Trouble Ahead

[KCFlyer]

Southwest Airlines has $1,800,000,000.00 in HARD, COLD, CASH, on hand; IN THE BANK!!!

If I recall correctly, these exact words were uttered over at USAirways - except the number was 2 billion. And they were uttered about 4 months prior to U filing bankruptcy. Take a look at how much money an airline goes thru each and every day, then do the math.

 

[KCFlyer]

Soo...if I don't work for SWA, all is lost? There is no other career to be had...this place is it?...the be all...end all. My only other option is being locked away in cubicle h&ll for all of eternity? That assertion is so disturbing I don't know where to begin. This is an airline. Not Nirvana. Difficult as it might be to believe more than a handful of us came to this field of endeavor by choice...not because we are unemployable dolts who had no other career options. I've only got so many years on this good earth...I've invested a sizeable chunk of them working at SWA...I'm hanging around on the off chance that my investment might pay off...If not I owe it to myself to cut my losses and move on. The clock is ticking.

Not at all. But the fact of the matter is, most every other company out there is run by an overpaid exec who knows little to nothing about the industry he's in. They hire a bunch of MBA's who couldn't find their butt with both hands, but they know the "Six Sigma" by heart. There is very little "luv" in their hearts. When they see the dissatisfaction among their ranks, they head to Southwest airlines, seeking the holy grail "10 point plan to employee satisfaction". I believe Colleen was quoted as saying "How do you explain to golden rule to a bunch of MBA's?" There are an awful lot of people who endure a job. Even when their coworkers are either laid off or their jobs "offshored" in the name of cost cutting. And then the survivors are give a "mandatory 50" hour work week. Those that put "only" 50 hours are viewed as the new slackers. The "go getters" are the ones working 60 to 70 hours per week. For 40 hours of pay. Even though your union is selling "they've lost the luv" to the membership and the public, the fact of the matter is, Southwest's culture is unique enough to attract the attention of an awful lot of folks. I'd work there in a heartbeat - except that at my age (mid 40's) with a family to support, I can't afford to start over at entry level. But there are an awful lot of folks in their early 20's, working at a job that pays $10 an hour who would think that a starting wage new $15 and all the "glamour" of travel (having traveled in my job for a good part of my life, I know that the glamour part wears off after about a month) is something too good to be true. And if they are joined by a bunch of others whose minds haven't been "polluted" with the "they don't luv you...it's just a line....they're just a business", then the "right stuff" will be there in excess.

 

[SWAFA30]

Not at all. But the fact of the matter is, most every other company out there is run by an overpaid exec who knows little to nothing about the industry he's in.

Every other company or every other airline? In either case Southwest does not have the market cornered on stability...not even within the industry. SWA has longevity but the new kids on the block have watched...and watched carefully, taken the good parts of SWA and improved on them. There is no magic here, just good managers and there are good managers beyond SWA.

They hire a bunch of MBA's who couldn't find their butt with both hands, but they know the "Six Sigma" by heart. There is very little "luv" in their hearts. When they see the dissatisfaction among their ranks, they head to Southwest airlines, seeking the holy grail "10 point plan to employee satisfaction". I believe Colleen was quoted as saying "How do you explain to golden rule to a bunch of MBA's?" There are an awful lot of people who endure a job. Even when their coworkers are either laid off or their jobs "offshored" in the name of cost cutting. And then the survivors are give a "mandatory 50" hour work week. Those that put "only" 50 hours are viewed as the new slackers. The "go getters" are the ones working 60 to 70 hours per week. For 40 hours of pay.

There is no love here only a good business plan, even better PR. This company loved the reservationists until they got too expensive then 3 centers worth had to either pull up stakes and move or hit the door.


Even though your union is selling "they've lost the luv" to the membership and the public, the fact of the matter is, Southwest's culture is unique enough to attract the attention of an awful lot of folks.

The "culture" fades the further one gets from the big "D". You say "culture"....I say "corporate cult". Tomato, to-mah-to, potato, po-tah-to. Let's call the whole thing off. Try as I might...I can't get my landlord to accept a big bag of "culture" as payment for the apartment I rent. Going back to Britney Spears...she gets alot of attention too but she still can't sing.

I'd work there in a heartbeat - except that at my age (mid 40's) with a family to support, I can't afford to start over at entry level. But there are an awful lot of folks in their early 20's, working at a job that pays $10 an hour who would think that a starting wage new $15 and all the "glamour" of travel (having traveled in my job for a good part of my life, I know that the glamour part wears off after about a month) is something too good to be true. And if they are joined by a bunch of others whose minds haven't been "polluted" with the "they don't luv you...it's just a line....they're just a business", then the "right stuff" will be there in excess.


The "whoring oneself out for sub-standard wages in exchange for 'culture' " line forms over there. I don't doubt ya....I'm sure it will be a long one.

 

[KCFlyer]

There is no magic here, just good managers and there are good managers beyond SWA.

Some places there are. Other places hire an exec because "he did great in Telecom, let's let him run this waste disposal business". Failed miserably. Other places have boards who are very willing to "reward" the executive team for a "job well done" - and that well done job means that they lost less money than they did the year before. Also - SWA is unique because their execs pay is tied pretty much directly to performance. If salary alone were a factor, every exec at SWA could easily double their "guaranteed" income by moving to another company outside the airline industry. And your union's leader is attempting to paint Mr. Parker as an overpaid, unfeeling executive. And I find that stance laughable.

