Aa Union Message To Southwest

[markkus757]

If Wright gets repealed all of those unions at AA know they are going to have lower amounts of dues because of furloughs. It will happen if WN can fly to wherever out of Love field. Of course they are going to side with their employer. They want the dues.

 

[Boomer]

Boomer, you were giving quite a lesson in Union "interest based" politics, to which I was reading as "ok, ok", until you injected the "obviously" statement. At that point, your opinion overtook your post, possibly influenced by bad past experiences, IMHO.

My experience with Jim Little and Garry Drummond, and the TWU, at Southwest Airlines has been positive and lucrative. You may respond with, "fool me once..." but I've yet to be fooled for the first time.

Again, IMHO, the AA Union leaders (not just the TWU) agreed with AA Management and signed off on the opinion, and good for them for working together. I still think they're Wrong on Wright.

BTW, in Union time, it's hasn't been that long since the post, so I'm also not surprise by a lack of response.

Again, IMHO.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

SWFLYER,
The TWU-ATD, as a body dominated by American Airlines Employees but required by law to represent all of those they represent, has willfully sided with one set of their membership and against another set of the membership despite the fact that all pay compulsory dues as a term and condition of employment.

Simply put the TWU used public statements from both Schalk and Owens as the evidence required to remove both of them from elected office despite the fact that the very Membership that elected them also supported the statements both men made.

The fact that the TWU-ATD has posted the letter, TWU Statement, from those with American and for the Wright Amendment is instructive in calculating the degree to which the TWU-ATD is complicit in supporting the request of American Airlines in that the prosecution of Schalk and Owens was determined by the statements from both men critical of the practices and policies of the TWU-ATD.

The fact that the TWU-ATD distributes the opinions of one group of members while suppressing the views of other members is OBVIOUSLY evidence of a failure in performing the fiduciary duty of the Union with respect to all Union Members represented by that Union.

 

[B.O.B.]

SWA has been invited to fly out of DFW. Is SWA to chicken to take on the Big GorillAA at DFW?

 

[KCFlyer]

SWA has been invited to fly out of DFW. Is SWA to chicken to take on the Big GorillAA at DFW?

IT's all about costs BOB...which is better, to keep costs low by flying out of DAL, or going to labor to ask for concessions so that they can compete with the big gorilla at DFW? Remember...airlines are not non-profit organizations, although these days it seems like many are. It's rather funny...you are apparently a good union man, judging from your "no scabs" picture. Southwest has yet to approach your union brothers and sisters about concessions, yet you seem to want them to have to do that. Why?

 

[swflyer]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

SWFLYER,
The TWU-ATD, as a body dominated by American Airlines Employees but required by law to represent all of those they represent, has willfully sided with one set of their membership and against another set of the membership despite the fact that all pay compulsory dues as a term and condition of employment.

Where?? When?? AGAIN, there is a HUGE difference between the statement of a group of "locals" in a "division" and the ENTIRE TWU International. I have yet to see a statement from the TWU-ATD saying that their most successful local is "Wrong on Wright". I DO see a statement from "locals" at "American" asking for support against "Southwest's" legislative agenda.

Simply put the TWU used public statements from both Schalk and Owens as the evidence required to remove both of them from elected office despite the fact that the very Membership that elected them also supported the statements both men made.

Oops, then Thom McDaniel, president of 556, is also in trouble for his statements supporting the repeal. Heads will OBVIOUSLY be rolling, all over the D/FW metroplex. <_<

The fact that the TWU-ATD has posted the letter, TWU Statement, from those with American and for the Wright Amendment is instructive in calculating the degree to which the TWU-ATD is complicit in supporting the request of American Airlines in that the prosecution of Schalk and Owens was determined by the statements from both men critical of the practices and policies of the TWU-ATD.

Uh, the letter you posted isn't a TWU-ATD letter. It's a letter "From Labor Leaders at American Airlines" [source: Title of post]. Are you really so focused on the possibility of malfeasance by the TWU that you're missing the other signatories??

The fact that the TWU-ATD distributes the opinions of one group of members while suppressing the views of other members is OBVIOUSLY evidence of a failure in performing the fiduciary duty of the Union with respect to all Union Members represented by that Union.

Ooh, SWA TWU local 556 is in trouble again!!!! The Unity magazine has REPEATEDLY printed anti-Wright articles and NEVER asked for rebuttal from the locals at American.

