Seems like things are not well in Dallas.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...0SU05V20151105#MW3vxUj16aodPOMe.97

Can't say I'm not surprised by the NO vote.
My question now is whether WN will grow as planned in 2016?
I could easily see WN using these failed TA to alter their 2016 out look.
Only add one new international destination.
Grow the fleet by only 5 aircraft instead of 15 use the other 10 for 737-300 retirements.
Close CAK,DSM,GSP and ICT with additional adds in stronger markets.

Flyguy

If the Company does all of those things in 2016, then they were going to do all of those things anyway. It will have absolutely nothing to do with the Pilots voting down the T/A.

Great for the pilots. Record corporate profits so why not share the wealth. I believe the airline is 100% union so other work groups will follow.

ChEers

Quoting reltney (Reply 3): I believe the airline is 100% union

Closer to 85%. Some areas not under any union currently. Still a high percentage, and surprising to many still.

Not at all surprised with the "No" vote. I'm actually more surprised the the "No" wasn't even more prominent than it was after hearing from a lot of WN pilots on the contract.

I think we will see a contract in 2016, I think the company wants it and I'm sure the pilots do to. Hopefully they can come to peaceful terms soon.

Quoting wnflyguy (Reply 1): I could easily see WN using these failed TA to alter their 2016 out look. Only add one new international destination. Grow the fleet by only 5 aircraft instead of 15 use the other 10 for 737-300 retirements. Close CAK,DSM,GSP and ICT with additional adds in stronger markets.

Kind of like when DL didn't make that decent sized aircraft commitment earlier this year after their pilots rejected their contract.

I'm not sure WN would use that same technique, I agree with SWADawg that if they do any of this, it probably isn't related to the contracts and was previously planned.

An interesting tidbit from an article on the rejected contract. Apparently back in September, Southwest was in discussions with JetBlue to allow passengers to be reaccommodated between the two airlines. But when the pilots found out about these discussions, they became "livid" and Southwest backed out of discussions.

Whenever the SWA pilots do accept a contract, if it allows for it, look for this to happen pretty quickly.

http://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/n...nes-anxiously-awaits-contract.html

Unfortunately it wasn't just discussions - the agreement had been implemented without our knowledge or concurrence.

Quoting barney captain (Reply 7): Unfortunately it wasn't just discussions - the agreement had been implemented without our knowledge or concurrence.

Please do explain, do you mean JetBlue was sending you passengers? I mean there is no way Southwest would have started sending JetBlue passengers.

If it is only to reaccommodate customers, why the push back and why would the pilots care? Seems pretty reasonable to me for reaccomodation purposes that would increase customer satisfaction during irregular ops, especially if it could another MDW-like meltdown.

Pilots should stick to flying the planes and not worry about every business decision made at HDQ. I don't know why a pilot would care if he/she is carrying a few B6 customers, seems the same as a non-rev and it isn't a code-share.

Quoting barney captain (Reply 7): Unfortunately it wasn't just discussions - the agreement had been implemented without our knowledge or concurrence.

Don't you have to come to agreement with one party prior to being able to discuss in a factual way with another party?

Tugg

Quoting Dallas (Reply 9): f it is only to reaccommodate customers,

It was not only to reaccommodate passengers, it was a variation on code sharing.

Quoting Dallas (Reply 9): Pilots should stick to flying the planes and not worry about every business decision made at HDQ.

Spoken like a true "expert". You do realize codesharing without proper safeguards can be a potential jobs issue. Your profile is so full of information, but wait until you get out and work and have your job put in jeopardy. Let me hear you say the same thing! And, pilots don't worry about "every business decision". They just worry about the ones that affect their careers.

Quoting mmo (Reply 11): It was not only to reaccommodate passengers, it was a variation on code sharing.

How so?

The SWAPA President and the negotiating team just resigned.

Quoting mmo (Reply 11): It was not only to reaccommodate passengers, it was a variation on code sharing

I was only going on what was reported, so please elaborate on what it actually was.

Quoting mmo (Reply 11): Spoken like a true "expert". You do realize codesharing without proper safeguards can be a potential jobs issue. Your profile is so full of information, but wait until you get out and work and have your job put in jeopardy. Let me hear you say the same thing! And, pilots don't worry about "every business decision". They just worry about the ones that affect their careers.

