acl65pilot

He did not initially sell his house in MN, just bought one down here and then sold his a year or so later. (As I recall)

I agree with what you are saying. My wife was going to have her job moved to Houston, and the relocation package was eye watering. They bought the house from us at loan value, appraised value, or market value, which was ever more, paid for the move, commission, corporate housing while we built a new house, and all of the commissions with the new house. Paid for school for the kids for whatever portion of our tuition we could not get back, and were willing to provide me with paid tickets to work for two years. We were all over it, but they decided not to move her department.

Just to note, this is a small company, not a fortune 500 one. Privately held in the US, and makes below 20 million a year in profit.

Ferd149

I'm starting to think we should call the companies bluff and make them cost all of this out.

Have the union go to JG or higher and say, "we agree that commuting should be outlawed for the good of the company. We recommend everyone live within 100 miles of the base you're flying out of. If you (pilot) don't like it:

- retire
- resign
- take the company paid move"

I'll bet the cost of hiring, training, and moving would be eye watering. Then you'll see just how much the company REALLY believes commuting is a choice.

acl65pilot

Novel, but most could not see their houses if they wanted to. Many have spouses with careers in a city they live in, and cannot afford the loss of pay. Many have spouses that are major caregivers to their grandchildren so their daughters/sons can work.

There are a few that commute because they want to live in X, but most do it to keep a marriage together, and can afford to live with paycuts. Forcing pilot to get rid of that second income may wake a few of them up though.

FlyinPiker

That point is also where yes you get commutable trips, but the credit of those trips is usually crap.

Seems like you can either take the money or commutable trips but I would not count on both. Plenty of disgruntled 73N drivers up here. I agree with the others...tread lightly.

Waves

Bar, while I agree that we outsource way too much of our work, wow, I’m pretty sure you just offended me! So [all] 767 Captains are “Those that have theirs?” and “[We] don’t care what happens to anyone [else]?” That’s quite a blanket statement. Secondly, although we have more Captains than FO’s, I’m fairly sure that your contract vote counts the same as mine or any other Captain’s. How is it that we are “firmly in control?” I simply didn’t know I had that much clout. Hmmmmm.

tsquare

You are missing the bigger picture here too though Carl. The commuter flying was cancelled shortly after the merger was consummated, so that is not an issue. But since AT was a wholly owned subsidiary, THEY were a violation of the SWAPA scope clause, hence management's interference in the SLI process. AT could not fly under the SWA code as a separate entity, and management could not afford to do that. That is why GK went all Carl Icahn on them. Many think that this was a bad play though because he made second class citizens out of the AT pilots, and that will transfer to the group as a whole. Maybe.. maybe, they will be blinded by the money, but who knows? I would think that a AT captain that has been forced out of his seat would retain a fair amount of bitterness... I can't imagine that they would not. Your own Red/Green show should give you a better insight into that. My question is that SWAPA had a bunch of leverage to get contract improvements here, and chose not to do so, but rather let management come in and lower the hammer on their soon-to-be co workers. No way you can convince me that this was not a seniority grab based on that observation alone. Now comes all the lovey dovey stuff... and hopefully the AT guys will forget.. Point is though, you think it is management looking out for it's pilots, I see that very differently. Let's suppose that SWA made a run at an AK merger/purchase.. combination.. There will be those that argue that that would be a merger of equals.. I fail to see any difference in the AT merger save the payrates.. all 3 carriers fly 737s... period. I digress. Do you think the AK pilots would stand for being stapled in the same manner as the ATI guys? SWA management would be FORCED to come in with the same heavy handed tactics as they did with AT because of that scope clause. My bet is that if this scenario were to come up, that SWA management would get rid of that scope clause , or they would be forced to structure it in a different way.. as in maybe AK would be the surviving carrier. Thoughts?

PilotFrog

That is off the Council 66 FB page. Any info on what kind of changes are coming?

kamsman

What are the options/cost for a commute to NYC? Crash pad or hotel?

acl65pilot

LOA 31. Yesterday evening, your C44 representatives were informed that the Negotiating Committee had reached a tentative agreement with the company regarding beneficial changes to Section 23G5 and 23K of the PWA. This tentative agreement is titled LOA 31 Scheduling Modifications. We will be briefed at the upcoming MEC Meeting and will provide you with additional details as they become available.

shoelu

You have a rudimentary understanding of our contract at best. The AT purchase was NOT a violation of our contract. There is a provision to run a wholly owned subsidiary for 24 months after final closing. After that 24 month window all flying must be done by SWAPA pilots. We do not allow ANY domestic code share period.

SWAPA took an immediate stand that they would not release the company from section 1 protections to facilitate this transaction. SWAPA's assertion was that you made this deal without our consent knowing full well the stipulations regarding acquisitions in our current CBA.

The leverage to make contract improvements that you speak of would have been made at the expense of relaxed scope to allow the company to realize synergies earlier in the transaction. That was a deal that SWAPA was unwilling to make. We will not sell our scope for monetary short term gain. Scope is like a religion here. Any scope give concession will never be regained going forward.

You correctly assert that management is not in fact looking out for the pilots directly. But, management is most definitely looking out for the PRODUCT. The reason we do not outsource or codeshare is built around control of the product that is produced. Southwest wants complete and total control of the product they provide to paying customers. For these and many other reasons codeshare is not done at SWA.

You state that management would get rid of the scope clause in order to facilitate an acquisition on a larger scale is completely incorrect. Management cannot nullify any portion of our CBA without OUR CONSENT. Our consent will never be given. We like the way the agreement is written. It provides many disincentives for anything other than internal growth. Our section 1 also provides protections against structuring any deal where another entity would eventually be the surviving carrier after a merger.

SWAPA's scope provides for any flying done for Southwest Airlines, in any capacity, will only be done by SWAPA pilots on the SWAPA Master Seniority List. We do not budge on that. We will not even allow a SWA sticker on another aircraft unless it is flown by a SWAPA pilot.

Pilot grievance at Southwest Airlines turns into a good deed | Airline Biz Blog | dallasnews.com