Where are the Whiney Lances
11-01-2015, 08:36 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: 737 Right
Posts: 1,385
Where are the Whiney Lances
Anyone remember back in the last TA how the Lance Captains raised Holy H411 about their plight?
Where are those guys now?
Well, they're all jr Capts and suddenly it's not their problem. In fact, they're probably the ones to gain most from the LCP going away.
Not like they're silent, they're the same dudes blasting the forums over whatever their new pet issue is.
This, after the rest of the work group gave back $40 million to keep their cheese in the same corner.
But they're selfishly silent on Lance Capt now.
Where are those guys now?
Well, they're all jr Capts and suddenly it's not their problem. In fact, they're probably the ones to gain most from the LCP going away.
Not like they're silent, they're the same dudes blasting the forums over whatever their new pet issue is.
This, after the rest of the work group gave back $40 million to keep their cheese in the same corner.
But they're selfishly silent on Lance Capt now.
11-01-2015, 09:32 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2010
Posts: 657
Lances going away is just one more reason I'm voting no. The grease they add to the schedule far out-weighs the seniority issues. The company added restrictions, in the last contract,have made the program less useful and there are fewer lances. That makes it easier to get rid of. In related news, in 2019 we will consider PBS because of the subset pain.
11-02-2015, 07:22 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Posts: 420
PBS is a BURN DOWN THE BARN issue for the vast majority of us. It will never happen.
Far too many of us have come from previous airline jobs with PBS. Subsets may not be ideal to some, but PBS is a disastrous solution.
Military know a lot, but Military don't know JACK when it comes to PBS.
Far too many of us have come from previous airline jobs with PBS. Subsets may not be ideal to some, but PBS is a disastrous solution.
Military know a lot, but Military don't know JACK when it comes to PBS.
11-02-2015, 09:26 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: 737 Right
Posts: 1,385
Originally Posted by Rolf
Lances going away is just one more reason I'm voting no. The grease they add to the schedule far out-weighs the seniority issues. The company added restrictions, in the last contract,have made the program less useful and there are fewer lances. That makes it easier to get rid of. In related news, in 2019 we will consider PBS because of the subset pain.
The truth is the senior FO's are still going to bid the lines that the Lance's used to, and they're still going to give away all their stuff and bid premium, just like the Lances did.
It will be no different except the Jr Capts won't be ****ed off at the Lance's.
BTW, I'm a senior FO so I'd benefit from retention of the LCP.
My point is the dudes who were nailing themselves to a cross on the last TA over Lance captain suddenly don't GAS about Lance. Why? Because they got theirs and they've moved on to some other issue that only seems to effect them.
11-02-2015, 11:28 AM
#7
On Reserve
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 12
Having trouble viewing this e-mail? CLICK HERE
02 NOVEMBER 2015
TA Voting
Hi LAS,
On Halloween, you received an executive blast from President Jackson. Our hope was to be more hands-off toward the end of the voting period. Unfortunately, this latest Saturday blast by our president contains incorrect information that needs to be rectified.
In the third paragraph of the President's blast he cites that the division language requires a minimum of 100 pilots per seat. He also states the line writing parameters cover the divisions and will prevent poorer lines. The following is the correct information:
As per TA 5.E: All bid line parameters are by domicile, not by division.
From TA 5.A.7: "To establish a Near International or ETOPS Division, a minimum number of fifty (50) pilots in each seat or fifty percent (50%) of pilots in each seat, whichever is smaller, will be required."
There is certainly cause for concern. A division will not be protected by the line writing parameters, only the base will. If the division is rather small, it further increases the risk to your line quality. The minimum size of a division is 50 pilots per seat, not 100.
Your participation and voices have the Company and our president gasping for air. The Company recently sent their negotiators and labor representatives to various lounges
in bases they thought they could influence voters. In some cases, they showed up with a list of pilots checking in on the days they were there. They also sent their VP of Network Planning and Section 1 guru, Andrew Watterson, to some bases as well. Our own NC was strategically placed in various bases too. All of this means you have been heard.
