Why did TA1 fail? How can TA2 pass?
 

These two questions are closely related so I will give my opinions to both. Why it failed followed by the remedy in --- --- I posted this at swapilotforum.com also.

1) Ratification bonus was too low. The side letters added $2bn in revenue over 2 years in my understanding yet we were offered $125m as a bonus. ---Bonus needs to be doubled---

2) No appreciable increase in 401(k) contribution (match). Our peers get a 15-16% contribution but we are stuck with a 10% match. ---As a compromise institute a 150% match to a max company match of 15% with no cap---

3) Redeye override went from 15% to 3%. ---Leave it at 15%---

4) 4% DOS snap up. ---Needs to be 8%---

5) "The Association" can waive rule allowing only single DH after redeye. ---Either define "The Association" or remove that language---

6) Can only ELITT redeye flying for redeye flying. --Remove--

7) Giving away Max flying for free. ---No way. It needs an override or separate pay scale. This is potentially a 200 seat airplane. Is it not? I don't want to fly a 757 for 737 pay---

8) "The Association" can waive codeshare protections (PDEW). ---Either define "The Association" or remove that language---

9) MOU= back door PBS. ---I don't want a single swapa dollar going towards this study---

10) Fatigue calls require a fatigue report before you get paid. Really? We are adults here. ---Remove---

11) No appreciable improvements to reserve. ---Reserve needs to be more palatable. Pay per day, trip ownership etc.---

No, this is a 175 seat aircraft just as the -800 is (max certified capacity is 189). The MAX8 can only hold over 189 if it's configured as-such (MAX200) which is a MAX8 with an auxiliary exit behind the wings on both sides, something WN hasn't ordered. This would also change the internal galley config (which was designed around 175 and is currently being built) and change the seat pitch which is a hard 31"-32" .

The MAX8 with an active auxiliary exit (and 5th FA) can accommodate 200, and the MAX9 with an active auxiliary exit can accommodate 215 (again, with a 5th FA).

For 2)
How about a defined sum (not percentage) and then the 1/1 match to hit the maximum annual contribution?
$17k per pilot costs ~ $137 million, then up to $18k of match for the <50 crowd and up to $21k of match for the >50 crowd...

While outside the scope of TA2, the board of directors should consider taking ESPP to the 423(b) limit of 85 percent from the current 90 percent. A show of appreciation for all the hired help "thinking like owners."

2 cents

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure which configuration they plan to order. The MAX9 is not in the reopener section. Still the -800 and MAX8 are significantly larger than the -700 so some additional compensation would be in order. The turn times alone with these airframes warrant it.

This would be ideal, especially for the early years when it's hard to get to the ERISA limits of the 401(k).

The MAX900 is in the re-opener language currently.

M. RE-OPENER
In the event that the Company, during the duration of this Agreement, should: (1) acquire for its use any type of aircraft other than the B717, B737-300, B737-500, B737-700, and the B737-800

I don't see the MAX900 in there. I understand this language to mean that if they acquire any aircraft other than those specified below the contract must be re-opened to negotiate a pay rate. I also take this to mean that if we do not have a new contract when the MAX700s and/or MAX800s arrive on property that we will in fact be legal to fly them. The company must open this section to negotiate rates but that's it. As we've seen this could take years.

M. RE-OPENER
In the event that the Company, during the duration of this Agreement, should:
1. (1) Aacquire for its use any type of aircraft other than the B717, B737-300, B737-500, B737-700, B737 -700 MAX, and the B737-800, and the B737-800 MAX ;

This agreement will be reopened for the sole purpose of negotiating wages, rates of pay, relocation expenses, bidding, and hours or conditions of employment particularly applicable to the specific situation. If the FAA, or the Company, or other competent authority restricts any ... this paragraph shall apply.

No mention of Subsets? Probably the biggest pay and QOL hit in the entire TA1.

Agreed. Just add it to the list.

Get rid of the PBS MOU.
Get rid of any and all references to off shore domiciles.
We get an equity stake in any and all codeshare.
No FA me too clauses.

Good start SB. I'd also add:

12) Five year contract (or less!) I see too many factors ahead in the next couple of years that will only increase our leverage. Not a good time to be stuck on the sidelines with TA1's seven year duration.

13) The company wants to crack open Sect 1, and add subsets for the pilots? Fine...keep the PDEWs, tighten up the subset language, and give us some compensation (above and beyond the retro/bonus) for our increased career risk.

14) Some small housekeeping stuff that is long overdue like: a real COLA increase in Per Diem, a parking & uniform allowance, and language mandating minimums for hotel standards and health plans.

So here we are so far...

