downfall of the airline. On the contrary it can allow us to bring back frequency to markets we have allowed to languish because we needed the metal elsewhere. For example, a morning and evening 737 between Dallas and Tulsa with 2 or 3 smaller airplanes throughout the day between. You can't get business travelers without frequency.

Secondly, it can allow the company to enter into markets that can't support a 737, but could still feed customers into the network - something you'll need if you want to fill up the handful of eventual widebodies that some of you are salivating over.

But again, that's a business decision for the company to make. Our singular concern is that WHATEVER metal they decide to bring on property, it's flown by SWAPA pilots. Full stop.

 

As I said, some people are so emotionally charged about the word "scope" that they can't even see that none of us are advocating for giving up scope lol. We are simply saying that when another type arrives, if it ever does, it will probably need to fly at different rates than our standard 737 ones. The same thing will need to happen if we go bigger, but I bet the conversation will be much less charged since it will be the senior guys getting paid more.

 

B6 190s paid 260-287/hour for cappies, according to APC.

Of course a smaller e-jet would not pay 737 CA rates, but it would be a nice pay raise for 3-4 year FO to go hit a higher pay band as a CA earlier in their career.

As long as their checks are signed by Southwest and they pay union dues to SWAPA, it doesn’t violate scope to have a smaller gauge aircraft. More flying is more flying and seniority would have more movement opportunities with multiple fleets. Why would we turn our noses up at that flying if the work rules, pay rates, and scope are looked after once our full time swapullies get their bulletproof super secret notes in order.

 

Yep. Idk how people think the airline is supposed to grow without new markets, initiatives, etc. Think about all the places we don’t service, Canada, the Dakotas, SA, EYW, etc the list goes on. Of course any new venture comes with risk, that’s just business.