I'll call Thom McDaniel, RIGHT AWAY, and make sure he's packing his bags.

Boomer, good luck with the fight against the TWU at American. We're having a fine time w/them at SWA. Maybe you could find a different hobby??

 

[ThomMc556]

Union rep says Dallas flight restrictions unfair

By CHRIS JONES
>GAMING WIRE Las Vegas Review Journal - September 27, 2005


A union leader representing employees of Southern Nevada's busiest airline said a 26-year-old federal law restricting flights to and from Dallas' Love Field unfairly penalizes Southwest Airlines employees.

"We see this as a civil and labor rights issue. ... The Wright Amendment should have gone away a long time ago," Thom McDaniel, president of Transport Workers Union Local 556, said recently from Las Vegas, where he took part in the 775-attendee Transport Workers Union of America conference at the Rio.

McDaniel's criticism was directed at a 1979 law that makes it illegal to fly or advertise flights from Love Field to points beyond the four states bordering Texas, as well as Alabama, Kansas and Mississippi.

Drafted by Rep. Jim Wright, D-Texas, the amendment ostensibly encourages airlines in the region to use Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, an American Airlines stronghold. Southwest prefers Love Field, which is closer to downtown Dallas and offers aircraft faster turnaround times because of reduced traffic loads.

Before the Sept. 11 attacks, Southwest chose not to challenge the Wright Amendment because the company made money on short-haul routes permissible under the law's restrictions. As post-Sept. 11 security changes produced longer delays at airports, however, many consumers found it easier to drive between Dallas and nearby cities, severely damaging Southwest's business at Love Field.

The airline hopes Congress will repeal the Wright Amendment to allow it to better compete in the Dallas market using long-haul flights. Southwest says it cannot move its operations to Dallas/Fort Worth International because operating expenses and turnaround times would hurt its finances and on-time performance.

Reps. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, and Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, in May introduced the Right to Fly Act, which would immediately repeal the Wright Amendment. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., is among those on Capitol Hill who support the proposed change.

Others, including Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, and Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., are leading a push to close Love Field to commercial air traffic.

An airline spokeswoman said Southwest would institute Las Vegas-Dallas service from Love Field if the Wright Amendment is overturned. Using historic models based upon Southwest's past entries in new markets, the company estimated reduced fares would generate 83,009 new passengers per year on the route.

American contends Love Field is a Southwest monopoly. Repealing the Wright Amendment, Gerard Arpey, American's chairman and chief executive officer said, would force American and other carriers to also shift flights to Love. Such a disruption to the hub system favored by American is "bad news for us, for DFW, and for the North Texas community that enjoys the robust international schedule that our hub makes possible," Arpey said in a Sept. 15 written statement.

McDaniel's union represents approximately 14,000 Southwest employees nationwide, and its membership includes workers from both American and Southwest.

Officially, the union has maintained a neutral stance. But as a Southwest employee, McDaniel believes the Wright Amendment hurts workers he represents by depriving them of job opportunities and depressing travel and tourism in North Texas.

Southwest's flight operations began at Love Field in 1971. As the airline's oldest station -- an airport where flight crews begin or end shifts -- the 500 or so flight attendants stationed there have more collective seniority than those at any of Southwest's six other U.S. stations.

"Every other base has at least 1,000 workers," he said. "It's just too difficult to move about" from Love Field.

For example, a worker who resides in Dallas but is scheduled to work a flight between Las Vegas and Philadelphia would have to depart from Love Field to another airport in or adjacent to Texas. From there, they'd hop another flight to McCarran to officially begin their work day. A similar route would be used to return home after their workday ends.

However, a Houston-based worker assigned to the same Las Vegas-Philadelphia route, for example, could fly directly from Houston to Las Vegas to begin his or her shift. Several Southwest flight attendants this week said they'd rather live outside Dallas than add several hours to their workday commute.





Tourism and Travel Las Vegas Sun September 23, 2005

Unions careful not to get on wrong side of Wright issue

By Richard N. Velotta / Staff Writer



The more than 700 members of the Transport Workers Union that gathered at the Rio this week for its 22nd Constitutional Convention were a microcosm of the state of Texas.

Some of them are backers of an effort to repeal the Wright Amendment, a federal law that places limitations on flights from Dallas' Love Field. Others want to keep the law in place.

The TWU, one of the strong union voices for the nation's flight attendants, mechanics and ground crews, isn't taking sides on the Wright Amendment. The reason: the union represents workers from both Southwest Airlines and American Airlines, two polar opposites in the Wright fight.