Once again it was reported that it was to reaccommodate customers, not codeshare, so I was going off of that. I do have a job, and I stick to what I'm good at. You won't see me in a cockpit telling you how to do your job, so maybe I come from the business/ strategic side of things, which is what my college degree and years of experience is in. Oh, and by the way I'm sure there are people that would try to take my job and want my job, so I continue to work hard, day in and day out. Us non-pilots are able to do that, and do have some skills.

Plus, with the pilot crisis, I don't think pilots will ever have to worry about losing their jobs, especially during an economy like this. Until planes are fully automated, which I don't see happening for a long time, your job security will be fine, especially if you're working at WN.

Let's just hope it isn't your family that gets stuck, and they are not able to be reaccommodated because this agreement was struck down.

Quoting asteriskceo (Reply 13): The SWAPA President and the negotiating team just resigned.

Wow, appears to be true:
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...es-pilots-association-resign.html/

Quoting Dallas (Reply 15): Plus, with the pilot crisis, I don't think pilots will ever have to worry about losing their jobs, especially during an economy like this. Until planes are fully automated, which I don't see happening for a long time, your job security will be fine, especially if you're working at WN.

You just proved you haven't been around long.

I have a lot of respect of most of the pilots but people should stick more to their own job.
Pilots are there to fly the planes and management is there to manage the company.
Sometimes I have the feeling that the unions are defending their own interests even if this would ruin the company.

Quoting thaiflyer (Reply 17): I have a lot of respect of most of the pilots but people should stick more to their own job. Pilots are there to fly the planes and management is there to manage the company.

Managers can manage in any industry they choose. Pilots, FAs and A&Ps are by far the most critical people in the airline, and they should get a say in things.

-DiamondFlyer

Even if it was a codeshare, I don't see why pilots would be so against it. There's a list of items that should concern pilots when it comes to their job security. Codesharing is near the bottom of the list. Codesharing done right only helps strengthen the company and job security. Pilots are really good at flying an airplane, but in my opinion they are not very strong at understanding labor economics. Hopefully this was turned down based on the pay and work rules instead of the B6 accommodation discussions.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 19): Even if it was a codeshare, I don't see why pilots would be so against it. There's a list of items that should concern pilots when it comes to their job security. Codesharing is near the bottom of the list. Codesharing done right only helps strengthen the company and job security. Pilots are really good at flying an airplane, but in my opinion they are not very strong at understanding labor economics. Hopefully this was turned down based on the pay and work rules instead of the B6 accommodation discussions.

I'm not trying to single you out as you're not the only one coming to this conclusion, but I think its funny you should mention this. Historically WN has had the tightest codeshare language in the country. Coincidentally, WN is the only Major airline thats been around since deregulation yet to furlough a pilot, not to mention, still be in existence. This seems to contradict your job security claim. If the lack of codeshare was hurting the company so bad, I find it hard to believe they'd be raking in record profits quarter after quarter.

And yes. The TA was turned down for a whole medley of reasons to include pay and work rules. If retro pay and the pay rates were where they should have been and the language cleaned up throughout with no mention of some scheduling deal breakers, I honestly think the TA would have passed despite the codeshare gives. The B6 accommodation was just another small log in the fire for those to showcase yet another reason why they feel management shouldn't be trusted. Quite frankly after the initial findings, I only heard it mentioned sparingly.

The reason code sharing is a concern for pilots is that it can mean fewer pilot jobs. By code sharing with another carrier, Southwest can tag their name on another company's flight and not have to provide an airplane or crew to carry those passengers, which means fewer pilot jobs are needed. So, for anyone who whines about pilots not "sticking to their job," this is something that can directly and negatively impact their pilot group which makes it their concern.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 21): The reason code sharing is a concern for pilots is that it can mean fewer pilot jobs. By code sharing with another carrier, Southwest can tag their name on another company's flight and not have to provide an airplane or crew to carry those passengers, which means fewer pilot jobs are needed. So, for anyone who whines about pilots not "sticking to their job," this is something that can directly and negatively impact their pilot group which makes it their concern.

Makes sense especially for fellow USA carriers but....

Could they add a stipulation that codeshares must be with foreign airlines. They could even go a step further a make it state no codeshares with any airline in a country that WN flies too. Wouldn't a feed from an airline across the Atlantic or Pacific be huge? And even help WN pilots... More feed, need more flights domestically. I don't see WN crossing the Atlantic yet but what do I know...

