A&e's New Series Airline

[KCFlyer]

Parents have to strap junior into his car seat for a short car trip because it's the law! Besides that, the probability of crashing while driving a car is much greater than the probability of crashing while on a plane -- even more so when flying on Southwest with its excellent safety record.

Trouble is JS, that most "safety law" is passed AFTER someone has been sued after an accident. Kids hopping around the back of a minivan and go thru the windshield? Sue the manufacturer for the "unsafe" vehicle, then pass a law mandating the use of child seats.

Yes...thankfully airliner accidents are few and far between. But rest assured that the familes of a kid who is injured when the plane hits some unexpected turbulence and they fly out of mama's arms will sue because the airline "shoulda" been more strict and required a carseat for all kids. That's the basis of most liabilty lawsuits...."coulda, shoulda, oughta". Then the feds will finally act to require kids to be strapped in airline seats.

 

[JS]

Trouble is JS, that most "safety law" is passed AFTER someone has been sued after an accident. Kids hopping around the back of a minivan and go thru the windshield? Sue the manufacturer for the "unsafe" vehicle, then pass a law mandating the use of child seats.

Yes...thankfully airliner accidents are few and far between. But rest assured that the familes of a kid who is injured when the plane hits some unexpected turbulence and they fly out of mama's arms will sue because the airline "shoulda" been more strict and required a carseat for all kids. That's the basis of most liabilty lawsuits...."coulda, shoulda, oughta". Then the feds will finally act to require kids to be strapped in airline seats.

KCFlyer, are you defending people who file frivolous lawsuits?

Lots of people (presumably including kids) have been injured while unbelted during turbulence, in addition to the UA DC-10 crash at SUX that included one lap infant.

Luckily the FAA does not jump to conclusions, which is why lap infants are still allowed.

 

[KCFlyer]

Trouble is JS, that most "safety law" is passed AFTER someone has been sued after an accident. Kids hopping around the back of a minivan and go thru the windshield? Sue the manufacturer for the "unsafe" vehicle, then pass a law mandating the use of child seats.

Yes...thankfully airliner accidents are few and far between. But rest assured that the familes of a kid who is injured when the plane hits some unexpected turbulence and they fly out of mama's arms will sue because the airline "shoulda" been more strict and required a carseat for all kids. That's the basis of most liabilty lawsuits...."coulda, shoulda, oughta". Then the feds will finally act to require kids to be strapped in airline seats.

KCFlyer, are you defending people who file frivolous lawsuits?

Lots of people (presumably including kids) have been injured while unbelted during turbulence, in addition to the UA DC-10 crash at SUX that included one lap infant.

Luckily the FAA does not jump to conclusions, which is why lap infants are still allowed.

I'm certainly NOT defending them...only stating that while "lap children" are permitted, the first "lap child" that gets hurt usually gets some money for the parents via a lawsuit. I would prefer that common sense prevail...they have the option of strapping a child in. If they don't and the child is injured, then the only party responsible for injury is the parent.

 

[WNrforlife]

You sure said a mouthful. When the Q4/2003 financials were released, the rest of the company was elated...Inflight was furious. You have to be valued by your management in order for them to be willing to compensate you. It is becoming alarming clear that the Inflight Service group is of little value to SWA. So much for this being the "luv" airline. Thanks for wishing us luck...we're gonna need it.

I really think that our F/A's are the one's stretching this whole thing out too far. They should take the last offer and thank their lucky stars that they work for such an outstanding company.

Southwest has been good to all employees, and the F/A's just want more than their fair share. $14,000/year to start is pretty good money for only having to work 3 days a week.

Besides, when we put all of the legacy carriers out of business, you will probably get a raise then.

 

[Fred Ziffel]

So I'll take assigned seating which is a convience for the passenger....nobody is forced to sit anywhere, unless of course your iggnorant enough to not pre-reserve a seat assignment, which in that case your getting whats leftover

DELETED BY MODERATOR

 

[skycruiser]

Beware of vipers, FA30.....

SKycruiser appears to work for another air carrier and seldom has a decent thing to say about Southwest Airlines Co.

Methinks Skycruiser would like nothing more than to see (a) a strike or lockout or (B) a contract so generous that the cost of doing business goes up and the golden goose gets sick.

