Possible SWA T.A. pay numbers... Embrace the suck.

[outerlimits]

In a lounge today with an assistant chief hob nobbing. No sales job. He stood no chance against the unanimous no's in the room, some were very po'd. He mostly just listened. Tried to interject a few times but almost shouted down. Refreshing.

Your CP s. Work weekend ?


A friend of mines father is one for you guys ,he says hey only work M-F .

I wonder if it has become a full court press


Good luck .

 

[Lear70]

I am Thinking Lear should drink for free with you guys . He is doing all the heavy lifting for the rank and file at SWA.

Better yet SWAPA/SWA should just pay him to keep out of it.

*chuckle* Giving me way too much credit. There are a couple of other gentlemen really ramping up the information campaign, I just wrote a couple sections (Sec 1 and Red-eye/CDO language). They're doing the heavy lifting, I just provided some analysis prior to joining the BoD.

I'm only temporary unless I win the election next month. Hoping I do so I can stay in when we kill this thing, close all the loopholes, then get back to just working and going home. Like PCL128 said, you swear you'll never do this crap again, then people start f***** with your career,,, Trying to shmooz the wife as much as possible when home knowing this is going to be a long haul.

They went absolutely crazy over the section 1 analysis, so you know it was on target. Good work!!

Yeah, they refused to say who published their "rebuttal" that's now a sticky and locked on the board, but I just finished going through it and their rebuttal is laughable.

Their first claim of "False analysis" is on A DEFINITION of the difference in Codesharing and Interlining. They didn't "correct" the definition, so obviously they agree with it, they pointed out how it's not applicable to this T.A. No sh*t, sherlock, it's a definition, not a claim of language deficiency.

The rest of it doesn't get any better. They're flat out wrong on #2 and it takes about 4 pages of specific language quotes to point it out. I won't post it all here, the website will likely have it when they post it, or at least they said it would, I'm not directly involved with it. The information takes a while to digest, and needs to be read separately from ALL the other Section 1 language because I think it's the biggest single threat in this T.A.

#3 is a re-statement of the issues with #2, trying to drive up the number of "corrections" by splitting issues that are combined.

They got two of them right. #4 is simply sloppy editing on their part where U.S. Trans-border isn't always stated, but it always references back to it - missed the back-reference the first read-through.

They also got the part about the 900 PDEW being an initiation threshold, I had already edited that before their rebuttal came out, but it's still worded in a way that's unnecessarily obfuscating. There's something to it that's bothering me, I just can't put my finger on it yet, but those two are correct.

The rest is crap.

#5 is a restatement of something already discussed as if it's an additional "error". It's not; they were wrong the first two times they attempted to rebuff it, and they're wrong when they attempt to address it as an additional "error" in this paragraph.

Their #6 and #7 "Falsehood answered" is actually the same EXACT quote from my rebuttal about the 900 PDEW initiating. It's one issue, not two, duplicating to drive up the number of claimed "falsehoods".

Their "Falsehood" #8 response makes me laugh, because it's actually what I was alluding to in the first place - they can flux it seasonally rather than buy more airplanes to serve it all year long with our pilots. Whoever wrote it lacked the ability to comprehend what I wrote.

They also completely ignored the ability for the company to continue BREAKING the Agreement for a whole year before they have to address it. By incorporating that into their "rebuttal", they attempt to incorporate their response to make it appear that it's not a real problem but, if you look harder, you see they never directly address it.

Their "Falsehood #9" directly underscores the problem we face: they're so personally-vested in this that they can't see dangerous language gaps and conflicts to even make a change. They're wrong. Period.

Falsehood #10 is, again, a re-statement of #9, attempting to make it look like they had to address more issues than they really did. Pathetic.

"Falsehood" #11? They agreed with me, but tried to twist it to being a falsehood. Even more pathetic.

Their "Falsehood" #12? They agreed with me again. I SAID "with SWAPA approval". Now they're just getting desperate to rack up the "Falsehoods".

"Falsehood" #13 is like #8 & 9 - they don't have the capacity to understand the issue and have too much personal buy-in to listen to reason.

"Falsehood" #14 is another duplicate answer attempting to make two "falsehoods" out of one issue.

"Falsehood" #15 is just ridiculous. They tried to assert that I said Eagle would be taking our expansion in the Caribbean. First, in case they missed it, Eagle is now Envoy. Second, I asked if anyone "remembered" when Eagle flew all of this instead of American. I didn't say "Eagle would be doing it". Either you're stupid, or... well, I can't think of a second alternative. By the way, the answer that "they can do that under the current TA" isn't an answer to the problem. Go back to issue #2, plug the word "Copa" in there, then see where I'm going with it. More on that later.

Oh, and by the way, when you say it's "False for two reasons", you might actually ATTEMPT to cite a 2nd reason.

