MudhammedCJ

The company must really want this "Co-Terminal" BS. The shills are lining up on their knees to tell us how great it's going to be. Then there are the obvious couple who live 3 minutes away from the proposed co terminal in one of the cities. As long as they get theirs, who cares about the guys that get screwed in the fallout. Quite simply, the company feels like they need this. For us to give it up is a concession. It will strip value out of our contract. And their will be unintended consequences. Three bases will have pilots that will have to live with those forever. And they'll find a way to jam this up Baltimore's tail pipe. As well as Orlando's and LAX's too.

Lastly, they are using unique language (terminology). Anyone who has been here more than a month or two knows that they use this type of language to create loopholes in what we might have thought was solid language. Stop falling for it. I'm tired of living with the crap you genius's vote yes to.

ZapBrannigan

I believe by adding the apostrophe to the end of genius’s it implies possession - as in “that was the genius’s vote”. The plural of genius would simply be geniuses. 🤓

Cyio

I really dont consider myself a company shill and I also dont believe SWAPA was ignorant to the fact the company wanted this bad. I would assume SWAPA gave in on this for something we wanted, but who knows, I guess we will see when the TA is finally available and we can all vote accordingly.

Anyone here that thinks we should get every single thing we ask for without the company getting some wins is delusional, it just wont happen. The mediator wont let it happen, the company wont let it happen and honestly, it's just not how deals are done. What we can demand though in this environment is getting more for the companies asks than we could have in the past. That's where SWAPA hopefully is, getting the most gains for the fewest gives, but to think we wouldn't have to give them anything is false.

RJSAviator76

Seems that way, doesn't it? Ever stop and wonder why? If you bother to read into it, this is happening because MDW, DAL and HOU have either reached or are approaching their capacity limit and cannot sustain further growth. Of all those, HOU may be the only one that may grow, but the airport is gonna go down to one runway for about a year. Also, you cannot fly international out of DAL. MDW is literally tapped out. So what's your answer? What would you do if SWA BOD said I want MudhammedCJ to turn this ship around from the bean counters? Surely you're a pilot, and as such, you are incredibly smart and talented. You're also an industry veteran and a professional, so I know you'll come up with something else. So what would it be? Or MudhammedCJ being our new SWAPA President.... what would you do for our pilot group when the company presents the evidence of why they want this and they do so in mediated session? What's the MudhammedCJ answer?

There is no doubt this would be great for those who live closer to these co-terminals. Shorter drive to work. More time to show up if you're on reserve and premium if you're called out with less than 3 hours to check-in, so 4 hours prior to push. What's not to like? I think it's awfully presumptuous of you to assume that everyone lives near MDW, DAL, or HOU as if it's only a handful of people living much closer to ORD, DFW or IAH. But forget about the locals for now. Let's talk about commuters. Are you a commuter? Which of these airports have better commute options, MDW or ORD? DFW or DAL? HOU or IAH? Yesterday, I shared a few examples where some commuters score with this concept because they no longer need to drive hours just to get to an airport we serve, or ride Uber to get to or from work. Awfully presumptuous to say that this only benefits very few people. It benefits everyone because to Wall Street, this company has to expand or it becomes a dying company kinda like it is now with all our eggs being in MAX 7's, the expansion benefits us for obvious reasons, and if this is the vehicle to do it, beyond pulling a Carl and plugging your ears, closing your eyes and screeching NO! NO! NO! why wouldn't you do it? Because this is something the company wants?

Yet AGAIN.... shoot holes through this. Right now, you're just b!tching. What specific language would you like to see in this? Read the list and pray tell... what else would you add, what would you discard?

Here's my take on this....

Is this gonna eliminate some double DH's to cover flying? I'd say no different than eliminating double DH's to/from BNA coming 2Q2004, but using the existing base structure vs. starting a new base with the new base infrastructure that's literally across town. Every legacy already has language about this concept and they actively use this. And no, I don't see the double DH's ending because as long as the idiots in charge of Scheduling aren't counting actual dollars spent and keep defining their success as not having awarded premium, the crazy DH combos will continue. But the onus is on the company to make this work because let's face it, how many gates do we have at ORD, IAH and DFW? What is our current capacity there? What's our forecast capacity out of those airports and based on what? Think AA is just gonna hand us the E terminal in DFW? How about in ORD? Think we can score the E terminal at IAH?