While the Company may not yet be ready to execute on Section 1, we also know that codeshare agreements aren't worked out overnight. They do require some lead time. There is going to be time pressure on them at some point, even if not as
immediately as we would like. The Amadeus reservation system should go live in 2017 sometime (and full interline/codeshare capability after that) and while it's not as soon as we would like, 2017 isn't really that far away. Add the MAX and subsets and the Company has some hard decisions ahead of them.
Ask yourself why the Company is selling this TA so hard? It's such a good deal, shouldn't it sell itself? If the Company is pure in their Section 1 asks, why are they afraid of giving us a bigger hammer that should never have to be used.
If this is the best it gets with deceleration on the way, why does our stock continue to go up? Wall Street has no soul or concern for labor, but they are not stupid. Wall Street will not like the uncertainty and the problems created by two huge labor groups rejecting contracts one after the other. It will be seen as management has lost touch and does not have the confidence of labor. More focus will be put on Company management and
the SWA BOD. Management is addicted to Wall Street and the stock price.
Earnings. Last week the Company announced the third quarter earnings. As you ponder your vote, consider the Company's most recent earnings report. I'd like to share the
thoughts of OAK rep Brian Fitting on those earnings:
"The Company made $1.2 billion in operating income last quarter. Just to put that into perspective, they made enough money last quarter to pay for all seven years of improvements to this TA. Just stop and think about that for a minute. They made enough money this quarter to pay for this entire deal.
Lets talk about contracts. You get one chance a year to get an increase in pay. One. You get one chance every 7 to 10 years or so to make improvements or give concessions in a contract. One chance every 7 to 10 years to improve work rules or retirement. And once you give away some things, you will never get them back. If you vote in a 4 percent raise since 2012 you are saying yes to 1 percent raises a year since
our last raise. You will never get another chance to make those raises any bigger. Ever. Historical inflation over time is about 3.2 percent. We took a 0 percent raise in 2009 and a 0 percent raise in 2012. We will never get those raise opportunities back. We took a pay freeze when times were tough. We announced
our most profitable quarter in Southwest Airlines history today. Thirty-one percent ROIC. And your reward is a 1.25 percent a year since for 2013. The most profitable three year period in Southwest Airlines history. Let that sink in. When times are good we need to get more than 1.25 percent raises. Period.
Compounding is the key to all of this. The bonus is a sucker bet designed for you to take less money over time. If you make the raises small enough, it makes the bonus look big. If we would have gotten 3 percent a year in value (either a raise or improvement to retirement) your snap-up would have been 7 percent. The 3 percent more per year in hard pay would be roughly $7,500 per year for the average captain in 2016, and $4,500 per year in 2016 for an FO who made $150,000. Those amounts are how much more you make every year going forward. So the bonus money would be made up in three years or so. But you will not be earning that extra compensation every year going forward. For me, with 22 years left that extra
3 percent snap-up would be well over $150,000 in career earnings. The bonus is designed to get you to take less money over your career. Sucker bet. Period.
This isn't about what is fair, reasonable, or affordable. Three percent per year during record profits is fair, reasonable, and affordable. Acknowledging what we did in the past to help the success of this airline (relatively seamless SLI, 800,
etc.) is part of the equation. This is about Wall Street. This is about what everyone else making money off of your skill set wants to pay you. I, for one, will not accept this economic
package while giving concessions. During epic profits I ask you to tell me that one thing in the deal to hang my hat on as our big win. Still waiting for that answer."
One item that you may not be aware of is we have conceded our grievance regarding the "Quality of Life" training preference. If ratified, this will mean AQP/CQT will typically cost you an extra day off. Possibly two, depending on your sim schedule. I could stomach this if I got to bid where my training would go so I had some say in which day off I would lose, but I don't see why we should go backwards on this. To be fair, training pay is increased to 6.5 per day (better) but that doesn't get me time off, and that's what the Quality of Life preference is about.
