1,221 Reasons Not to work for Southwest
10-03-2023, 04:32 PM
#1381
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 3,720
Did we eliminate the deadheads to LAX? Think we'll eliminate DH's to BNA? Better yet, are DH's to HOU now nonexistent? Or from for that matter? I can't tell you how many thousands of dollars I made on DH's to an already established base because of Scheduling's STC and premium avoidance kick... so saying that this will eliminate it is being Chicken Little.
So some get their drive longer, right? What about those whose drive would now be shorter? You keep skipping over those. It's a wash, T....
Depending on which side of the debate you're on.
A concession is where everyone takes it in the shorts... 10% paycut + force majuer language is/was a concession attempt. E V E R Y O N E suffers. Just because something may benefit the company doesn't automatically make it a concession. In fact, we both know this is not the case. As I've explained to you:
1) More pairings coming to a base with co-terminal if the company is successful in pursuing more gates and flying out of co-terminals; if they are successful, then it means more movement and more choices for people in that base. If they are successful, then that also means more (and better) commute options because we aren't limiting ourselves to airports only served by us. As I've shown to you, DAL isn't even a choice for you as an OKC commuter unless you want to drive. With DFW as co-terminal, you just gained 8 flights to start your trip. You may not see that as a plus. A guy/gal next door to you might.
2) It would be ridiculously stupid to have two separate bases in the same city and the example of that would be limiting and separating ELITT for two airports 10-15 miles apart; out-of-base priority for OT bidding at an airport in the same city. That would be just downright stupid.
3) Screaming this is a concession is akin to varsity players screaming we're all taking concessions and major pay cuts because they've grown accustomed to 200 TFP because premium was flowing. Is it a concession/paycut for those who only fly their line? Is it a concession/paycut for those who occasionally pick up someone else's trip in TTGA? Is it a concession/paycut for those who take their vacation and use it as earned paid time off vs. padding their paycheck? A little too loose with screaming concession there, T. Just because you may not like it does't make it a concession...
They sure did. And yes, they did steal OUR profit sharing. Does that make us obligated to burn them down and pull Carl Kuwitzky on anything they may ask regardless of whether it may be beneficial for us as well?
Now... this doesn't mean a blanket approval, but rather draft language that benefits us and protects us against them abusing it and hold any further expansion of the co-terminal language hostage based on how the roll-out here plays out. Again, EVERY OTHER MAJOR AIRLINE PILOT GROUP HAS THIS LANGUAGE. THIS IS NOT A NEW CONCEPT.
It's a concept.... not a concession. And just like the separate hotels issue, it certainly isn't the hill to die on one way or another, especially considering what SWAPA's mandate for C2020 is.
So some get their drive longer, right? What about those whose drive would now be shorter? You keep skipping over those. It's a wash, T....
Depending on which side of the debate you're on.
A concession is where everyone takes it in the shorts... 10% paycut + force majuer language is/was a concession attempt. E V E R Y O N E suffers. Just because something may benefit the company doesn't automatically make it a concession. In fact, we both know this is not the case. As I've explained to you:
1) More pairings coming to a base with co-terminal if the company is successful in pursuing more gates and flying out of co-terminals; if they are successful, then it means more movement and more choices for people in that base. If they are successful, then that also means more (and better) commute options because we aren't limiting ourselves to airports only served by us. As I've shown to you, DAL isn't even a choice for you as an OKC commuter unless you want to drive. With DFW as co-terminal, you just gained 8 flights to start your trip. You may not see that as a plus. A guy/gal next door to you might.
2) It would be ridiculously stupid to have two separate bases in the same city and the example of that would be limiting and separating ELITT for two airports 10-15 miles apart; out-of-base priority for OT bidding at an airport in the same city. That would be just downright stupid.