So, is this the hill to die on like so many of you "REAL men of genius" are suggesting? Not for me... I couldn't care less one way or another as this isn't the steak, nor potatoes, nor salad, or even the rolls. This is sprinkles that some will like, and some won't... kinda like a split between those who only fly their line and never pick up, and those who play the OT game their entire career. Whichever way this goes, it doesn't sway my vote one way or another, though I am interested in the final language of the co-terminals. Instead, I'm waiting to see the LTD, pay rates, I want to dissect the sh*t out of LCO and shoot holes through it like it's a target at an outdoor gun range. I want to see the final language as that's what Jody said on the podcast - unlike before and at legacies, they're not AIP-ing the concepts and then hammering out the language after AIP becomes a TA or worse, after TA gets ratified - they're doing it right then and there so there's no ambiguity or notes from 50 years ago. So I trust them to do that.

It is time to turn off the emotion and turn on the brain. Start thinking and stop falling for squirrels.

Caveman

For the big brains scolding the naysayers.

If these airports are maxed out.

Then why not just open another domicile across town.

Quit selling for the Company already.

e6bpilot

So your entire argument is that those who are against this are being dramatic and big growth is coming if we approve it?

This is going to require pilots to cover two airports in areas that are geographically enormous with terrible traffic. Once approved, it's only a matter of time before it comes to an east or west coast base near you where it will be absolutely draconian. It's an enormous change to the status quo and the way we do business. It has the potential to erode quality of life for a lot of pilots and benefit only a few.

I agree that the double DH scenario is rare in the central time zone, but the single DH scenario happens every day. Lots of pairings start with a DH to ORD or IAH from a base outside the co-terminal area and then end with a deadhead. To the 50 or so percent of us that commute, those pairings are gold. To the pilot group, they are money that is available in the system for doing little or no work. To the company, they are a cost to be controlled, which is exactly what is happening here.

This proposal is not a win for the pilot group. It is a concession that is being expectation managed by SWAPA. A couple of reps and a VP are hard selling this as a good thing. It is if you made the poor decision to move to the Woodlands, southern Wisconsin, or Fort Worth. Not so much if you commute or live near the main terminal.

I would hope this pilot group learned a lesson when it comes to accepting huge changes with the promise of "big growth", but maybe not. I will wait on the data from SWAPA that I hope is forthcoming on the number of current deadheads in and out of the existing stations that we use as co-terminals and the language to make a final analysis, but I currently view this as a big concession.

Anyone who has seen the operation at our current IAH and ORD stations knows what a disaster they are. AA and UA aren't going to let us grow in their mega bases outside our sad little footprint in the outpost gates that we were allowed to occupy during Covid. This is about the NCR and California bases that already have an existing SWA dominance. They know that eventually this can and will be used to allow those to be co-terminals. It may not happen for years, but it will and that will be a HUGE cost savings to the company and corresponding erosion of pilot QOL and pay.

RJSAviator76

Completely disagree with you there. You only see your side of the argument and are completely oblivious to the other.



Now THIS is what I want to see the company fight and win. They can demand co-terminals in California and Florida, and if they aren't beneficial to us, SWAPA made it clear - they need to approve any further co-terminals, so elections matter. Watch who you vote for.... you gonna elect another Carl or you gonna elect another Jon or another Casey or someone who partook in early ELITT.... ? As Obama said "elections have consequences...." Man, was he right....

RJSAviator76

Because it's dumb? And no other airline builds a completely separate domicile with complete independent domicile structure 10-15 miles away?

Just spitballing here....

RJSAviator76

E6B.... you're a HOU guy who commutes, right? HOU is a base that's capped now because we've run out of real estate plus the impending runway closure. Question for you.... which scenario is better:

A) HOU base 600 pilots per seat and it remains the same size because it's maxed out so your upward movement is based on seniority list departures or people choosing to change bases?

or

B) HOU base with IAH co-domicile with 740 pilots per seat with the onus and pressure on the company to get more gates and revenues out of the co-domicile?

Which one gives you greater seniority, gets you off reserve quicker through movement, gets you progressing quicker and gives you more commute options?

flyguy81

Maybe because 10 departures a day doesn’t remotely rise to the level of creating a base.