The Path Forward
Notification and consultation with the Mediator will be accomplished. You may hear that the NMB is out of money or that we may be put on "ice." Remember, a mediator is a facilitator of negotiations, a go-between. There is nothing to prevent SWAPA and the Company from reaching an agreement in the future without the mediator. We will be
ready for whatever tack the Company takes and will respond legally and lawfully with whatever is required and to our strategic advantage. We will go on the offensive with forceful, lawful, and legal tactics. These will be well-thought-out and "red teamed" to take into account Company responses and counter-tactics. We will be ready for the fight and ready to give the Company a way to reach an agreement that is acceptable to us and them. How easy or hard it will be on the Company is up to them. No deal is better than a bad deal.
We will need a new NC. The members of a new team are already being discussed and the names I have heard are good ones with previous experience that will not require extensive training. These new members will know they are governed by the BOD and they will have no problems abiding by this. We will also have a BOD-authorized mechanism to make sure there is legitimate oversight of the new NC. We have some
promising names for further support of the NC who need to be vetted as well.
We will need a new president. He or she will need the confidence of the membership and the BOD. There will be accountability and leadership with a new president who
understands the critically necessary concept of working as a unified BOD. It cannot be a one-man show.
There will be some changeover on the BOD. We will get through the transition. It won't be as difficult as before due to the personalities and makeup of returning BOD members. We are, and will remain, a good team.
We will, of course, survey and poll the membership. We need to listen and hear you, not just go through the motions for appearance sake. We have already changed polling
policies to prevent a desired result. And just as important, we will communicate with the membership. We are put here by you and work for you. It is our duty to give you timely and regular updates, especially with negotiations.
The SPC will take a much more active role. We will not fire, ready, aim. Our public, as well as internal, actions, functions, programs, and activities will be well-targeted and thought-out, created for the most forceful impact, and become more and more frequent.
We will, at times, be as unpredictable as necessary in the Company's eyes for maximum impact. The most important thing you can do right now if you are a "no" is vote "no" and
join the SPC.
The BOD will reassure and reestablish the confidence in the staff at SWAPA. We will insulate them as much as possible from the politics. Our staff does amazing work and we will make sure they have the tools and the environment to do their jobs.
Now let's talk about the rumor the second deal will be worse. I do not believe that is true. These are different times and different metrics than the only time we turned down
a contract. We are not interested in rearranging the money. It will require more money and the Company can afford it.
Look at these previous examples of what other labor groups accomplished:
2002 SWA mechanics overwhelmingly voted down a contract in 2002 and got a better deal shortly thereafter.
2004 Flight attendants secured an industry leading contract using some non-traditional tactics that including picketing and in part were responsible for the ouster of the-then CEO.
2011 during Side Letter 12 (ETOPS/Near International) voting, you, the pilots of SWAPA sent a loud message to the Company you would turn the side letter down. In response, in the middle of the voting period, SWA came back to the table and it became Side Letter 14. your voice made the difference.
Now let's talk about trust; there is none. This Company cannot even be trusted with the current Section 1 language as is evidenced by the JetBlue fiasco. Do we realistically think for even a second they can be trusted with a new and Company friendly Section 1?. After the meetings in Los Angeles this summer, the Company was asserting they had always intended to do standalone (NO SWA LEG) Far International Codeshare.
Do you see the future the next round? Do you see how the Company will change their "intent and understanding" to suit their needs? Remember split to cover?
The Company can't even tell us the particulars of the divisions in Domicile or even what domiciles and yet wanted even more divisions. They are intent on degrading your flexibility and productivity.
Would we trust a Company who told us in Ops Day that the debacle of the summer of 2014 would not occur again this year?
Would we trust a Company that tried to make excuses and rationalize away the Midway Meltdown?
Give me one reason we would trust a CEO that hired Randy Babbitt? One.
Why would we trust a Company that made every effort to not allow us to picket in Houston? What are they afraid of? What are they trying to hide?
Remember the open time system that was supposed to have a test period? After evaluating the new program, we decided we wanted some changes but were told the IT department couldn't handle it.