3) Screaming this is a concession is akin to varsity players screaming we're all taking concessions and major pay cuts because they've grown accustomed to 200 TFP because premium was flowing. Is it a concession/paycut for those who only fly their line? Is it a concession/paycut for those who occasionally pick up someone else's trip in TTGA? Is it a concession/paycut for those who take their vacation and use it as earned paid time off vs. padding their paycheck? A little too loose with screaming concession there, T. Just because you may not like it does't make it a concession...
They sure did. And yes, they did steal OUR profit sharing. Does that make us obligated to burn them down and pull Carl Kuwitzky on anything they may ask regardless of whether it may be beneficial for us as well?
Now... this doesn't mean a blanket approval, but rather draft language that benefits us and protects us against them abusing it and hold any further expansion of the co-terminal language hostage based on how the roll-out here plays out. Again, EVERY OTHER MAJOR AIRLINE PILOT GROUP HAS THIS LANGUAGE. THIS IS NOT A NEW CONCEPT.
It's a concept.... not a concession. And just like the separate hotels issue, it certainly isn't the hill to die on one way or another, especially considering what SWAPA's mandate for C2020 is.
In this "concept", we are giving up something we have in exchange for a promise. No thanks. I just checked my pockets, and I am fresh out of trust and pixie dust. Sorry your drive sucks. Move closer.
10-03-2023, 04:52 PM
#1382
gets time off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,249
Thanks for clearing up the definition of a concession. Is a B scale a concession? It benefits some pilots, after all, right?
In this "concept", we are giving up something we have in exchange for a promise. No thanks. I just checked my pockets, and I am fresh out of trust and pixie dust. Sorry your drive sucks. Move closer.
In this "concept", we are giving up something we have in exchange for a promise. No thanks. I just checked my pockets, and I am fresh out of trust and pixie dust. Sorry your drive sucks. Move closer.
10-03-2023, 05:00 PM
#1383
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,189
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.
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.
.
10-03-2023, 05:22 PM
#1384
Gets Weekend Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,794
Thanks for clearing up the definition of a concession. Is a B scale a concession? It benefits some pilots, after all, right?
In this "concept", we are giving up something we have in exchange for a promise. No thanks. I just checked my pockets, and I am fresh out of trust and pixie dust. Sorry your drive sucks. Move closer.
In this "concept", we are giving up something we have in exchange for a promise. No thanks. I just checked my pockets, and I am fresh out of trust and pixie dust. Sorry your drive sucks. Move closer.
Interesting though…. using your reasoning, opening a BNA domicile must also be a concession. After all, it’s got a bunch of commuters who will now get to drive to work, and it’ll come at the expense of lines and seniority in MDW, BWI and DAL and associated flying… Oh, and it’s gonna reduce the DH’s tremendously.
Do you really believe that? Pretty sure you don’t, but never know…
Or, are you perhaps a fan of a single base, say DAL, and have every single one of our trips begin and most of them end with a DH?
10-03-2023, 05:37 PM
#1385
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 3,720
A promise would be blindly trusting the company. No. Trusting SWAPA? Yeah.
Interesting though…. using your reasoning, opening a BNA domicile must also be a concession. After all, it’s got a bunch of commuters who will now get to drive to work, and it’ll come at the expense of lines and seniority in MDW, BWI and DAL and associated flying… Oh, and it’s gonna reduce the DH’s tremendously.
Do you really believe that? Pretty sure you don’t, but never know…
Or, are you perhaps a fan of a single base, say DAL, and have every single one of our trips begin and most of them end with a DH?
Interesting though…. using your reasoning, opening a BNA domicile must also be a concession. After all, it’s got a bunch of commuters who will now get to drive to work, and it’ll come at the expense of lines and seniority in MDW, BWI and DAL and associated flying… Oh, and it’s gonna reduce the DH’s tremendously.
Do you really believe that? Pretty sure you don’t, but never know…
Or, are you perhaps a fan of a single base, say DAL, and have every single one of our trips begin and most of them end with a DH?
If the company wants to use the same contractual rule to open an IAH or ORD domicile, they can be my guest. Right now, they want us to foot the bill for them. No thanks. I'm out of favors to give.