So that's an attempt by an anonymous someone with Super Moderator authority to create 15 "falsehoods". They were right on 2, duplicated 5 (that's 1/3 of their responses by the way) to drive up the number of alleged "falsehoods", agreed with me on 3 issues, completely missed the whole point on 2 issues, and just plain got 3 of them wrong.

If this kind of rebuttal came from the NC, it's no wonder we have the T.A. we have. Sloppy editing, poor logic, duplicative and transparent attempts to disparage,,, awesome, isn't it?

Chris69 is right. They're going to attempt to slowly erode the No vote sentiment. We have to keep it alive. Stay engaged with your fellow pilots.

 

[Roomwithaview]

Lear70

That MO sounds exactly like Tommy Boy Winsor.

 

[Kharma Police]

I am Thinking Lear should drink for free with you guys . He is doing all the heavy lifting for the rank and file at SWA.

Better yet SWAPA/SWA should just pay him to keep out of it.

I'm sorry, did anyone ask him to do this? Why don't you ask a Tranny for a history lesson of his mea culpas. I'm amazed at the laziness of people and their short term memories, allowing a clown with too much free time and an ability to type to do the thinking for them. If you can't read and comprehend an important document as this on your own, then you probably have trouble breathing without thinking about it.

 

[Tripower455]

Your CP s. Work weekend ?


A friend of mines father is one for you guys ,he says hey only work M-F .

I wonder if it has become a full court press


Good luck .

The sales team never sleeps!

 

[Tripower455]

I'm sorry, did anyone ask him to do this? Why don't you ask a Tranny for a history lesson of his mea culpas. I'm amazed at the laziness of people and their short term memories, allowing a clown with too much free time and an ability to type to do the thinking for them. If you can't read and comprehend an important document as this on your own, then you probably have trouble breathing without thinking about it.

Paul Jackson was a Tranny?

 

[outerlimits]

I'm sorry, did anyone ask him to do this? Why don't you ask a Tranny for a history lesson of his mea culpas. I'm amazed at the laziness of people and their short term memories, allowing a clown with too much free time and an ability to type to do the thinking for them. If you can't read and comprehend an important document as this on your own, then you probably have trouble breathing without thinking about it.

You are jumping over so me that he was doing something for free isnd volunteering..I have been on the jumpseat of a a SWA aircraft more than once where a SWAPA Union volunteer was bragging about making around 400K a year .

I would think someone doing it for free would be considered generous and being nice .

 

[humveedriver]

I'm sorry, did anyone ask him to do this? Why don't you ask a Tranny for a history lesson of his mea culpas. I'm amazed at the laziness of people and their short term memories, allowing a clown with too much free time and an ability to type to do the thinking for them. If you can't read and comprehend an important document as this on your own, then you probably have trouble breathing without thinking about it.

Yeah well. He's part of the BOD now. Ain't that sumpthin. All Lear does is analyze and throw out some what ifs. Helps point folks in the right direction so they can make up their own minds. A TA is going to effect people differently depending on their seniority and age. Lear, JL, TD, MN all provide different viewpoints from the digital soap boxes. They can't all be right, just like none of us know what the company's true plan will ever be. It's quite obvious to be my there are always several plans in the playbook. If this TA is good enough for you then vote yes. I think the majority of us believes it's not the right deal. My personal opinion is that bargaining in good faith has only truly started in the last two months. The company hasn't need a pilot TA for three years. Now that the AT integration is over and Amadeus is online, I think they are ready to deal with us. So they gave us 1 out 3 of our demands (pay rates were just OK). But they didn't give us real value in reserve or retirement. They got everything they wanted with Sec 1 and subsets. Plus a few other zingers like the red eye stuff and chief pilot visits. I think the first thing that needs to be addressed in TA2 is retirement and work from there.

 

[Ty Webb]

Yeah well. He's part of the BOD now. Ain't that sumpthin. All Lear does is analyze and throw out some what ifs. Helps point folks in the right direction so they can make up their own minds. A TA is going to effect people differently depending on their seniority and age. Lear, JL, TD, MN all provide different viewpoints from the digital soap boxes. They can't all be right, just like none of us know what the company's true plan will ever be. It's quite obvious to be my there are always several plans in the playbook. If this TA is good enough for you then vote yes. I think the majority of us believes it's not the right deal. My personal opinion is that bargaining in good faith has only truly started in the last two months. The company hasn't need a pilot TA for three years. Now that the AT integration is over and Amadeus is online, I think they are ready to deal with us. So they gave us 1 out 3 of our demands (pay rates were just OK). But they didn't give us real value in reserve or retirement. They got everything they wanted with Sec 1 and subsets. Plus a few other zingers like the red eye stuff and chief pilot visits. I think the first thing that needs to be addressed in TA2 is retirement and work from there.

Very well put. I agree 100%. Thanks for saving me the typing.