Truth is I know us passenger customers want to see it resolved as much as if not more than the FAs and management. HOWEVER.....we want to see it resolved in a way that serves the best interests of everybody.

I think the philosopher said it best: You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometime, you'll find, you get what you need.

I would like to see nothing short of CHAOS if the management at LUV does not give these folks what they deserve. That comes from a TWU perspective and no other. While some may think 14,000 a year is "OK" to start try living in the MDY base with that. You say you want this resolved in "everybody's" best interest. Meaning, I am traveler that does not want to be disrupted by CHAOS and translated-I am only looking out for my own ass. I make my living and am doing just fine. I just don't want those greedy F/A at SWA to give in so my life is not disrupted. Talk about how I am the Viper! I have nothing to gain nor loose either way, I don't work nor do I fly the airline. I do ;however, support my fellow TWU brothers and sisters. That is my only interest here.

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

C'mon Skycruiser...be real.

You could care less about your TWU brethren and sisterns over at Southwest Airlines Co.

You would love to see them get a fat contract, though....not because it makes economic sense....but because it would be a bargaining chip next time your firm asked for concessions or was sitting across from you at the bargaining table.

You would love to see them get a contract so fat that it would wreak havoc on their ASM cost and turn them into a high cost carrier with whom your firm could compete effectively.

Those of us who fly WN want to see EVERYONE get a good deal....and we're convinced that ultimately that is what will happen.

CHAOS might be a good thing to do if management is greedy and plays fast and loose with people's lives thru furloughs and layoffs on a regular basis. That isn't the way they do business at Southwest.

If you were offended that I might have implied you have viperish tendencies, I aplogize.

I would go so far as to suggest to you that in this life, or any other....nobody DESERVES anything. The FAs work hard and if their hard work has resulted in increased earnings, then they should share the wealth. What do you know....thru profit sharing....they do.

In order to continue to get the best possible FAs......and Southwest's (IMHO) are vastly superior to other carriers flying within the territorial limits of the continental United states (naturally excluding tropical possessions)...then I will gladly agree that maybe Southwest should cough up a little more money.

I doubt that the FAs would do anything CHAOS-like, though. Because I'm here to tell you...before it came to that, Parker would lock them out.

Southwest has locked an employee group out before, and what resulted was roughly 25 yrs of labor peace and harmony.

 

[skycruiser]

C'mon Skycruiser...be real.

You could care less about your TWU brethren and sisterns over at Southwest Airlines Co.

You would love to see them get a fat contract, though....not because it makes economic sense....but because it would be a bargaining chip next time your firm asked for concessions or was sitting across from you at the bargaining table.

You would love to see them get a contract so fat that it would wreak havoc on their ASM cost and turn them into a high cost carrier with whom your firm could compete effectively.

Those of us who fly WN want to see EVERYONE get a good deal....and we're convinced that ultimately that is what will happen.

CHAOS might be a good thing to do if management is greedy and plays fast and loose with people's lives thru furloughs and layoffs on a regular basis. That isn't the way they do business at Southwest.

If you were offended that I might have implied you have viperish tendencies, I aplogize.

I would go so far as to suggest to you that in this life, or any other....nobody DESERVES anything. The FAs work hard and if their hard work has resulted in increased earnings, then they should share the wealth. What do you know....thru profit sharing....they do.

In order to continue to get the best possible FAs......and Southwest's (IMHO) are vastly superior to other carriers flying within the territorial limits of the continental United states (naturally excluding tropical possessions)...then I will gladly agree that maybe Southwest should cough up a little more money.

I doubt that the FAs would do anything CHAOS-like, though. Because I'm here to tell you...before it came to that, Parker would lock them out.

Southwest has locked an employee group out before, and what resulted was roughly 25 yrs of labor peace and harmony.

Coming form someone that is obviously NON-union and not associated with the TWU I would expect an answer of nothing less. Profit Sharing is great, comes once a year and is nothing more than a BONUS! These 7200 people are trying to increase their quality of life by asking for, since I am not in on negotiations I am assuming, at least industry standard and as most of you have made the case here.. SWA well exceeds the industry standard of most US carriers. So why not? Why not support those 7200 people you have spent praising on this thread? I have gotten nothing but argument after argument of how SWA well exceeds the inflight service of other US airlines. So why shouldn't these people get more? The company is making money, why should they not get some of that being that these people spend, on average, the most time with the SWA bread and butter.. The passengers! The company has been stalling for 20 months! Do they deserve that? If this goes to arbitration and CHAOS is the last resort then I am willing to bet that that will tip the scales. Either way I support fellow Union members, like it or not, that is the way an Union operates!

