Originally Posted by bay982

It seems clear nowhere near 50% of the membership is ready to accept this late-notice course change.

It’s also very clear that the company has not earned the privilege to be given the benefit of the doubt on any language.

It’s completely unclear why SWAPA would agree to incorporate this change now. There’s absolutely no good reason we can’t implement a new contract and then take our time to work only on this substantial change. It’s not like we haven’t made single-issue agreements in between new contracts. Why would we not take a cautious approach to a large unknown issue?

Originally Posted by Hobbit64

I would say that if FH wanted to delay the progress, while fracturing the pilot group into factions and diminishing trust in SWAPA; the introduction of co terminals was an excellent play.

I for one would’ve loved to see it immediately rebuffed until further research etc was done.

Originally Posted by Caveman

Ah yes...the dreams of explosive coterminal growth have already blinded many to the unintended consequences.

Last minute Company ask. Not polled. What could go wrong.

Why even consider any concessions

Originally Posted by Hobbit64

I would say that if FH wanted to delay the progress, while fracturing the pilot group into factions and diminishing trust in SWAPA; the introduction of co terminals was an excellent play.

I for one would’ve loved to see it immediately rebuffed until further research etc was done.

Originally Posted by RJSAviator76

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...

Originally Posted by hoover

all of your scenarios can happen without co terminals but now they start with a DH from another base that you can waive and get paid for. Under the co terminals you no longer get this. That's why people are against it.
also saying we need it to grow the base is not a good argument. Itll once again be maxed out very shortly.
No one is saying make the co terminals a base instead. That would never happen and shouldn't.
I think we've all beat this one to death and I think everyone has their opinions on it and its probably not going to change.
as another data point I havent spoke with anyone who's for this, however, I man not in one of the affected bases.
this sick leave/accrual is what's going to lead us to strike or a failed TA1.
Remember it was polled if we were willing to give up sick for xx. I could see the NC trying to find a balance in this to get the deal done. That would also be a concession to me.