Quoting n562wn (Reply 20): I'm not trying to single you out as you're not the only one coming to this conclusion, but I think its funny you should mention this. Historically WN has had the tightest codeshare language in the country. Coincidentally, WN is the only Major airline thats been around since deregulation yet to furlough a pilot, not to mention, still be in existence. This seems to contradict your job security claim. If the lack of codeshare was hurting the company so bad, I find it hard to believe they'd be raking in record profits quarter after quarter.

I'd counter that correlation =/= causation. WN is the model for U.S. airline success. But that doesn't mean they can do the same things over and over with the same results (they've had to change in the past 5-10 years). Growth opportunities using their traditional domestic-only business model are slim. Codeshares could help them create some low-risk growth.

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 21): The reason code sharing is a concern for pilots is that it can mean fewer pilot jobs. By code sharing with another carrier, Southwest can tag their name on another company's flight and not have to provide an airplane or crew to carry those passengers, which means fewer pilot jobs are needed. So, for anyone who whines about pilots not "sticking to their job," this is something that can directly and negatively impact their pilot group which makes it their concern.

Codeshares aren't a large concern, if they should be one at all. In fact they should be a positive for the company and the employees. For example, a WN codeshare with B6 at JFK could be a very positive thing for WN customers and employees. It's an airport that WN does not serve in an overall market where they are small. A joint venture is something pilots need to worry about and probably reject. Codeshares, rarely. The pilots may be shooting their own foot here.

Quoting qwerty (Reply 16): You just proved you haven't been around long.

Can be responded with:

Quoting n562wn (Reply 20): WN is the only Major airline thats been around since deregulation yet to furlough a pilot, not to mention, still be in existence.

0 furloughs in 40+ years for pilots

Quoting n562wn (Reply 20): If the lack of codeshare was hurting the company so bad, I find it hard to believe they'd be raking in record profits quarter after quarter.

Just wait until fuel/ oil prices get back to normal or soar, and we will see what happens to these record profits and record profitsharing. Once oil prices increase, combined with more employees, higher wages, and buying more new aircraft when the MAX arrives, I'm very curious what the landscape will look like. Those extra 15,000 Employees will be quite a cost, especially when they all are eligible to receive profitsharing. Although that storm might not be until 2017-18, I'm curious if a new contract will be agreed upon by then seeing how overwhelmingly the pilots and FAs voted down these. Had they been able to come to terms 3 years ago, they could be working on the next contract and would have been receiving that full retropay with their regular paychecks.

Here is my problem with code-sharing. It allows an airline to serve a market to which will not require anything other than to post the fares and schedule on its web site. There are no crew and aircraft scheduling. No overhead. It simply allows an airline to be "in" a market they don't really serve.

I agree with the WN pilots, to a degree, on code-sharing. First I will say I do not have any knowledge as to how much the WN pilot group is willing to give up on code-sharing. I think they do realize that they will have to give up something in that regard. But if it were me I would want code-sharing only to places I can't serve with my current fleet. Now this would give the WN pilots some hopes for expansions and new aircraft. Because in addition I would stipulate a set time frame that would either cause WN to get the plane to serve that particular market or withdraw the code-share. So in fairness I would state something like a 5-7 year time frame.

In addition I would strictly limit code-sharing where WN has capabilities to serve with its own metal. Maybe the market is too small. So again this is where I would insert a clause such as when traffic increases to X level the the market will be served by WN metal. A code-share agreement done correctly can benefit all involved.

For WN this would allow limited code-share to see a market develop to the point it can be profitably served with its own metal. It would allow WN to reach markets unable to sever with its current fleet.

For the pilots it would allow their company to serve more destinations which could create more flying domestically. It would also create potential fleet additions. It could create more pilots opening and more upgrades faster.

Again this only works if the language is such that it allows both sides to see benefit from it all.


WW

The zero tolerance on codeshare attitude is interesting. Can anyone think of a real example where crew from any airline has had their job eliminated as a direct result of a codeshare agreement? Not talking about outsourcing though "express" operation. Talking about true no overhead codeshare.

Quoting Dallas (Reply 9): If it is only to reaccommodate customers, why the push back and why would the pilots care? Seems pretty reasonable to me for reaccomodation purposes that would increase customer satisfaction during irregular ops, especially if it could another MDW-like meltdown.