"The union pretty much allows it to be an issue for the locals," said Thom McDaniel, president of TWU Local 556, which represents Southwest's flight attendants.

As a Southwest employee, McDaniel is squarely behind the airline's bid to repeal the Wright Amendment, a law that is important to Las Vegas because it prevents the largest airline serving McCarran International Airport from offering nonstop flights to its Love Field headquarters -- an airport serving a city that's one of Las Vegas' top five markets.

Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., thought so much of the free-market implications of the controversy that he introduced legislation to repeal the Wright Amendment.

Like the membership of the international union, the state of Texas and its lawmakers have lined up on opposing sides of the issue. The pro-repeal side calls it a "civil rights issue" while the pro-Wright side says its all in the economics.

As a result, it's American vs. Southwest, Dallas Fort-Worth International Airport vs. Love Field and www.keepdfwstrong vs. www.setlovefree.

"The law is so ridiculous," McDaniel said during a break in the convention. "The only reason we still have it is that it has been in place since 1979. Can you imagine the outcry in a place like Chicago if a law were passed saying that people couldn't fly anywhere but the states adjacent to Illinois?"

But Wright Amendment advocates say the law isn't tying Southwest's hands. Dallas-Fort Worth International, in fact, is spending $900,000 for advertising to try to get consumers to pressure Southwest executives into changing their minds on Wright.

DFW officials have offered Southwest free rent for a year and an estimated $22 million in incentives to move to their airport. The airport contends that Southwest could offer short-haul flights from Love Field and predominantly long-haul routes from DFW.

The airline has politely said, "No thanks," noting that splitting the airline's resources wouldn't be cost-effective and that even with all the incentives it would cost too much for Southwest to operate at DFW.

DFW is persistent. Kevin Cox, chief operating officer of the airport, was quoted in the Dallas Business Journal as saying "Southwest has changed their mind before." And he's hoping for such a change of heart on this issue.

McDaniel said it isn't clear when lawmakers would take up the Wright Amendment debate. With aid programs for hurricane victims, the war in Iraq and Supreme Court confirmations on the agenda, the Wright Amendment isn't likely to be climbing the priority list anytime soon.

But McDaniel said he has detected a thaw in Wright relationships and that compromise could be on the horizon.

Lawmakers are talking about removing some of the marketing restrictions that are part of the law and that hogtie Southwest.

For example, under the Wright Amendment, not only are flights between Love Field and most airports beyond the borders of the states surrounding Texas banned, but the airline can't sell tickets to Dallas on any of its connecting flights.

Las Vegas customers can't buy a ticket to Dallas through, say, Albuquerque because of "through ticketing restrictions." McDaniel said such a compromise could mitigate some of the economic damage that the Wright Amendment inflicts on the airline.

Southwest continues to keep its fight in the public eye, through the pro-repeal Internet website, in announcements on flights and in advertising. A colleague told me that while on a recent phone call to the airline that the message she heard while on hold advocated repeal of the amendment and visiting the web site.

"Ultimately, I think that every fair-minded congressman is going to see this as a free-market issue and come down on the side of the consumer," McDaniel said. "We want to make sure that Joe Lunchbox will continue to be able to fly."

Richard N. Velotta covers tourism for In Business Las Vegas and its sister publication, the Las Vegas Sun. He can be reached at (702) 259-4061 or by e-mail at [email protected].

 

[swflyer]

Man, that McDaniel OBVIOUSLY is a loose cannon.

 

[Boomer]

OBVIOUSLY, the TWU-ATD has not granted access to their website for the posting of any literature against the Wright Amendment.

Equally OBVIOUS, The TWU Express has not printed opinions which might damage their mealticket.

 

[Boomer]

SWFLYER, ThomMc556;

Since the TWU has allowed you to put yourself at odds with the TWU-ATD International Dominated position American Airlines enjoys at the TWU; would either of you care to explore why no discipline has been enjoined against your elected representatives as opposed to that experienced by Schalk and Owens?

Further, would either of you care to discuss why the TWU has refused to publish the position of the SWA F/A Union Representative in the publications they control?

After all, the TWU Members at LUV have the same rights as do those TWU Members at AA.

Further, have all of the LUV TWU Representatives been required to sign a fealty oath to the TWU as was done to the AA TWU Representatives?

Please do respond as the replies have been, and continue to be, most illuminating.

Regards,
Boomer