Parker Suddenly Retires; Gary Kelly To Replace Him

[mweiss]

If they are so special let's reveil them. That's what I thought.

Well, now, smartass, if you wanted to know who he is, all you have to do is read his posts.

That's what I thought. <_<

 

[mweiss]

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 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???

 

[mweiss]

I have to say man, I was six years yet to be born.

So perhaps you should defer to your elders in this case. Seriously, ELP has a tremendous amount of knowledge of WN. On those rare occasions when we disagree, I tend to bow to his superior knowledge there.

I don't care if new hires get paid, I didn't -why should I care if anyone else does.

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 am here for the long run.

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.

 

[arkmitch]

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???

mweiss,

I never said it was difficult, all I'm trying to say is the company is happy and the the flight attendants are happy, now. Look, we just wanted to get paid like every other group at SWA, according to percentages. It wasn't too long ago that I worked a 14 hour and 11 minute duty day and got paid 5.5 TFP, that's not right no matter how you slice it. Before you say you knew what you were getting into, well sadly to say, they tend leave out the negatives. So here is the deal, flight attendants get paid only when the plane is moving, so if I have a 5 hour delay I'm doing that for free- yet I still have to take care of the passsengers. I know I continue my employment with SWA at my own will, thing is anytime I'm on company time and not my own I want to get paid- just like everyone else in America. So judge me and call me an #### if you want, but I firmly believe a person should get paid for what they do on company time. I do love this company, I had been accepted by American Airlines, Continental Airlines, and Southwest Airlines and I chose SWA because of security and not pay; but if you really believe that working over 14 hours and getting paid 5.5 is acceptable then I guess I my as well be talking to the wind. I'm sorry if I offend or offended anyone, I just feel passionate about what I believe and sometimes to a fault. We should all be looking forward to the growth of SWA and make sure EVERY group is compensated accordingly, and I mean everyone: CSA's, Ramp agent's, Operation Agent's, Reservation Agent's, Pilot's, Mechanic's, AND Flight Attendants.

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

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?

 

[mweiss]

Once again, I am in absolute, 100% agreement with ELP. Lord knows, I couldn't have come close to articulating it as clearly as he did.

 

[arkmitch]

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?

Mr. ELP WN Psgr and mweiss,

So you guys are saying that everyone at SWA should get paid accordingly except flight attendants, I'm sorry but I don't believe that. If someone gets hassled in security and gets attitude from the CSA snd the OPS Agent, buts gets on the flight and has a safe and fun flight, the passenger is without a doubt going to fly us again. 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. I'm not trying to talk ASM or anything else, I'm just stating the truth- without any less greatfulness to any one department. We ALL make this airline and we should all stick together, like the flight attendants do for any other group. In case you don't know what I mean, the F/A's said they'll strike if you guys strike(depending on your department and union), but when it came to us you guys and girls backed down-not us. We supported you, and the least you guys could do is support us. We all want this airline to make it and prosper, but everyone has to be paid accordingly AND be on the same page- one for all and all for one. We are and will be there for you, I hope you can sayt the same.

 

[mweiss]

So you guys are saying that everyone at SWA should get paid accordingly except flight attendants

Well, I can't speak for ELP (he does a fine job of that himself ), but I can assure you that I am not saying anything of the sort. "Accordingly" is in the eye of the beholder.

Trust me when I tell you that your diatribe of "the airline can't survive without the FAs" is nothing new around these parts. You'll hear the same story from the mechs, the pilots, the GAs, res, etc., etc., etc.

So what?

So every job in the company serves a purpose, without which the company wouldn't function. Good to know. If you can find a job for which that is not the case, then that job should be eliminated.

Again...so what?

 

[SWAFA30]

....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?

See if they're hiring then diet like a madman until I can fit into a pair of hotpants.

 

[mweiss]

See if they're hiring then diet like a madman until I can fit into a pair of hotpants.

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

FA30:

somehow, I figured that would be your response.

I did like your idea about the safety/sky marshal FAs and the server FAs. It made a lot of sense.

Now I am sitting here waiting for guys to sue Hooter's because they aren't allowed to be Hooter's girls.

 

[arkmitch]

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?

ELP WN Psgr,

While you have valid points, I think that you and a lot of people think that SWA rolled over and gave us everything we wanted and the flight attendants squeezed all we could- not true. If look at our standing with other airline labor costs before and after the TA, we are still the same. We aren't stupid enough to cut off our noses just to spite our face. Our goal as well every other department is to make sure this airline is profitable and the employees are compensated for making it profitable. I believe our load factor is 76% , that's pretty good and I know the flights are full because I'm working them. Truth be told, I would like an empty flight every now then, but I would much rather have our flights full than empty. Flight Attendants aren't the venom-spewing, hate-mongers that everyone else in the company thinks we are. When I'm on a flight and I do the funny P.A.'s and I shoot the bull with passengers, I don't paid any extra for that- hell we aren't even suppose to accept tips. So you see, we are doing this extra for SWA and to keep those customers coming back time and again, and keeping them well satified and happy. Not only that, I will be the first one to help an ops agent roll wheelchairs or check bags- and when I land in a provisioning city I open all the compartments to make the Provisioners jobs easier. I am all about teamwork, and that's the way it should be. It's not your department against mine, we are all employees and we should treat internal customers as well or better than our external customers. Whenever other departments contracts come up, you can bet that the flight attendants will be behind them 110%, even after the less-than-perfect cooperation from other departments, because if you get to know us we aren't that bad- although we have a few bad apples just like everywhere.

 

[mweiss]

Flight Attendants aren't the venom-spewing, hate-mongers that everyone else in the company thinks we are.

Aside from the reputation of AA FAs, I don't see where you got the impression that anyone had that opinion.

 

[JS]

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.

I don't think I've read an idea as bad as that one in a long, long time.

The thought of extending the cost, wastefulness and all-around idiocy of the TSA onto the plane is frightening.

Adding tips to the mix just adds insult to injury. What happens if I don't feel that a tip is deserved merely for handing me a Coke? I certainly don't want to face a situation where the server is pissed at me and is friends with the "safety" guy.

Besides, what is the big deal with one person's job involving multiple tasks? Even the pilots, whose primary job is quite complicated, do have a secondary task, and that is talking to the passengers.

Shall we federalize the pilots and hire a low-paid, tip-accepting public addresser so that the pilot's job will be even more narrowly defined?

If you can't handle the safety aspects of your job at the commencement and close of a flight and the service aspect in between, you need to change careers.

 

[wnbubbleboy]

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.

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.