BLAHBLAHBLAH

Let me guess, I Fly once every three months so you "know what's going on on line"!

symbian simian

Just looked at your post history.... You have been at WN about 8 months...... and at a non union airline before that.... maybe let the adults talk

And also, you don't work al DL or any other legacy, but you know your contract is better, but I am not allowed to chime in, because I am not at WN....

Prospect

Bunch of paranoia here any time someone posts something those on here don't agree with. I asked Lew a question regarding his post and you all chime in with posts that don't actually address the logic of what I said.

I'll wait for Lew.

symbian simian

Guess you are young enough to wait

Lewbronski

I don't know what SWAPA is asking for right now.

For argument's sake, let's say that SWAPA did go to the company and say, "We demand to keep all of the parts of our contract that are better than OALs, match them on all the parts that are worse, and we want rates that achieve a 30% career compensation premium on DL's current earliest upgrade scenario at the ten-year point." I imagine the company would not be open to that idea. I imagine they're not open to the idea of paying us more than some average of Delta's and Alaska's 737-800/700 rates.

Given that our negotiations play out on the battlefield of a RLA-governed landscape, in the current pilot hiring market, it then arguably becomes more important to have an idea of what the RLA says about reasonability and good faith bargaining than what the company thinks of our demands. As you know, the RLA itself mandates both sides in a dispute must "exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions." But what does that even mean?

It can be a long discussion. Wrapping the topic up in a crisp, tweet-sized summary does it a disservice; it doesn't bow well to the brevity of 280 characters. If you want to read a more in-depth analysis of the issue, check out this thread.

To make a very long story short, though, as the Supreme Court has acknowledged:

RLA jurisprudence offers a smorgasbord of instances where unions have been accused of making outlandish demands, yet were found to be within the boundaries of the RLA's reasonability parameters. Consider the TIA flight attendants, who had the audacity to demand a nearly threefold hike in their payroll expense. The ensuing legal battle saw TIA present the flight attendants’ demands, which exceeded 200% of TIA's total 1976 profits and represented a staggering 294.6% increase in flight attendant payroll costs, as a shining example of bad faith. For perspective, demanding a tripling of pay is an even more audacious bargaining move than if SWAPA were to ask for a 12-yr CA rate of $550/TFP at DOS. So, how did the court react to TIA's charge of the FA's negotiating in bad faith? The court ruled:

In fact, the judge in the TIA decision went on to explain:

Interesting, huh? What does all of that say about what might happen if SWAPA did actually demand $550/TFP at DOS?

Or, take the case of REA Express hauling the union in front of a federal judge, crying foul that the union's audacious demands would send them spiraling into bankruptcy. It begs the question, right? Are the union's demands crossing the line of reasonability if they're substantial enough to potentially push the company off the financial cliff? The court's verdict? Not so much:

That's also pretty interesting, IMO.

So, the question that's been gnawing at you: what would happen if SWAPA actually demanded $550/TFP at DOS and $600 at DOS + 3 years and commensurately "outlandish" contract terms in other sections? All I can say is, RLA case law has given us some food for thought. The ball's in your court.

hoover

the flight plan 2020 showed that we could get a 100% raise and the company would still be profitable at current costs. That's not even passing the cost on to the consumer.
a lot of what the union is asking asking work rules actually save the company money and that's not including the numerous meltdowns we've had since 2016. It's almost averaging one every six months.
the question is... can the company afford to not pay us what we're worth and the new work rules?
They had no trouble paying out 150% to fly our line and 200% to pick up last yr.
Also keep this in mind. Its basicaly a 10 yr contract. A 100% raise is barely keeping up with inflation if it continues the way it has been

pilotrob23

Ya, start at 400 plus for the raise, and fix medical, parking, crew meals, per diem, etc. This contract will be the game changer. Not sure about everyone’s expectations, but enough is enough I can see a huge raise, and lines at 90 trips. ELITT goes to crap. All about language. And 400 plus to start.

Mozam

False


SWA has nothing ( not one item) that is leading the industry. You are spreading falsehoods. Either you are lying or you are an idiot .

Grumpyaviator

Here and SKYW you have a pattern of attacking the pilot group from within. You have no idea what a real contract is or how to achieve it, coming from the boys’ club.

There is literally nothing in our contract that is better than anywhere else, unless you want to work yourself to death to earn the same money as your peers elsewhere.

From now on, we will call you CK jr.

waterskisabersw

What he said is ALMOST entirely false.

Our vacation bidding is better. That's it.

I won't even say that our reserve days off are better than some because it implies that our reserve is better which is absolutely not true. Just the fact that we get a few extra days off in there, which in and of itself is outweighed by the fact that they have long call reserve.