And not that it really matters, but I don't have blind faith in SWAPA. I think that it is easy to get into a groupthink mentality when you are in an insular organization. Right now, there are a few SWAPA execs and board members who are really selling co-domiciles, which is peaking my spidey sense. I do support SWAPA and believe that we will eventually arrive at a CBA that meets or exceeds the industry. It may just take an intention or two.
I will wait for the final language to make a decision. Who knows, maybe I will be pleasantly surprised and all our dreams will come true. I certainly hope this is the case.
10-03-2023, 05:48 PM
#1386
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,027
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.
For example: "Junior Available", "Rigs", "Double Time" etc., to name a few, all have different meaning than what was sold to the group to get them to vote yes.
We always find out the true meaning the hard way, after we ratify the language.
Last edited by SlipKid; 10-03-2023 at 06:08 PM.
10-03-2023, 07:05 PM
#1387
gets time off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,249
Nope. Opening the BNA domicile per the current CBA base opening rules is the status quo. By definition it isn't a concession since it already exists in the contract. There are contractual rules such as paid moves that make it fair and a potential benefit to the whole pilot group. Nobody is asking anyone to cover ATL and BNA on reserve. Nobody is saying that up to 20 percent of your current base lines are just going to start out of another airport.
If the company wants to use the same contractual rule to open an IAH or ORD domicile, they can be my guest. Right now, they want us to foot the bill for them. No thanks. I'm out of favors to give.
And not that it really matters, but I don't have blind faith in SWAPA. I think that it is easy to get into a groupthink mentality when you are in an insular organization. Right now, there are a few SWAPA execs and board members who are really selling co-domiciles, which is peaking my spidey sense. I do support SWAPA and believe that we will eventually arrive at a CBA that meets or exceeds the industry. It may just take an intention or two.
I will wait for the final language to make a decision. Who knows, maybe I will be pleasantly surprised and all our dreams will come true. I certainly hope this is the case.
If the company wants to use the same contractual rule to open an IAH or ORD domicile, they can be my guest. Right now, they want us to foot the bill for them. No thanks. I'm out of favors to give.
And not that it really matters, but I don't have blind faith in SWAPA. I think that it is easy to get into a groupthink mentality when you are in an insular organization. Right now, there are a few SWAPA execs and board members who are really selling co-domiciles, which is peaking my spidey sense. I do support SWAPA and believe that we will eventually arrive at a CBA that meets or exceeds the industry. It may just take an intention or two.
I will wait for the final language to make a decision. Who knows, maybe I will be pleasantly surprised and all our dreams will come true. I certainly hope this is the case.
10-04-2023, 12:19 PM
#1388
Gets Weekend Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,794
In this "concept", we are giving up something we have in exchange for a promise. No thanks. I just checked my pockets, and I am fresh out of trust and pixie dust. Sorry your drive sucks. Move closer.
Now... having talked to people on the line about this, I'm yet to run into an attitude like yours. Again, recall my post about 10% yessies, 10% of hardcore nays. You all seem to have made up your minds already. From my limited exposure on the line, most seemed ambivalent because it either doesn't affect them, a number see some benefit for this pilot group because the bases in question have reached capacity, and on the fringe side, I've had 1 newish FO who lives in SAN who is seriously eyeballing AA partly because they have SAN and SNA as co-terminals. When I called him on it, he said WB flying doesn't interest him, but upgrades and ability to drive to work in SAN or even SNA are what he seemed to value.
I've only run into diehard antis on this board and on some forums.
Nope. Opening the BNA domicile per the current CBA base opening rules is the status quo. By definition it isn't a concession since it already exists in the contract. There are contractual rules such as paid moves that make it fair and a potential benefit to the whole pilot group. Nobody is asking anyone to cover ATL and BNA on reserve. Nobody is saying that up to 20 percent of your current base lines are just going to start out of another airport.
