Parker Suddenly Retires; Gary Kelly To Replace Him

[N735SA]

From what I hear from F/A's coming through the station, is that the contract is not appealing to the F/A's that GIVE AWAY THEIR TRIPS.
We're all here to work. The benefits are great, but we're here to work.
If you don't like it, quit. Simple.
I've been in five short years, and I am now starting to make good wages.
It's like an initiation. If you put in your dues and you're committed, you'll make money. SWA wants long term workers.

 

[KCFlyer]

No, what will be really interesting is seeing how B6 manages to keep their frontline folks happy as the company ages and they want more $$$.

Forgive for saying this, but isn't that what US and AA were saying too? Don't get me wrong, I don't see JetBlue staying non union when it's based in one of the most heavilly unioinized (and costly) areas of the US.

 

[SWAFA30]

No, what will be really interesting is seeing how B6 manages to keep their frontline folks happy as the company ages and they want more $$$.

Forgive for saying this, but isn't that what US and AA were saying too? Don't get me wrong, I don't see JetBlue staying non union when it's based in one of the most heavilly unioinized (and costly) areas of the US.

Not just US and AA, but UA and NW and DL too...they are all saying it because it is an arguably valid question. Comparitively speaking jetBlue is an airline barely out of it's infancy. Compared to the other majors SWA is still but a pup yet compared to jetBlue, we're a dinosaur. The company is doing well, the employees are happy, and their corporate culture is the envy of the industry. Back in the 70s the same thing could have been(and was) said about Southwest...yet here we are in 2004 one of the most unionized carrier in the biz(85% I believe). The question is...can/will David Neeleman et al do what Southwest's early management teams couldn't and keep unions off the property. The answer could very well be "Yes", but that does not make the question any less valid.

 

[hobbes]

Hi, SWAFA30...

I wanted to clarify something I'd once heard in regards to this point:

"The question is...can/will David Neeleman et al do what Southwest's early management teams couldn't and keep unions off the property."

What I was told by some SWA old-timers is that Herb and Company never made an active attempt to keep the unions out, like Neeleman is doing. Herb took the attitude that a viable working relationship could be built with the unions, and thus, he viewed them as partners from the beginning.

So to say that SWA "couldn't" keep unions off the property? I'm not sure that's entirely true, as I don't think they ever really tried.

Maybe there's someone on the board that knows more than me about this issue, but I can say that I've been told this by more than one very senior (and in one case, original) employee.

 

[arkmitch]

Here is my theory.

Colleen didn't like the way Parker was mean to the poor little FAs during negotiations, she ran and tattled to Herb, Herb will take all the credit and the CEO-of-the-moment will take all of the blame until they close the lid on Herb's pine box, and you could see this one coming from a long ways off.

That being said, Gary Kelly is a good choice and I expect he will do a fine job.

I am more concerned, however, about the caving in to the FA union. Sooner or later, giving employees what they want comes back to haunt you Ask USAir. I remain convinced Parker would have locked them out, much like the mechanics during their short lived strike back around 1978.

A ock out would have done wonders. It would have been like guillotining one person "to encourage the others" back during the French revolution.

You do remember the French revolution, don't you? When they killed all the smart people.

At any rate, when Herb emasculated Parker publicly during the FA contract negotiations, Parker was left with no other option.

This doesn't mean that I no longer like WN or will avoid flying them. So long as they avoid tampering with the formula and structure put into place SEVERAL airline presidetns ago, all will be well.

But labor costs are getting out of control, and Colleen and Herb wanting to be nice to the FAs might ultimately lead to an unhappy ending.

ELP WN Psgr,

I know you want to think that the flight attendants are evil and bad and should want to work for free because it's such a great company, wake up. We want to put food in our family's mouths just like anyone else without having to be away from them 6 days a week. I seriously doubt that you know that SWA flight attendants start off making $14,000 per year, and can qualify for food stamps. So don't even talk to me about being greedy, flight attendants made and make this airline, if we aren't happy then we aren't going to make the customers happy-get it.
This TA is good for the flight attendants and the company is happy as well. As for you to keep on flying SWA, I could give a banana rats ass. You are probably one of those passengers who think flight attendants are there to serve you, well were not. Flight Attendants are on the plane for your safety, any service is complimentary but we are there for safety. As for Jim Parker, he is evil man and I'm glad he's gone. SWA would never let us strike, much less lock us out -like I said we are Southwest Airlines and that sure would ruin the LUV airline.