Why should we trust a Company that goes to unprecedented maneuvers to JA our pilots including chasing pilots down and canceling non-rev listings on commute flight home to JA?
Why should we trust a Company that gave us the HSE debacle which was the failed attempt to try to make us complete new training for free?
Why would we trust a Company that gave us the infamous Flight Ops Employee Handbook to punish our pilots who are contractually compliant with regards to giving away and picking up certain types of trips?
Why would we trust senior management that backs down growth until Wall Street is satisfied?
Pilots are never given any credit at the negotiating table for the numerous side letters we agreed to sign to assist the Company in reaching the ridiculous level of profits they currently enjoy. Was our trust in the Company rewarded then?
And after all this, why would we trust a Company to abide by an MOU regarding PBS?
How would the Company gain back trust? For all our futures, we must give them an avenue. It begins with a more comprehensive TA that offers better protection and
compensation due to the risk we take for their betrayal of our trust, the eroding of the culture we came to work here for, the destruction of the operation, and endangering our
futures.
Let's see how valuable regaining our trust is! This is not just about the current TA but future contracts as this resets the bar and basis for all future contracts due to the sweeping and confusing changes.
Don't base your vote on fear. Your vote is your choice. Take care of each other, stay together, and do not give in. Fly the jet!
No Trust, No Contract!
Jon
Jon Weaks, Chair
02 NOVEMBER 2015
TA Voting
Hi LAS,
On Halloween, you received an executive blast from President Jackson. Our hope was to be more hands-off toward the end of the voting period. Unfortunately, this latest Saturday blast by our president contains incorrect information that needs to be rectified.
In the third paragraph of the President's blast he cites that the division language requires a minimum of 100 pilots per seat. He also states the line writing parameters cover the divisions and will prevent poorer lines. The following is the correct information:
As per TA 5.E: All bid line parameters are by domicile, not by division.
From TA 5.A.7: "To establish a Near International or ETOPS Division, a minimum number of fifty (50) pilots in each seat or fifty percent (50%) of pilots in each seat, whichever is smaller, will be required."
There is certainly cause for concern. A division will not be protected by the line writing parameters, only the base will. If the division is rather small, it further increases the risk to your line quality. The minimum size of a division is 50 pilots per seat, not 100.
Your participation and voices have the Company and our president gasping for air. The Company recently sent their negotiators and labor representatives to various lounges
in bases they thought they could influence voters. In some cases, they showed up with a list of pilots checking in on the days they were there. They also sent their VP of Network Planning and Section 1 guru, Andrew Watterson, to some bases as well. Our own NC was strategically placed in various bases too. All of this means you have been heard.
While the Company may not yet be ready to execute on Section 1, we also know that codeshare agreements aren't worked out overnight. They do require some lead time. There is going to be time pressure on them at some point, even if not as
immediately as we would like. The Amadeus reservation system should go live in 2017 sometime (and full interline/codeshare capability after that) and while it's not as soon as we would like, 2017 isn't really that far away. Add the MAX and subsets and the Company has some hard decisions ahead of them.
Ask yourself why the Company is selling this TA so hard? It's such a good deal, shouldn't it sell itself? If the Company is pure in their Section 1 asks, why are they afraid of giving us a bigger hammer that should never have to be used.
If this is the best it gets with deceleration on the way, why does our stock continue to go up? Wall Street has no soul or concern for labor, but they are not stupid. Wall Street will not like the uncertainty and the problems created by two huge labor groups rejecting contracts one after the other. It will be seen as management has lost touch and does not have the confidence of labor. More focus will be put on Company management and
the SWA BOD. Management is addicted to Wall Street and the stock price.
Earnings. Last week the Company announced the third quarter earnings. As you ponder your vote, consider the Company's most recent earnings report. I'd like to share the
thoughts of OAK rep Brian Fitting on those earnings:
"The Company made $1.2 billion in operating income last quarter. Just to put that into perspective, they made enough money last quarter to pay for all seven years of improvements to this TA. Just stop and think about that for a minute. They made enough money this quarter to pay for this entire deal.