 

[KCFlyer]

These 7200 people are trying to increase their quality of life by asking for, since I am not in on negotiations .... If this goes to arbitration and CHAOS is the last resort then I am willing to bet that that will tip the scales. Either way I support fellow Union members, like it or not, that is the way an Union operates!

You sort of tipped your hand to your lack of knowledge about the situation. For starters, it's already IN arbitration. Your comments are not meant for support - only "rouse the rabble".

AS for vipers - WNforLife is doing a fine job.

 

[SWAFA30]

I really think that our F/A's are the one's stretching this whole thing out too far.

We are not the only ones sitting at the bargaining table. Our last offer to management is still on the table. They could accept it, sign on the dotted line and this would all be over tomorrow.

They should take the last offer and thank their lucky stars that they work for such an outstanding company.

Does that mean you will be open to all of Inflight's opinion about how much you should make? This company is indeed outstanding but Southwest is not an entity unto itself. Southwest is outstanding because of the employees(including Inflight) who give 110% everyday to make it that way. Every other union at this airline has negotiated contracts that recognize the contribution they make to the success of this company. Now it is inflight's turn. Fair is fair.

Southwest has been good to all employees

That is a pretty sweeping generalization. I would venture to say that of the thousands of employees past and present, who have worked here more than a few would disagree with that assertion. Having been good to your employees in the past is not enough to hang your hat on...you gotta keep being "good" to your people year in and year out.

and the F/A's just want more than their fair share.

Fair is in the eye of the beholder.

$14,000/year to start is pretty good money for only having to work 3 days a week.

How many 3 day trips have you actually flown as an SWA flight attendant to be able make such a statement? Besides new hires sit reserve in 4 day blocks. It takes seniority to be able to hold 3 day trips.

Besides, when we put all of the legacy carriers out of business

Ain't gonna happen. The industry is trending upward and the other majors are getting stronger. Besides they have their place in the marketplace and we have ours. Careful what you wish for......

you will probably get a raise then.

I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime, I think we'll stay at the bargaining table.

 

[KCFlyer]

SWAFA30 - WNforLife is a troll, not an employee of Southwest. I honestly doubt that he or she is a customer of Southwest for that matter.

 

[SWAFA30]

SWAFA30 - WNforLife is a troll, not an employee of Southwest. I honestly doubt that he or she is a customer of Southwest for that matter.

What can I say, I'm a sucker for flamebait.

 

[Dilligas]

What's with the rerun tonight?

Are we done with original episodes already? Anyone know how many episodes in the series?

I enjoy the show.

 

[SWAFA30]

What's with the rerun tonight?

Are we done with original episodes already? Anyone know how many episodes in the series?

I enjoy the show.

I believe there are 18 in the original first season. Somewhere in the back of my mind in seems like I remember hearing around work that we have already been approached about shooting a second season.

 

[mga707]

What's with the rerun tonight?

Are we done with original episodes already? Anyone know how many episodes in the series?

I enjoy the show.

I believe there are 18 in the original first season. Somewhere in the back of my mind in seems like I remember hearing around work that we have already been approached about shooting a second season.

Well, if it's a rerun tonight then I guess I don't have to tape it. Stupid 11PM West Coast cable feed...

Anyway, just returned from a quick leisure trip with two WN legs. Both flights were near-empty, with about 30 on the outbound and 40 on the return. Both long hauls (3 to 3 1/2 hour), with no drunks, no disorderlies, etc., etc. no much for the tired "trailer trash clientele, hopscotching across the country" generalization that has yet again reared it's ugly head on here thanks to a few know-nothings...
Just remember that what's shown on the program is not the norm. An episode with nothing but normal folk quietly checking in and boarding an uneventful flight would not be riveting television.
A large contingent on the return leg were a group of lawyers, busily working their way westward.
I felt like saying "Hey, it's Sunday afternoon! Punch out already!" B)