 

[mweiss]

ark,

Trust me when I say that you don't have the first clue about the person to whom you wrote that diatribe. If you did, you would probably be quite embarrassed.

 

[SWAFA30]

"The question is...can/will David Neeleman et al do what Southwest's early management teams couldn't and keep unions off the property."

What I was told by some SWA old-timers is that Herb and Company never made an active attempt to keep the unions out, like Neeleman is doing. Herb took the attitude that a viable working relationship could be built with the unions, and thus, he viewed them as partners from the beginning.

So to say that SWA "couldn't" keep unions off the property? I'm not sure that's entirely true, as I don't think they ever really tried.

I guess it all depends on how one views organized labor in general. Some would say that even if SWA management welcomed the unions with open arms...the fact that they(unions) were on the property in the first place was an indication of an intrinsic breakdown in the relationship between management and labor. Behind all the words of 'luv' and hearts and flower...the seeds of discontent and distrust had been sown.

In other words...happy employees...employees who are confident their employer will "do right by them" no matter what...employees who have an implicit trust in the people they work for...don't typically organize.

Should we choose to accept that hypothesis...the next question is...will jetBlue's management keep labor sufficiently happy that they never feel the need to organize in the first place?

 

[KCFlyer]

ELP WN Psgr,

I know you want to think that the flight attendants are evil and bad and should want to work for free because it's such a great company, wake up. We want to put food in our family's mouths just like anyone else without having to be away from them 6 days a week. I seriously doubt that you know that SWA flight attendants start off making $14,000 per year, and can qualify for food stamps. So don't even talk to me about being greedy, flight attendants made and make this airline, if we aren't happy then we aren't going to make the customers happy-get it.
This TA is good for the flight attendants and the company is happy as well. As for you to keep on flying SWA, I could give a banana rats ass. You are probably one of those passengers who think flight attendants are there to serve you, well were not. Flight Attendants are on the plane for your safety, any service is complimentary but we are there for safety. As for Jim Parker, he is evil man and I'm glad he's gone. SWA would never let us strike, much less lock us out -like I said we are Southwest Airlines and that sure would ruin the LUV airline.

I know more about who qualifies for food stamps and who doesn't than you ever will. $14K a year will not qualify a single person for food stamps, unless there are several members of the household, and $14K is the total household income. If that 14K is their total household income, shouldn't the spouse try to do something to put bread on the family's table? If the spouse is unable to work, how are they able to care for themself with a spouse who travels 90% of the year? If there is no spouse, the what the hell is the single parent doing taking a job that keeps them out of town for 6 days a week? That argument has NEVER held water for me. You wanna see some folks who qualify for food stamps? PM me on your next trip thru Kansas City. I'll be more than happy to show you several people who'd think that $14k was manna from heaven.

BTW...if you don't want to be away from your family 6 days a week, why'd you take a job as a flight attendant.?Surely it wasn't the money.

While the FAA does indeed mandate your presence on a plane for safety reasons, how many times in your career have you exercised the safety aspects as opposed to serving a coke? 72 million folks last year viewed your job as a service job. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Not to worry about Parker...he's gone. He's gone because your attitude represents the cancer that was introduced into the culture...the cancer I believe that he sacrificed his job to exorcise it from the company. I hope you believe in miracles because when Herb leaves this world, you're gonna have to the dance with the one in charge. And I'll echo mweiss...you don't know who you aimed that diatribe at. And you've already been proven wrong...SWA did lock out mechanics once already. They did it at a time that the company was a helluva lot more vulnerable than they are today. Never say never.

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

Thanks for defending me, Weiss......but I am reasonably thick skinned. The real tragedy is I am usually right. Go back and look at what I posted 5 yrs ago (well, if you could...Holly Hegeman took down her Planebusiness.com boards).

The good news is I don't think the golden goose is dead. It's not even in intensive care. Yet. But the golden goose has started smoking, driving without a seat belt, and is traveling out of country without immunizations.

