Well, now, smartass, if you wanted to know who he is, all you have to do is read his posts.arkmitch said:If they are so special let's reveil them. That's what I thought.
That's what I thought. <_<
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, now, smartass, if you wanted to know who he is, all you have to do is read his posts.arkmitch said:If they are so special let's reveil them. That's what I thought.
So you took the job when you were single, clearly less than ten years ago, and now that you're part of a family of four, you're complaining that you're away from home for six days a week.arkmitch said: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...
So perhaps you should defer to your elders in this case.arkmitch said:I have to say man, I was six years yet to be born.
That's an attitude that needs to go. You should care because they are your fellow line employees, and the company will live or die based on how well you and your fellow line employees do their jobs. Therefore your job is dependent upon them. You should care very much what everyone else does.I don't care if new hires get paid, I didn't -why should I care if anyone else does.
Sure could have fooled me. If you really are, then I posit that you have very little understanding of the business for whom you work.I am here for the long run.
mweiss,mweiss said:So you took the job when you were single, clearly less than ten years ago, and now that you're part of a family of four, you're complaining that you're away from home for six days a week.
Did you think that once you had a family, your schedules would suddenly let you spend every night at home?
Did you think when you took the job that you'd never have a family?
You think you're going to have a lot of sympathy from the rest of us because you made a choice earlier on in life that has turned out to be more difficult for you than you thought???
Mr. ELP WN Psgr and mweiss,ELP_WN_Psgr said:By growth of the company, I am afraid Mitch is referring to the rise in ASM cost.
Unfortunately, that isn't the type of growth that bodes well for stockholders, customers, and ultimately employees.
Did I think that the company ought to pay a reasonable wage? Sure.
Do I think that raising your CASM in an era while everybody else is lwoering their's is wise? No.
Did the company have enough money to absorb this contract? Yes they did.
But here is the real problem---
You raise your ASM cost. You don't make as much money, unless....
You raise your fares. That's okay, unless.....
Fewer people fly because the fares have gone up. If you can't look at what is happening to the Texas core intrastate markets and put two and two together.....WN has pretty much taken a dump on the discretionary traveler with $92 fares between Dallas & Houston. Granted, that's a lot better than USAirways $477 between Philadelphia & Buffalo or Delta's fare of $450-something between Nashville and Atlanta, but it is still too high. Why do they charge $92? because they can't afford not to, they have to generate the revenue to pay for higher labor costs someplace.
And when fewer people fly.......less revenue comes in. The problem with contracts, at least among companies that honor the ones they agree to....is they don't call for a reduction in pay and benefits if you have to do something drastic after you raise the prices so much that you run off all your business.
But that isn't the employees' problem. That problem is squarely in the lap of the stockholder. You remember the stockholders, don't you??? the folks that OWN the company? I know, at WN lots of employees have a bunch of stock. That's a good thing. Frankly, I would have liked to have seen the FAs, or any other employee group...get bushel basket loads full of stock in lieu of insanely raising labor costs.
It all gets back to the matter of productivity. Southwest can pay employees more because employees are, on average, more productive than at other carriers. They are so productive largely because the systems put into place during Southwest's infancy has not been ruined....Kelleher may be many things but he was certainly smart enough to understand not to F with what Lamar Muse (and a host of others) had implemented in the way of operations.
But how does a FA get more productive? He or she can't. The FAA only lets a FA fly so many hours. The airplane can only be so full. The absolute limit to productivity is capped if every FA flies the maximum allowable hours during each period and every single flight is full. But not every flight can be full. You don't want every flight to be full. If every flight is full, you are losing traffic to someone. The old axiom is that LF should never be higher than 67%...if it was, an airline needed to add frequency.
So, Mitch, pat yourself on the back and think how wonderful all that moolah rolling in is for now. My sage advice would be to max out your 401K contributions now, put that raise into escrow...because while the wolf is not at the door today, it might be in 10 or 12 years.
There are, in case you haven't noticed it...other carriers out there with lower cosst and different priorities than Southwest. JetBlue is buying a basketload of 100 seat airplanes with (allegedly) a relatively low ASM cost.....heck, it ought to be low.....they are paying the pilot about what a 7-11 clerk makes and the co-pilot...you could earn more mowing lawns. The economy is on the big time rebound. The economy coming back means that there will be capital out there....and the next thing you know somebody will show up at Love Field with 4 Embraer 190s and hostesses in hot pants with free drinks and unrestricted $25 seats to Hobby. Then what ya gonna do?