1) Ratification bonus was too low. The side letters added $2bn in revenue over 2 years in my understanding yet we were offered $125m as a bonus. ---Bonus needs to be doubled---

2) No appreciable increase in 401(k) contribution (match). Our peers get a 15-16% contribution but we are stuck with a 10% match. ---As a compromise institute a 150% match to a max company match of 15% with no cap---

3) Redeye override went from 15% to 3%. ---Leave it at 15%---

4) 4% DOS snap up. ---Needs to be 8%---

5) "The Association" can waive rule allowing only single DH after redeye. ---Either define "The Association" or remove that language---

6) Can only ELITT redeye flying for redeye flying. --Remove--

7) Giving away Max flying for free. ---No way. It needs an override or separate pay scale. This is potentially a 200 seat airplane. Is it not? I don't want to fly a 757 for 737 pay---

8) "The Association" can waive codeshare protections (PDEW). ---Either define "The Association" or remove that language---

9) MOU= back door PBS. ---I don't want a single swapa dollar going towards this study---

10) Fatigue calls require a fatigue report before you get paid. Really? We are adults here. ---Remove---

11) No appreciable improvements to reserve. ---Reserve needs to be more palatable. Pay per day, trip ownership etc.---

12) Five year contract (or less!) I see too many factors ahead in the next couple of years that will only increase our leverage. Not a good time to be stuck on the sidelines with TA1's seven year duration.

13) The company wants to crack open Sect 1, and add subsets for the pilots? Fine...keep the PDEWs, tighten up the subset language, and give us some compensation (above and beyond the retro/bonus) for our increased career risk.

14) Some small housekeeping stuff that is long overdue like: a real COLA increase in Per Diem, a parking & uniform allowance, and language mandating minimums for hotel standards and health plans.

15) Subsets—enough said

I am 100% against PBS...but the MOU is a red herring. I'm perfectly happy to meet and talk with the company about alternate bidding methods. Is it conceivable that we may actually IMPROVE on our current system without going off the PBS cliff?

If you are afraid of the MOU you hear black helicopters in your sleep and you voted No out of FEAR.

PBS is never happening here, let the company have their MOU and pretend you made a concession.

I definitely voted NO! out of fear.

I was afraid of what I KNEW was in TA1, as well as the stuff that wasn't in it.

The PBS MOU was not a red herring. If the company didn't/doesn't want PBS, it wouldn't even be a negotiating issue. Or an MOU.

If PBS is such a red herring how about a mutual meet and discuss red herring FOR a B fund?
The company has shown its hand. They need partnerships. They want an off shore domicile to link the Max to deep S America. Hence redeyes. They want sub sets. They want PBS badly. They hate how we can turn one week vacation into three. They don't mind paying.74 rig because we are more inefficient. .85+ not so much. Management is 100 steps ahead of SWAPA.

I'm not trading relief on PBS for ANYTHING. I don't think you realize how good we have it scheduling wise. PBS would be a drastically negative change to our QOL & pay. Please, for crying out loud DO NOT even entertain that idea!

I don't get it. Considering the record profits, etc, why would we even think about conceding on anything? WHY?!

I despise the idea of PBS. The MOU opens the door for it. I want that wording gone. My suspicion is that if the lines and subset schedules and throw in red eye flying gets so bad, it will be the weak and unimaginative SWAPA asking for it.

Exactly. I don't even want the MOU wording in there. PERIOD! Especially after our president tried to slip one by us leading to his resignation, I don't trust SWAPA to handle things properly.

Completely agreed. ALL "PBS" or "Computerized Bidding" or any such reference needs to be REMOVED completely.

100% agreed. We don't want PBS! Ever.

Because we are SWApA. Don't you know that you make more than a teacher does already?

But we already do computerized bidding?

You guys burn a witch lately?

And you think a meet n greet with the company will get you a b-fund? Bout as likely as a meeting about bidding will result in PBS.

Except that we're almost guaranteed to get PBS in this case and there's zero % chance of a B fund, because the company refuses to even discuss it. Which is what we should do about PBS.

So our current bidding system is as good as it could ever possibly be and there's no way to improve it?

1Seat, I mean no ill will, but unless you have worked under "PBS" or a "computerized bidding system", in the true sense of that type of schedule bidding system, you are simply speaking from a position of ignorance.

Could our bidding system could be "improved"? (1) Commutable 3 or 4 day trips? Yes. (2) Better trip mixes for each base? Yes. (3) More Turns and 2 Days? Yes. PBS does not do these things, except for the most very senior pilots in each seat. The most senior in each seat under our current system already "pick most of the fruit off the tree" each month anyway.

PBS will only exacerbate these problems and the bottom 90% of us well eat crap each month, each summer, each holiday, and each vacation. Playing word games in simply nonsense, you know we currently bid "hard lines" via computer, and that is a whole different animal from PBS.

In all honesty, though, how do you want to "improve" our hard line system? I feel all of us are open to this discussion.

Actually, PBS only distributes the pairings it is fed, so under PBS all these deficiencies would be much more onerous to the pilot group as a whole. The ultra senior will gobble up every desirable pairing in the mix leaving nothing but the cast offs to the junior folks. The very junior end up with the truly undesirable leftovers. At least the current system distributes the good with the bad making everyone deal with at least some of the junk as it's distributed through all the lines.

PBS sucks any way you slice it. At least now the junior folks enjoy 3 weeks off for each week of vacation and are able to work the monthly overlap.