Lets talk about contracts. You get one chance a year to get an increase in pay. One. You get one chance every 7 to 10 years or so to make improvements or give concessions in a contract. One chance every 7 to 10 years to improve work rules or retirement. And once you give away some things, you will never get them back. If you vote in a 4 percent raise since 2012 you are saying yes to 1 percent raises a year since
our last raise. You will never get another chance to make those raises any bigger. Ever. Historical inflation over time is about 3.2 percent. We took a 0 percent raise in 2009 and a 0 percent raise in 2012. We will never get those raise opportunities back. We took a pay freeze when times were tough. We announced
our most profitable quarter in Southwest Airlines history today. Thirty-one percent ROIC. And your reward is a 1.25 percent a year since for 2013. The most profitable three year period in Southwest Airlines history. Let that sink in. When times are good we need to get more than 1.25 percent raises. Period.
Compounding is the key to all of this. The bonus is a sucker bet designed for you to take less money over time. If you make the raises small enough, it makes the bonus look big. If we would have gotten 3 percent a year in value (either a raise or improvement to retirement) your snap-up would have been 7 percent. The 3 percent more per year in hard pay would be roughly $7,500 per year for the average captain in 2016, and $4,500 per year in 2016 for an FO who made $150,000. Those amounts are how much more you make every year going forward. So the bonus money would be made up in three years or so. But you will not be earning that extra compensation every year going forward. For me, with 22 years left that extra
3 percent snap-up would be well over $150,000 in career earnings. The bonus is designed to get you to take less money over your career. Sucker bet. Period.
This isn't about what is fair, reasonable, or affordable. Three percent per year during record profits is fair, reasonable, and affordable. Acknowledging what we did in the past to help the success of this airline (relatively seamless SLI, 800,
etc.) is part of the equation. This is about Wall Street. This is about what everyone else making money off of your skill set wants to pay you. I, for one, will not accept this economic
package while giving concessions. During epic profits I ask you to tell me that one thing in the deal to hang my hat on as our big win. Still waiting for that answer."
One item that you may not be aware of is we have conceded our grievance regarding the "Quality of Life" training preference. If ratified, this will mean AQP/CQT will typically cost you an extra day off. Possibly two, depending on your sim schedule. I could stomach this if I got to bid where my training would go so I had some say in which day off I would lose, but I don't see why we should go backwards on this. To be fair, training pay is increased to 6.5 per day (better) but that doesn't get me time off, and that's what the Quality of Life preference is about.
The Path Forward
Notification and consultation with the Mediator will be accomplished. You may hear that the NMB is out of money or that we may be put on "ice." Remember, a mediator is a facilitator of negotiations, a go-between. There is nothing to prevent SWAPA and the Company from reaching an agreement in the future without the mediator. We will be
ready for whatever tack the Company takes and will respond legally and lawfully with whatever is required and to our strategic advantage. We will go on the offensive with forceful, lawful, and legal tactics. These will be well-thought-out and "red teamed" to take into account Company responses and counter-tactics. We will be ready for the fight and ready to give the Company a way to reach an agreement that is acceptable to us and them. How easy or hard it will be on the Company is up to them. No deal is better than a bad deal.
We will need a new NC. The members of a new team are already being discussed and the names I have heard are good ones with previous experience that will not require extensive training. These new members will know they are governed by the BOD and they will have no problems abiding by this. We will also have a BOD-authorized mechanism to make sure there is legitimate oversight of the new NC. We have some
promising names for further support of the NC who need to be vetted as well.
We will need a new president. He or she will need the confidence of the membership and the BOD. There will be accountability and leadership with a new president who
understands the critically necessary concept of working as a unified BOD. It cannot be a one-man show.
There will be some changeover on the BOD. We will get through the transition. It won't be as difficult as before due to the personalities and makeup of returning BOD members. We are, and will remain, a good team.