But to answer the question --- I think the first unions on the property were the Ground Ops people around 1976. Around '74 Southwest had just had to go to a consolidated res office - having one agent sit in a room at each airport and make stick marks in a composition book (as passengers called to book a flight) no longer was going to cut it. American had laid off/furloughed a number of res agents and Southwest hired them. They were glad to have the job. For a year or two. Then they got to griping and complaining that working for Southwest was not enough like working for American. So in came the IAM. Their organizers and negotiatiors were not all that bad --- I seem to recall both J.D. Crow and Mr. Faircloth were not impossible for the company to deal with. Heck, the contract even included a provision to terminate the worst 5% of employees (based upon attendance) annually with no recourse to grievance.

At any rate, that was the Muse era. And the Muse doctrine was if we have a union, okay fine...but the folks who don't belong to unions will make more than those who do. That kept some of the other work groups from organizing for a while.

Locking the mechanics out/taking the strike (depending upon who you want to believe) neither stopped nor accelerated the unionization at Southwest Airlines Co. What it did do, for a long time, was keep the unions relatively reasonable in making their non-negotiable demands.

And as far as the poor starting FA on food stanps and welfare....my suggestion is to raise the starting wages. I have no problem with doing that. However, if you have a fixed pie you had better watch the way you carve it.

Had I been negotiating the thing, I could have gone for starting wages of $20 per trip. However, I would have slowed down the steps to the big money and maybe held firm with a 15 yr top out.

I am not anti union, but I am pro-company. I find it somewhat devastating to see greed destroy a company that took 35 yrs or so to build from scratch, and that still stands as an excellent example of what an airline ought to be.

In other words, arkmitch, where were you on 18 June 1971? I was at Gate 25, watching the Braniff Spy count passengers.

 

[SWAFA30]

While the FAA does indeed mandate your presence on a plane for safety reasons, how many times in your career have you exercised the safety aspects as opposed to serving a coke? 72 million folks last year viewed your job as a service job. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I think Hooter's Air has got it 75% right...3 "real" flight attendants on board to make the FAA happy and a couple of Hooter's Girls on board for "PR". The problem is that we spend so much time never doing what we are actually trained to do...that people take for granted the fact that we are trained to do it. I say take the Hotter's Air concept to it's logical conclusion and completely separate the "Safety" from the "Service". Remove all inflight service responsiblities from the flight attendants...train them as air marshals let them focus solely on the safety side of the job. On the flip side would be the "servers"...they would truly be flying waiters and waitresses whose sole reason for being onboard was to make sure nobody was hungry or thirsty or needed a pillow or blanket. The "safety" folks would be hired, trained, and paid by the federal government. The "service" folks would be employees of the airline. Removing FAA mandated training from the airline's scope of work would save billions in training costs. The "servers" could work for tips...allowing the airlines to pay much lower wages.
The airlines are saving money, the public is safer with armed guards in the cabin of every plane on every flight and happier with with cabin attendants whose sole purpose is to tend to their needs. Everybody wins.

 

[hobbes]

You know, I like to think I can see and grasp both sides of an issue, but this disgusted even me:

"As for Jim Parker, he is evil man and I'm glad he's gone."

Please. You really believe that? The Company has their propaganda, and the Union has theirs. If you really believe that statement to be true, then I'd tactfully say that you might want to apply the same filter to the Union's version of events as you do to the Company's. You might be surprised to realize that each side has their version of events, and yes, even the Union is capable of spin.

Do you realize that prior to his role as CEO, Parker was the Chief Negotiator for Southwest Airlines? Do you know how many contracts he has successfully negotiated?

And yet, because he couldn't negotiate the final few items in the F/A contract, he's suddenly an evil man?

I don't get it. The guy was no Herb (who could be?) but he was a far cry from "evil."

 

[arkmitch]

ark,

Trust me when I say that you don't have the first clue about the person to whom you wrote that diatribe. If you did, you would probably be quite embarrassed.

Mweiss,

Trust me when I say that anyone who knocks me and my fellow coworkers is trash to me, regardless who they are. If they are so special let's reveil them. That's what I thought.

 

[arkmitch]

I know more about who qualifies for food stamps and who doesn't than you ever will. $14K a year will not qualify a single person for food stamps, unless there are several members of the household, and $14K is the total household income. If that 14K is their total household income, shouldn't the spouse try to do something to put bread on the family's table? If the spouse is unable to work, how are they able to care for themself with a spouse who travels 90% of the year? If there is no spouse, the what the hell is the single parent doing taking a job that keeps them out of town for 6 days a week? That argument has NEVER held water for me. You wanna see some folks who qualify for food stamps? PM me on your next trip thru Kansas City. I'll be more than happy to show you several people who'd think that $14k was manna from heaven.