If the company wants to use the same contractual rule to open an IAH or ORD domicile, they can be my guest. Right now, they want us to foot the bill for them. No thanks. I'm out of favors to give.
A pilot lives an hour from ORD and an hour from MDW. This pilot gets a crappy line in MDW. He sees a nice CUN trip pop into ELITT out of ORD. He trades his MDW crappy trip for ORD trip. Your plan wouldn't allow this to happen because under your plan, those would be separate bases.
A pilot lives 2 hours from IAH, but 45 minutes from HOU. He's looking for OT options. The pilot just wants an OT trip and doesn't mind a drive to IAH for a premium trip. Two trips pop up in OT - one out of IAH, one out of HOU. He bids on both using his HOU seniority. Under your plan, he'd only get to bid on one using his seniority and he'd have to bid on the other one using system seniority because they'd be separate bases. The pilot loses.
Seriously, what part of "unable to grow anymore at those airports" do you fail to understand? Is it because you base jump as a commuter so you don't care?
Speaking of commuting... here's another example.
A pilot is a regular commuter to DAL on us and flies PM's. Southwest decides to shift the commute flight to an earlier departure time from that commuter's city and it only gives him one option. This pilot has to leave home bright and early to get to DAL and then sit in the lounge for 5-7 hours before starting his trip. This pilot feels like his cheese has been moved, but currently has no other viable option. Under the co-terminal option, he can ELITT out of that DAL trip into a trip starting and finishing at DFW with far better commute options offline because there are generally way more of them. Under your plan, this pilot is stuck with DAL and his crappy commute on us, or he is forced to change bases within the same metropolitan area. StaffTraveler app is your friend if you want to compare options and explore the concept.
And not that it really matters, but I don't have blind faith in SWAPA. I think that it is easy to get into a groupthink mentality when you are in an insular organization. Right now, there are a few SWAPA execs and board members who are really selling co-domiciles, which is peaking my spidey sense. I do support SWAPA and believe that we will eventually arrive at a CBA that meets or exceeds the industry. It may just take an intention or two.
I will wait for the final language to make a decision. Who knows, maybe I will be pleasantly surprised and all our dreams will come true. I certainly hope this is the case.
10-04-2023, 12:40 PM
#1389
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2021
Posts: 466
You mean like first year FO's starting at 30% pay? That B scale? Come on, T.... don't play dumb. You know exactly what I meant.
Again... you failed to show me what we're giving up. And no, my drive doesn't suck one bit unless multiple accidents choke off the freeways and toll roads. In fact, I can lolly gag on reserve on the boat and wakeboard, and if tagged with a 2 hour callout, I can still make it to the airport that's farther than the proposed "co-domicile." So where you get the idea that my drive sucks or that I need to move closer is beyond me.... Somehow this meme seems appropriate:
Now... having talked to people on the line about this, I'm yet to run into an attitude like yours. Again, recall my post about 10% yessies, 10% of hardcore nays. You all seem to have made up your minds already. From my limited exposure on the line, most seemed ambivalent because it either doesn't affect them, a number see some benefit for this pilot group because the bases in question have reached capacity, and on the fringe side, I've had 1 newish FO who lives in SAN who is seriously eyeballing AA partly because they have SAN and SNA as co-terminals. When I called him on it, he said WB flying doesn't interest him, but upgrades and ability to drive to work in SAN or even SNA are what he seemed to value.
I've only run into diehard antis on this board and on some forums.
OK wiseass... when everyone agrees something is a concession, pretty *******ing sure it's a concession. Do we all agree that co-terminals are a concession? Not even close.
Come on dude... Hyperbole is not your friend. ATL and BNA are a 4.5 hour drive apart. IAH to HOU is 35-40 minutes, DAL to DFW - 20-25 minutes. MDW to ORD 45 mins to 1 hour depending on traffic. Now pepper the map where people live and you'll see the bidding patterns emerge, much like at every other major airline. Nice to have options, no?
