Cyio

I am clearly missing something. Where is all this union information that we are conceding on co-domiciles? Either I am missing emails/letters or this is all speculation. Really hope I am not missing something.

hoover

its a concession plain and simple. Two reps and an executive said they used this to get other items we want and those same people are bow saying its not a concession really? The company gave us CO terminals as well as other language because we allowed them to give us CO terminals?
I think the NC now knows they messed up and are trying to backpedal and get us to believe they are the best negotiators in the world.
one rep said we needed to give this ti them to break up a log jam in negotiations. How is that not a concession?
The NC needs to take this one back and run it through the process then let us decide. If not the face a recall if this TA fails.

hoover

yes you're missing stuff. A swapa NC email was sent out yesterday glossing over their huge concession they gave the company.

at6d

Easy to fix. It’s a no vote.

Grumpyaviator

My vote is NO

loveislost7M8

Another reason not to work for SWA:

Pilots out on STD/LTD are of no value to the Company.

WHACKMASTER

Jesus people. Have you seen the language and protections with this co-domicile stuff? The answer is obviously no, so why are so many of you flying off the handle?!

You do realize that the big boys have them and many of their pilots actually like the concept, right? Settle down Beavis…..FFS.

🔥👇

waterskisabersw

This.

Right now I'm tentatively opposed to the idea because I commute to reserve in one of the bases that's included in the co terminal proposal. So I would really want to see the language for protections.

If the protections are good enough, I have no problem with this at all, as my crashpad is within 30-60 minutes of either airport (traffic). And it might actually make it easier because one of the airports has way more flights than the other. The flights, however, are offline, hence why I want to see the language.

Now, all that being said, I'm also considering moving back to the co terminal to which I currently commute to (family reasons). Were I to do that, I would have absolutely no problem with this either knowing that the places I want to live are within an hour or two of both airports. If the new airport ends up being more junior, I might actually like that as it would give me an artificial seniority boost. The company and swapa have stated that parking would be covered in both airports (again, need to see the language).

I also reject the "double deadhead to cross town happens all the time". I've personally never seen that happen, and realistically the only time I've ever really seen it "in the wild" is for California bases, which aren't included in this deal.

Bottom line, I think the biggest potentials for problems are going to be a: the unknown factor of whether people will get involuntarily forced into doing co terminal flying, b: reserve language and protections, and c: second round line composition.

There are lots of people who live in my base who will absolutely love this. If there are enough people who like this, then this is a positive. If tons of people get involuntarily "displaced", it won't be.

Swapa bungled the education and polling on this though. There should have been base specific polling on how many people in each seat were for, neutral, or against opening up a co terminal in their respective bases. That wasn't done and now they're playing catch up after a section was already AIPed.

That makes it look like damage control, which makes it seem like they're polishing a concessionary turd, which brings up waaay too many memories of swapa of old. It's not a good look, and the membership is justified in being angry about the process, even if this is a net positive gain.

Lake Chuck

Rumor is SWA wants a deal before both BODs swap out. I believe SWA also changes shortly after the first of the year.

Traffic Alert

every pilot I’ve talked to personally (over 50) wants this. The whining few at TOF are a huge minority.