BTW...if you don't want to be away from your family 6 days a week, why'd you take a job as a flight attendant.?Surely it wasn't the money.

While the FAA does indeed mandate your presence on a plane for safety reasons, how many times in your career have you exercised the safety aspects as opposed to serving a coke? 72 million folks last year viewed your job as a service job. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Not to worry about Parker...he's gone. He's gone because your attitude represents the cancer that was introduced into the culture...the cancer I believe that he sacrificed his job to exorcise it from the company. I hope you believe in miracles because when Herb leaves this world, you're gonna have to the dance with the one in charge. And I'll echo mweiss...you don't know who you aimed that diatribe at. And you've already been proven wrong...SWA did lock out mechanics once already. They did it at a time that the company was a helluva lot more vulnerable than they are today. Never say never.

I bet you don't fly 6 days a week, do you? When I came into this job I was one, now I'm a family of four. Things change, I'm not saying I hate the company I just want to paid like everyone else who does my job- and now I will. Period.

 

[arkmitch]

Thanks for defending me, Weiss......but I am reasonably thick skinned. The real tragedy is I am usually right. Go back and look at what I posted 5 yrs ago (well, if you could...Holly Hegeman took down her Planebusiness.com boards).

The good news is I don't think the golden goose is dead. It's not even in intensive care. Yet. But the golden goose has started smoking, driving without a seat belt, and is traveling out of country without immunizations.

But to answer the question --- I think the first unions on the property were the Ground Ops people around 1976. Around '74 Southwest had just had to go to a consolidated res office - having one agent sit in a room at each airport and make stick marks in a composition book (as passengers called to book a flight) no longer was going to cut it. American had laid off/furloughed a number of res agents and Southwest hired them. They were glad to have the job. For a year or two. Then they got to griping and complaining that working for Southwest was not enough like working for American. So in came the IAM. Their organizers and negotiatiors were not all that bad --- I seem to recall both J.D. Crow and Mr. Faircloth were not impossible for the company to deal with. Heck, the contract even included a provision to terminate the worst 5% of employees (based upon attendance) annually with no recourse to grievance.

At any rate, that was the Muse era. And the Muse doctrine was if we have a union, okay fine...but the folks who don't belong to unions will make more than those who do. That kept some of the other work groups from organizing for a while.

Locking the mechanics out/taking the strike (depending upon who you want to believe) neither stopped nor accelerated the unionization at Southwest Airlines Co. What it did do, for a long time, was keep the unions relatively reasonable in making their non-negotiable demands.

And as far as the poor starting FA on food stanps and welfare....my suggestion is to raise the starting wages. I have no problem with doing that. However, if you have a fixed pie you had better watch the way you carve it.

Had I been negotiating the thing, I could have gone for starting wages of $20 per trip. However, I would have slowed down the steps to the big money and maybe held firm with a 15 yr top out.

I am not anti union, but I am pro-company. I find it somewhat devastating to see greed destroy a company that took 35 yrs or so to build from scratch, and that still stands as an excellent example of what an airline ought to be.

In other words, arkmitch, where were you on 18 June 1971? I was at Gate 25, watching the Braniff Spy count passengers.

I have to say man, I was six years yet to be born. I don't care if new hires get paid, I didn't -why should I care if anyone else does. All I'm saying, is this is good contract for the F/A's and the Company, there is no reason not to accept it. My wife.who has be here for ten years. and I will vote yes on the T.A. Just so you know, I don't want to work for a company who will be out of business in a few years. I am here for the long run.

 

[mweiss]

The real tragedy is I am usually right. Go back and look at what I posted 5 yrs ago (well, if you could...Holly Hegeman took down her Planebusiness.com boards).

Heh...I'm in the same boat there (albeit with less firsthand experience). There are many times I wish I could go back to Holly's board to point at a post I made in 1999 or 2000.

The good news is I don't think the golden goose is dead. It's not even in intensive care. Yet. But the golden goose has started smoking, driving without a seat belt, and is traveling out of country without immunizations.

I agree with you. I wouldn't have phrased it nearly as well as that, but yeah.