Opening IAH, ORD, or DFW as separate domiciles would totally screw the pilots living in those metro areas or commuting there because you'd limit their ELITT options and you'd limit their OT seniority. Let me give you several scenarios:
A pilot lives an hour from ORD and an hour from MDW. This pilot gets a crappy line in MDW. He sees a nice CUN trip pop into ELITT out of ORD. He trades his MDW crappy trip for ORD trip. Your plan wouldn't allow this to happen because under your plan, those would be separate bases.
A pilot lives 2 hours from IAH, but 45 minutes from HOU. He's looking for OT options. The pilot just wants an OT trip and doesn't mind a drive to IAH for a premium trip. Two trips pop up in OT - one out of IAH, one out of HOU. He bids on both using his HOU seniority. Under your plan, he'd only get to bid on one using his seniority and he'd have to bid on the other one using system seniority because they'd be separate bases. The pilot loses.
Seriously, what part of "unable to grow anymore at those airports" do you fail to understand? Is it because you base jump as a commuter so you don't care?
Speaking of commuting... here's another example.
A pilot is a regular commuter to DAL on us and flies PM's. Southwest decides to shift the commute flight to an earlier departure time from that commuter's city and it only gives him one option. This pilot has to leave home bright and early to get to DAL and then sit in the lounge for 5-7 hours before starting his trip. This pilot feels like his cheese has been moved, but currently has no other viable option. Under the co-terminal option, he can ELITT out of that DAL trip into a trip starting and finishing at DFW with far better commute options offline because there are generally way more of them. Under your plan, this pilot is stuck with DAL and his crappy commute on us, or he is forced to change bases within the same metropolitan area. StaffTraveler app is your friend if you want to compare options and explore the concept.
I don't disagree with you there, and co-domiciles aren't a bad thing when you objectively look at them. I get the anger at the company... believe me, I get it. And I agree, the language has to be airtight. That's why dismissing this outright doesn't make sense if you at least pretend to be objective.
Me too. But then again, this could all be pure academic based on rumblings I heard from a jumpseater who supposedly spoke with a chief and the topic was sick leave accruals and balances. It was something along the lines of freezing our sick leave that we'd supposedly be able to cash out at retirement at then-rates but subject to creditors in the event of bankruptcy (hard NO from me) and some other schemes and supposedly in exchange for LTD/STD. I'll wait to see what SWAPA presents to us and will keep an open mind, but I have zero interest in giving up our sick leave balances or accrual rates. This should have been addressed as a sweetener for TA2 after we got leapfrogged by Delta. To me, this issue is far more important and has a much higher impact than co-terminals...
Again... you failed to show me what we're giving up. And no, my drive doesn't suck one bit unless multiple accidents choke off the freeways and toll roads. In fact, I can lolly gag on reserve on the boat and wakeboard, and if tagged with a 2 hour callout, I can still make it to the airport that's farther than the proposed "co-domicile." So where you get the idea that my drive sucks or that I need to move closer is beyond me.... Somehow this meme seems appropriate:
Now... having talked to people on the line about this, I'm yet to run into an attitude like yours. Again, recall my post about 10% yessies, 10% of hardcore nays. You all seem to have made up your minds already. From my limited exposure on the line, most seemed ambivalent because it either doesn't affect them, a number see some benefit for this pilot group because the bases in question have reached capacity, and on the fringe side, I've had 1 newish FO who lives in SAN who is seriously eyeballing AA partly because they have SAN and SNA as co-terminals. When I called him on it, he said WB flying doesn't interest him, but upgrades and ability to drive to work in SAN or even SNA are what he seemed to value.
I've only run into diehard antis on this board and on some forums.
OK wiseass... when everyone agrees something is a concession, pretty *******ing sure it's a concession. Do we all agree that co-terminals are a concession? Not even close.
Come on dude... Hyperbole is not your friend. ATL and BNA are a 4.5 hour drive apart. IAH to HOU is 35-40 minutes, DAL to DFW - 20-25 minutes. MDW to ORD 45 mins to 1 hour depending on traffic. Now pepper the map where people live and you'll see the bidding patterns emerge, much like at every other major airline. Nice to have options, no?
