I've got to respectfully disagree with you on this one. If we follow your train of thought then during an economic downturn, we should hold out for large contractual gains since prosperity is just around the corner. Is that what we hear or, are we told "take what we can get now and we'll get them next time?"

We have leverage, economic prosperity, and a company at the limits of contractual scope. Scope busting orders that will be parked in the desert.

If not now, when?

I have heard a rumor that one of the issues that the Company wants relief on is being able to increase the amount of flying for wide body flying to the limit of Part 117. My stance on this would be a "no" vote because I do not believe that it is safe, and it would impact the staffing matrix for wide body airplanes. This would mean less wide body positions and reduced career progression. I do not fly international for the time being, so I don't know if there are any specific issues that I am ignorant about. Any input would be greatly appreciated!

Well sir. Now is Now. Not three years from now. SWA has been in Sect 6 since 2012. No raise since then. The timing is excellent...I agree. Let's ink some gains!

Its not a rumor its called FRMS and it is one of the 5 items. FRMS allows the airline, union and FAA to agree on waivers for specific flights for 117 rules. Flights that leave late at night SFO/LAX - SYD/MEL, SFO-TLV, EWR-DEL, EWR-BOM, EWR-TLV etc.

There are two ways to look at this:

1. If FRMS gets approved then the company will need less reserves to cover the 30mins of legality that these crews have. So as you say less wide body staffing.

2. If FRMS does not get approved then we will not operate these long late night flights because it is to expensive and unreliable. This will SIGNIFICANTLY reduce wide body staffing.

So what is the right answer? 117 has no business restricting INTL flying we have safely flown INTL for decades without incident. Why? because we have 3 or 4 pilots. Were the pilots that took off for SYD the day before 117 went into affect unsafe, and the pilots that left for SYD the next day more safe? The company needs FRMS to fly its network and right now we restrict it. In my opinion we don't need it to be restrictive however we SHOULD NOT just give it to them. Make them pay for it!

This whole negotiation is driven by FRMS, IMO. Ultra long flights cannot comply with FAR117 on a regular basis, so the FAA allows exceptions. Currently, ALPA has equal say with management on these exceptions. FAA approval is required, of course. That is what the company wants to tweak. That and automatic pay for waiving duty which makes it less likely that Intl flights will cancel. It's all about the 787 and the ultra long haul flying. Question is...how much will they pay? Making furloughees whole and getting 100 seaters at mainline isn't nothing! A nice pay raise would be nice too.

MoP beat me to it!! :)

I'm all for gains. Gains shouldn't minimized by fear. We've had enough of that.

The company stands to profit from their new found international flying. How much profit will that leverage afford us?

Yes, "100 seaters" at mainline isn't nothing. What's preventing them from doing it right now? I know what's preventing them from sending them to the regionals.

Ever wonder what kind of flexibility the ME3 carriers have with their pilots flying long haul routes? The market has a funny way of dealing with self imposed competitive disadvantages.

IMHO, the 100 seaters are either going to happen or not. That will not influence my vote either way. Our scope forbids it (100 seaters) and I WILL NOT give that to the Company at any price. I just want to know how increasing hours of service on long haul/wide body aircraft would be a positive or negative. Thanks for your advice!!!

You barely scratched the surface on this one. ICAO rules don't require bunk time to be counted towards monthly flight time limits. They can fly way over 100 hours a month if you count the flight time like we do. And they do.