T#2 and #4 above seems to be more than justified based on the June 2015 salary survey. SWA 2 years ago, more than beat the legacy through year 5. Now with the salary lagging, 16% 401k contributions by legacy and commuting vs living in domicile (yes this is correctable) makes a difficult decision if offered a CJO -vs- flow to mainline carrier in a year. It would come down to, if fortunate to get a CJO, intangibles like better working environment and other benefits. Your thoughts on the intangibles that may be overlooked are welcomed ! (The link does not require a login)

Professional Pilot June 2015 - Login

I'm in the bottom 10% but here is what I'd like to see in order to earn my vote (non compensation):

I'd like to see improved reserve (not just $$, but QOL) , industry standard retirement (at least a partial defined contribution), and a volunteer list for JAs (so guys on line don't get tagged as often) plus no more being JA from a trip awarded via open time. JA on a holiday should pay triple in my opinion.

Hotel language, crew meals on any leg over 5 hours or any international turn.

You left out parking and uniforms, but otherwise I concur.

When do we expect (best conservative guess) for a new TA to be passed and how do we expect pay/401k cont will compare to other airlines?

Thanks

They haven't even started negotiations and technically the company is under no obligation to do so until the NMB requires them to. If I were a betting man I'd say we won't see anything to vote on in 2016.

And yes, although I hate to waste negotiating capital on parking and uniforms they seem like they should be a no brainer Rolf.

Any guess as to what to expect eventually? Industry standard for pay/401k? Thanks

Your guess is as good as mine.

I got called for the polling. I requested chair massages in the lounge and Kernal Override pay.

Why did TA1 fail? How can TA2 pass?
 

There is a Facebook group discussing TA2 thoughts. If you haven't seen it, check it out. Search Southwest Airlines pilot TA2

As a United / Former CAL pilot I need to warn you about PBS.

Management calls it "preferential bidding system." You enter your preferences into the computer and assign various weights. the computer crunches it out and sees if it can do it. Trouble is; it doesn't nececerily honor seniorirty. It crunches the requests simultaneously to drive a solution of zero open trips.

What pilots think it does is look at request one from pilot one and so on, until it gets to the last pilot in the base. This would honor seniority.

If you are a young kid with lots of computer skills and junior you will love PBS. You can maximize your seniority and take the premium trips while the old-timers are still trying to figure out how to bid.


You have computerized bidding, but you don't have PBS. Big----BIG difference.

Here's what management won't tell you about PBS. PBS is actually an absence management system. Managment enters in all known and forecasted absences and "highly encourages" their military pilots to enter in all their drill dates, etc before the solution runs. This is how managment can do more flying with less pilots.

At CAL, when PBS was implemented, we lost 400 pilots due to attrition. They were not replaced even though our block hours went up and we bought more jets. How could this be? Efficiences gained by PBS.

PBS was supposed to be about a 750 million dollar concession the pilots gave up in a concessionary contract. The real value was more like 1.3 billion after we had a chance to understand it. A few years later after PBS implementation we figured out where all the "efficiencies" were and why managmenet wanted PBS so bad.

PBS is an absence managment system that is designed to staff all known flying and deconflict all known and forecasted absences to drive the solution to zero open trips. The result is: pilots lose control over their schedules, cannot have any conflicts with trips (ie vacation or military leave, or other leaves/absences).

We had entire runs during both Thanksgiving and Christmas in entire bases crash. More than a few times. We had the number one B757 Captain in Newark flying Christmas one year.....Go figure....

Right now, I have two pilots junior to me getting awarded lines, but I am somehow stuck on reserve. Can't figure why PBS isn't "working" for me.

We have people that have started paid bidding services. You pay some young computer whiz-kid 100.00 per month and he bids for you. This helps keep you off reserve and avoid red-eyes.

It is my experience that the top ten percent and the bottom ten percent of line holders do OK under PBS.

The very senior can protect themselves. The very junior can steal flying from those not smart enough to crack the code.

The rest of the 80 percent of the pilot group will hate it.

PBS homogenizes the time. The number 13 pilot in a base will have the same suckey schedule as the number 88 pilot in the base.

The pairings fed is critical. Unless you (your pilot union) have absolute and total control over the pairings being built, then the company will build the pairing and drive the solution.

We had a PBS mafia within the CAL pilot group that was led by former Peoples Express pilots from our NC. They told us PBS was an "improvement". It was marketed as such because of all the fancy bells and whistles.

None of that stuff means anything unless you can out smart the guys JUNIOR to you. Seniority is gone once the junior pilots figure out how to trick the computer into giving them your trips. management doesn't care who flies the trip, but the system should be re-named: BITSBS. But In The Seat Bidding System. Because that's what it really does, puts a butt in the seat, without regard to seniority.

I've been told that PBS is off the table anyway.

See you guys at the IP events. About time.

BOD and NC are meeting right now and looking over the polling data. Wonder if they'll release it to the pilot group so that we can see where the priorities lie?