Opening IAH, ORD, or DFW as separate domiciles would totally screw the pilots living in those metro areas or commuting there because you'd limit their ELITT options and you'd limit their OT seniority. Let me give you several scenarios:
A pilot lives an hour from ORD and an hour from MDW. This pilot gets a crappy line in MDW. He sees a nice CUN trip pop into ELITT out of ORD. He trades his MDW crappy trip for ORD trip. Your plan wouldn't allow this to happen because under your plan, those would be separate bases.
A pilot lives 2 hours from IAH, but 45 minutes from HOU. He's looking for OT options. The pilot just wants an OT trip and doesn't mind a drive to IAH for a premium trip. Two trips pop up in OT - one out of IAH, one out of HOU. He bids on both using his HOU seniority. Under your plan, he'd only get to bid on one using his seniority and he'd have to bid on the other one using system seniority because they'd be separate bases. The pilot loses.
Seriously, what part of "unable to grow anymore at those airports" do you fail to understand? Is it because you base jump as a commuter so you don't care?
Speaking of commuting... here's another example.
A pilot is a regular commuter to DAL on us and flies PM's. Southwest decides to shift the commute flight to an earlier departure time from that commuter's city and it only gives him one option. This pilot has to leave home bright and early to get to DAL and then sit in the lounge for 5-7 hours before starting his trip. This pilot feels like his cheese has been moved, but currently has no other viable option. Under the co-terminal option, he can ELITT out of that DAL trip into a trip starting and finishing at DFW with far better commute options offline because there are generally way more of them. Under your plan, this pilot is stuck with DAL and his crappy commute on us, or he is forced to change bases within the same metropolitan area. StaffTraveler app is your friend if you want to compare options and explore the concept.
I don't disagree with you there, and co-domiciles aren't a bad thing when you objectively look at them. I get the anger at the company... believe me, I get it. And I agree, the language has to be airtight. That's why dismissing this outright doesn't make sense if you at least pretend to be objective.
Me too. But then again, this could all be pure academic based on rumblings I heard from a jumpseater who supposedly spoke with a chief and the topic was sick leave accruals and balances. It was something along the lines of freezing our sick leave that we'd supposedly be able to cash out at retirement at then-rates but subject to creditors in the event of bankruptcy (hard NO from me) and some other schemes and supposedly in exchange for LTD/STD. I'll wait to see what SWAPA presents to us and will keep an open mind, but I have zero interest in giving up our sick leave balances or accrual rates. This should have been addressed as a sweetener for TA2 after we got leapfrogged by Delta. To me, this issue is far more important and has a much higher impact than co-terminals...
Gold star post!
10-04-2023, 12:47 PM
#1390
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2016
Position: Left
Posts: 1,275
A promise would be blindly trusting the company. No. Trusting SWAPA? Yeah.
Interesting though…. using your reasoning, opening a BNA domicile must also be a concession. After all, it’s got a bunch of commuters who will now get to drive to work, and it’ll come at the expense of lines and seniority in MDW, BWI and DAL and associated flying… Oh, and it’s gonna reduce the DH’s tremendously.
Do you really believe that? Pretty sure you don’t, but never know…
Or, are you perhaps a fan of a single base, say DAL, and have every single one of our trips begin and most of them end with a DH?
Interesting though…. using your reasoning, opening a BNA domicile must also be a concession. After all, it’s got a bunch of commuters who will now get to drive to work, and it’ll come at the expense of lines and seniority in MDW, BWI and DAL and associated flying… Oh, and it’s gonna reduce the DH’s tremendously.
Do you really believe that? Pretty sure you don’t, but never know…
Or, are you perhaps a fan of a single base, say DAL, and have every single one of our trips begin and most of them end with a DH?
The company can open up any base anywhere without SWAPA permission. I would not call it a concession when the company is doing what is allowed per contract.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