We will, of course, survey and poll the membership. We need to listen and hear you, not just go through the motions for appearance sake. We have already changed polling
policies to prevent a desired result. And just as important, we will communicate with the membership. We are put here by you and work for you. It is our duty to give you timely and regular updates, especially with negotiations.
The SPC will take a much more active role. We will not fire, ready, aim. Our public, as well as internal, actions, functions, programs, and activities will be well-targeted and thought-out, created for the most forceful impact, and become more and more frequent.
We will, at times, be as unpredictable as necessary in the Company's eyes for maximum impact. The most important thing you can do right now if you are a "no" is vote "no" and
join the SPC.
The BOD will reassure and reestablish the confidence in the staff at SWAPA. We will insulate them as much as possible from the politics. Our staff does amazing work and we will make sure they have the tools and the environment to do their jobs.
Now let's talk about the rumor the second deal will be worse. I do not believe that is true. These are different times and different metrics than the only time we turned down
a contract. We are not interested in rearranging the money. It will require more money and the Company can afford it.
Look at these previous examples of what other labor groups accomplished:
2002 SWA mechanics overwhelmingly voted down a contract in 2002 and got a better deal shortly thereafter.
2004 Flight attendants secured an industry leading contract using some non-traditional tactics that including picketing and in part were responsible for the ouster of the-then CEO.
2011 during Side Letter 12 (ETOPS/Near International) voting, you, the pilots of SWAPA sent a loud message to the Company you would turn the side letter down. In response, in the middle of the voting period, SWA came back to the table and it became Side Letter 14. your voice made the difference.
Now let's talk about trust; there is none. This Company cannot even be trusted with the current Section 1 language as is evidenced by the JetBlue fiasco. Do we realistically think for even a second they can be trusted with a new and Company friendly Section 1?. After the meetings in Los Angeles this summer, the Company was asserting they had always intended to do standalone (NO SWA LEG) Far International Codeshare.
Do you see the future the next round? Do you see how the Company will change their "intent and understanding" to suit their needs? Remember split to cover?
The Company can't even tell us the particulars of the divisions in Domicile or even what domiciles and yet wanted even more divisions. They are intent on degrading your flexibility and productivity.
Would we trust a Company who told us in Ops Day that the debacle of the summer of 2014 would not occur again this year?
Would we trust a Company that tried to make excuses and rationalize away the Midway Meltdown?
Give me one reason we would trust a CEO that hired Randy Babbitt? One.
Why would we trust a Company that made every effort to not allow us to picket in Houston? What are they afraid of? What are they trying to hide?
Remember the open time system that was supposed to have a test period? After evaluating the new program, we decided we wanted some changes but were told the IT department couldn't handle it.
Why should we trust a Company that goes to unprecedented maneuvers to JA our pilots including chasing pilots down and canceling non-rev listings on commute flight home to JA?
Why should we trust a Company that gave us the HSE debacle which was the failed attempt to try to make us complete new training for free?
Why would we trust a Company that gave us the infamous Flight Ops Employee Handbook to punish our pilots who are contractually compliant with regards to giving away and picking up certain types of trips?
Why would we trust senior management that backs down growth until Wall Street is satisfied?
Pilots are never given any credit at the negotiating table for the numerous side letters we agreed to sign to assist the Company in reaching the ridiculous level of profits they currently enjoy. Was our trust in the Company rewarded then?
And after all this, why would we trust a Company to abide by an MOU regarding PBS?
How would the Company gain back trust? For all our futures, we must give them an avenue. It begins with a more comprehensive TA that offers better protection and
compensation due to the risk we take for their betrayal of our trust, the eroding of the culture we came to work here for, the destruction of the operation, and endangering our
futures.
Let's see how valuable regaining our trust is! This is not just about the current TA but future contracts as this resets the bar and basis for all future contracts due to the sweeping and confusing changes.
Don't base your vote on fear. Your vote is your choice. Take care of each other, stay together, and do not give in. Fly the jet!
No Trust, No Contract!
Jon
Jon Weaks, Chair
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Atreyu
Regional
16
08-11-2008 10:10 AM