Well, I can't speak for ELP (he does a fine job of that himselfarkmitch said:So you guys are saying that everyone at SWA should get paid accordingly except flight attendants
See if they're hiring then diet like a madman until I can fit into a pair of hotpants.ELP_WN_Psgr said:....and the next thing you know somebody will show up at Love Field with 4 Embraer 190s and hostesses in hot pants with free drinks and unrestricted $25 seats to Hobby. Then what ya gonna do?
SWAFA30 said:See if they're hiring then diet like a madman until I can fit into a pair of hotpants.
ELP WN Psgr,ELP_WN_Psgr said:By growth of the company, I am afraid Mitch is referring to the rise in ASM cost.
Unfortunately, that isn't the type of growth that bodes well for stockholders, customers, and ultimately employees.
Did I think that the company ought to pay a reasonable wage? Sure.
Do I think that raising your CASM in an era while everybody else is lwoering their's is wise? No.
Did the company have enough money to absorb this contract? Yes they did.
But here is the real problem---
You raise your ASM cost. You don't make as much money, unless....
You raise your fares. That's okay, unless.....
Fewer people fly because the fares have gone up. If you can't look at what is happening to the Texas core intrastate markets and put two and two together.....WN has pretty much taken a dump on the discretionary traveler with $92 fares between Dallas & Houston. Granted, that's a lot better than USAirways $477 between Philadelphia & Buffalo or Delta's fare of $450-something between Nashville and Atlanta, but it is still too high. Why do they charge $92? because they can't afford not to, they have to generate the revenue to pay for higher labor costs someplace.
And when fewer people fly.......less revenue comes in. The problem with contracts, at least among companies that honor the ones they agree to....is they don't call for a reduction in pay and benefits if you have to do something drastic after you raise the prices so much that you run off all your business.
But that isn't the employees' problem. That problem is squarely in the lap of the stockholder. You remember the stockholders, don't you??? the folks that OWN the company? I know, at WN lots of employees have a bunch of stock. That's a good thing. Frankly, I would have liked to have seen the FAs, or any other employee group...get bushel basket loads full of stock in lieu of insanely raising labor costs.
It all gets back to the matter of productivity. Southwest can pay employees more because employees are, on average, more productive than at other carriers. They are so productive largely because the systems put into place during Southwest's infancy has not been ruined....Kelleher may be many things but he was certainly smart enough to understand not to F with what Lamar Muse (and a host of others) had implemented in the way of operations.
But how does a FA get more productive? He or she can't. The FAA only lets a FA fly so many hours. The airplane can only be so full. The absolute limit to productivity is capped if every FA flies the maximum allowable hours during each period and every single flight is full. But not every flight can be full. You don't want every flight to be full. If every flight is full, you are losing traffic to someone. The old axiom is that LF should never be higher than 67%...if it was, an airline needed to add frequency.
So, Mitch, pat yourself on the back and think how wonderful all that moolah rolling in is for now. My sage advice would be to max out your 401K contributions now, put that raise into escrow...because while the wolf is not at the door today, it might be in 10 or 12 years.
There are, in case you haven't noticed it...other carriers out there with lower cosst and different priorities than Southwest. JetBlue is buying a basketload of 100 seat airplanes with (allegedly) a relatively low ASM cost.....heck, it ought to be low.....they are paying the pilot about what a 7-11 clerk makes and the co-pilot...you could earn more mowing lawns. The economy is on the big time rebound. The economy coming back means that there will be capital out there....and the next thing you know somebody will show up at Love Field with 4 Embraer 190s and hostesses in hot pants with free drinks and unrestricted $25 seats to Hobby. Then what ya gonna do?
Aside from the reputation of AA FAs, I don't see where you got the impression that anyone had that opinion.arkmitch said:Flight Attendants aren't the venom-spewing, hate-mongers that everyone else in the company thinks we are.
I don't think I've read an idea as bad as that one in a long, long time.SWAFA30 said: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.
What if the Aircraft takes a three hour delay because of a part that they need in BWI is not here? Up to 137 people could not want to fly us again. That what happens if I (as a stock clerk) don't do my job. Your performance may be important but things happen you don't even think of to make that plane fly. Please remember we all have our jobs to do but we are ALL equally important to the company and passengers.arkmitch said:Now, let's change the situation, say a passenger breezes through security and breezes through the CSA and OPS Agent but gets on the plane and the flight attendant treats them like crap; you can bet that person WILL NOT fly SWA again. Like I said, I'm sorry if you disagree, but that's just the way it is. We, the flight attendants, are the ones who spend the most time with passengers; like it or not our performance is what brings repeat customers.