Quoting crazytoaster (Reply 22): Makes sense especially for fellow USA carriers but.... Could they add a stipulation that codeshares must be with foreign airlines.

The idea is that if WN wants to serve international markets, their current pilots are willing to be trained on the new a/c purchased for the purpose, so whether international or domestic the principle against is the same.

Quoting wwtraveler99 (Reply 25): For WN this would allow limited code-share to see a market develop to the point it can be profitably served with its own metal. It would allow WN to reach markets unable to sever with its current fleet.

You have raised some interesting caveats to the code share, now from the other side, which carrier would be willing to enter such agreements with WN? A startup is likely, but why bother, just start the runs on your own and grow into the markets, just looking at WN, Spirit and B6 shows that it could be done, no need for code share.

Quoting wwtraveler99 (Reply 25): A code-share agreement done correctly can benefit all involved. For WN this would allow limited code-share to see a market develop to the point it can be profitably served with its own metal. It would allow WN to reach markets unable to sever with its current fleet.

some pretty interesting ideas but the agreement has to benefit the other company as well. some of your suggestions seem only to benefit WN.

Quoting par13del (Reply 27): Spirit and B6 shows that it could be done, no need for code share.

B6 has codeshare agreements with at least 4 carriers (Emirates, Hawaiian, South African and Silver Airways in the Caribbean). Sprint vs. WN is like an apple vs. an orange.

Quoting Junction (Reply 26):

You will get crickets.

Quoting Junction (Reply 29): B6 has codeshare agreements with at least 4 carriers

Now they do, as a start up they did not, based on wwtraveller99 suggestions, I only see a startup carrier agreeing to those terms.

Quoting asteriskceo (Reply 13): The SWAPA President and the negotiating team just resigned.

This is normal practise when a TA is voted down, especially one that the union endorses. As it indicates that the negotiating committee and the union itself may be out of touch with that the pilots are really thinking.

Quoting wnflyguy (Reply 1): Close CAK,DSM,GSP and ICT with additional adds in stronger markets.

How big does a WN station need to be not to be outsourced?

Quoting Junction (Reply 26): Can anyone think of a real example where crew from any airline has had their job eliminated as a direct result of a codeshare agreement?

You don't think that the majors wouldn't have larger fleets with more aircraft if they couldn't codeshare? If UA wanted to expand in the EWR-ZRH market but couldn't tag their code onto LX's flights, they'd have to add another flight themselves. That airplane would have to come from somewhere, and that would mean a larger fleet and more pilots. So while you can't point to someone specifically and say "codesharing cost that person their job", you can definitely say that there are people who might have been at the majors who aren't because they were able to codeshare off someone else's flights rather than fly them themselves.

-Mir

Quoting par13del (Reply 31): B6 shows that it could be done, no need for code share.

Ok sorry. Let me clarify. What I meant by WN eventually using their own metal is exactly that. It does not mean they have to get rid of the code-share It would simply be an additional flight with WN metal. The other carrier can put their code on the WN flight and WN can put their code on the other flight. I am pretty sure its done that way now with some of the legacy's. Doesn't AA/BA code-share in the same markets? (please correct me if this is incorrect) What about Star Alliance or One World do this?

i know for the other carrier this might be the optimal situation but I think it will show the pilots and the rest of the WN employees that WN truly wants to "serve" those markets.

Quoting joeljack (Reply 33): How big does a WN station need to be not to be outsourced?

A station must have 12 flight per day for no out-sourcing.



WW

Quoting longhauler (Reply 32): This is normal practise when a TA is voted down, especially one that the union endorses. As it indicates that the negotiating committee and the union itself may be out of touch with that the pilots are really thinking.

Or, equally possible, the pilots are out of touch and unrealistic.

Quoting Mir (Reply 34): You don't think that the majors wouldn't have larger fleets with more aircraft if they couldn't codeshare? If UA wanted to expand in the EWR-ZRH market but couldn't tag their code onto LX's flights, they'd have to add another flight themselves.

Or UA would just not fly the route because as a standalone, US airline they can not generate enough passengers going both ways to make it worthwhile. Then no jobs are created and possibly the ranks are reduced.

Quoting wwtraveler99 (Reply 35): Quoting joeljack (Reply 33): How big does a WN station need to be not to be outsourced? A station must have 12 flight per day for no out-sourcing.

Is this one of the things the pilots are mad about? Do they want this limit of 12 lowered? Reading through this thread, what are the pilots so upset about, is it only the code-sharing?

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 36): Or, equally possible, the pilots are out of touch and unrealistic.

Perhaps ... but those discussions and discoveries should be made internally, within the union.

For it to get to the Tentative Agreement stage, then endorse the TA to pilots is an indication that the union was not aware of what the pilots wanted. For a TA to be voted down after being promoted by their own union is an indication of dysfunction.

Quoting joeljack (Reply 37): Is this one of the things the pilots are mad about? Do they want this limit of 12 lowered? Reading through this thread, what are the pilots so upset about, is it only the code-sharing?

That is the part that I don't understand and it hasn't been explained either. Why exactly was it voted down and for what reasons? Especially since some members say it wasn't a codeshare agreement, but only a reaccomodation agreement. Pay and retirement benefits were increased to industry-leading, so what exactly was wrong with the TA?

Disclaimer: I am not a pilot and did not read the TA, and am trying to figure out what the issues were

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 19): Codesharing done right only helps strengthen the company and job security.

Yes. To the subsequent posts, codesharing and alliances are incremental not detrimental to revenue. Back when WN started to go back into congested big airports that they had previously eschewed (opting for secondary underserved markets), the driver was REVENUE. WN had (has?) a revenue shortfall and they're not going to get business $$ flying to the secondary airport in whatever market. Operationally, that added complexity, but more than offset their revenue gains.

Now you fast forward to 2015----WN is the only airline that doesn't interline with anyone, still sells everything on their own website, and is pretty much a standalone carrier in many regards. That works when you're a certain size, and I guess an argument can be made even now to maintain that too, but the real airline environment probably demands they do more. WN will always have a catchment in the US, but is strategically rather limited. They'll never offer everything to everyone, nor should they, but I also think it's terribly myopic to think they shouldn't explore codesharing, key alliances and ways to exploit more revenue and garner a greater customer base.

Quoting n562wn (Reply 20): And yes. The TA was turned down for a whole medley of reasons to include pay and work rules.

Can someone kindly elaborate on this?

We've had several posts here and no one has really elucidated why the TA was rejected; are there, in summary, some work rule issues that are key drivers of dissatisfaction? I heard second hand that scheduling is a significant issue, but don't have detail on it. If someone can discuss without breaching rules of confidentiality, that would be appreciated.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 23): I'd counter that correlation =/= causation. WN is the model for U.S. airline success. But that doesn't mean they can do the same things over and over with the same results (they've had to change in the past 5-10 years). Growth opportunities using their traditional domestic-only business model are slim. Codeshares could help them create some low-risk growth.

You nailed it here...I tried to address it, but you're right. Just because they've been successful for this long is no guarantee that will continue, certainly not in a world where we've seen the major airlines merge, consolidate, and strengthen their positions, all while facing continued LCC pressures from competitors. WN is very much a mature legacy airline. Heavily unionized. Costs aren't decreasing, certainly. They need to start that dreaded thinking "outside the box" for what they've grown accustomed to.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 38): For a TA to be voted down after being promoted by their own union is an indication of dysfunction.

No doubt about that. And this appears to be a big problem in the airline industry. Often the R&F have unrealistic expectations and in turn the leadership is not in touch as they should be. All you have to do is point to the recent AA/US flight attendant contract turn down and arbitration.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 38): For a TA to be voted down after being promoted by their own union is an indication of dysfunction.

.

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 41): No doubt about that. And this appears to be a big problem in the airline industry. Often the R&F have unrealistic expectations and in turn the leadership is not in touch as they should be. All you have to do is point to the recent AA/US flight attendant contract turn down and arbitration.

The Union's leadership did not endorse the TA. It was put to a membership vote without any recommendation from the leadership or negotiating committee

Quoting mmo (Reply 42): The Union's leadership did not endorse the TA. It was put to a membership vote without any recommendation from the leadership or negotiating committee

Without going into details, I'll just say that this is not entirely true.

Quoting mmo (Reply 42): The Union's leadership did not endorse the TA. It was put to a membership vote without any recommendation from the leadership or negotiating committee

Then they should resign. Afraid to make the hard decisions and no endorsement is almost an automatic turndown. The leadership, then, was just wasting time.