There is no love here only a good business plan, even better PR. This company loved the reservationists until they got too expensive then 3 centers worth had to either pull up stakes and move or hit the door.

.

At least they were given the option to move. At least they were given a rather generous severance package if they opted not to move. Any other company would have given them little more than a cardboard box to put their personal belongings and maybe a months pay. When you've watched your friends and neighbors get laid off with little more than a "we need your desk cleaned off by 5 today", you can see very clearly that SWA had a bit more compassion with their moves of closing res centers. You know, travel agents used to be a lucrative industry until the advent of the internet. Stockbrokers too. Now with computer technology, many of your competitors are replacing counter agents with the new metallic kiosk agent. I took a Delta flight a couple of months ago and there was a sign - at noon time - that the counter was closed and to use the kiosk. If you had to check bags, you were instructed to take them (yourself) over to the TSA agent. SWA's counter was right next door. Yep, they had the kiosks, but they also had each and every window staffed with a live human being.

The "culture" fades the further one gets from the big "D". You say "culture"....I say "corporate cult". Tomato, to-mah-to, potato, po-tah-to. Let's call the whole thing off. Try as I might...I can't get my landlord to accept a big bag of "culture" as payment for the apartment I rent. Going back to Britney Spears...she gets alot of attention too but she still can't sing.

No doubt Britanny can't sing, but she does have a nice ass. It's too bad you see "corporate cult". Perhaps more companies need some of this "cultishness". It's far better to have a job at a company that you want to go to work for. I have had times where it was tough to make those rent payments to the landlord myself. But your not homeless, so there must be enough in the bank to make the payment. There may be 7,000 FA's who feel like it's a cult...that the culture is nothing more than corporate kool-aid. I'd submit to you that there are 70,000 others who have to-mah-toed and to-may-toed enough that they'd gladly trade places. It's called "the grass is always greener" syndrome. Trouble with your attitude is that you believe the grass ain't any greener over here, so you're willing to have the company stop the weed-n-feeding on your side of the fence and let the hogweed infiltrate your field.

The "whoring oneself out for sub-standard wages in exchange for 'culture' " line forms over there. I don't doubt ya....I'm sure it will be a long one.

"Substandard wages" is subjective. To a person making $10 an hour, paying a couple hundred dollars a month for insurance and working out of fear rather than any sense of loyalty to a company, a starting wage of $15 an hour, with a $2 per diem and fantastic benefits as far from being "whored out". When they look at the wage progression that has been offered - they'd wonder how ANYBODY could believe that they were being "used". I don't know exactly where you live, but I have friends here who were laid off from a job paying $60,000 per year having to take jobs stocking a grocery store. They don't feel that they are "whoring themselves out"...they call it "survival".

 

[swflyer]

KC,

Thom doesn't get paid by Southwest airlines, so it's nothing to him if he paints Parker as the second coming of Frank Lorenzo. It means diddly squat to him if you (the members he represents) begins to view the company as "just another employer".

Thom McDaniel is an employee of Southwest, and is paid by SWA, through agreement between the Union and Company, as the Company collects Union dues from it's members.

But Thom won't care....he'll still be getting paid while working to turn yet another workgroup against their company

After his term is over, Thom will be returning to the line as a flight attendant, so he will be as effected by the actions in negotiations as everyone else has been and will be.

I thought I'd let you know this in a PM I'd sent. Thom is NOT the private negotiator, there is only one, joined by a TWU provided International Rep. and Economist. The primary FIVE people at the table, running the negotiations on behalf of the flight attendant workgroup, are flight attendants for Southwest Airlines.

There is no outside, Union agenda here. The people involved here, from every senority, have rolled over for Management in the past and are asking to be caught up in this Contract. Not outsiders, but people who have been involved, in every way, in the success of this Company.

Just thought that point needed clearing up.

 

[KCFlyer]

swflyer - if Thom McDaniel really is a flight attendant for SWA, then he is no better for the company than the cancer that killed my father. The cancer in my dad also thought that it was doing what was "best" for his body. The rest of him felt otherwise.

 

[jimntx]

Any other company would have given them little more than a cardboard box to put their personal belongings and maybe a months pay. When you've watched your friends and neighbors get laid off with little more than a "we need your desk cleaned off by 5 today", you can see very clearly that SWA had a bit more compassion with their moves of closing res centers.

Or, they could do it the way Texaco did it to friends of mine in the 90's when they were "right-sizing." People were called in to the supervisor's office, told that they were being laid off, that they would be escorted to the front door immediately, and they could call starting the next day to make an appointment to come back and collect their personal belongings from their desk under the watchful eye of a security guard to make sure that they didn't steal any company pencils.

I had one friend who had his children's pictures in a set of pewter frames with the Texaco logo imprinted on them. (He had chosen them as his gift from the company on one of his 5-year service anniversaries.) The security guard tried to tell him that he could take the pictures, but not the frames because the logo made them company property.

Please note that Texaco--once one of the oldest brands in any industry in the United States--no longer exists as a separate entity. It is now part of ChevronTexaco. (Note to linguists: when spoken, the Texaco is silent.)

 

[SWAFA30]

Some places there are. Other places hire an exec because "he did great in Telecom, let's let him run this waste disposal business". Failed miserably. Other places have boards who are very willing to "reward" the executive team for a "job well done" - and that well done job means that they lost less money than they did the year before. Also - SWA is unique because their execs pay is tied pretty much directly to performance. If salary alone were a factor, every exec at SWA could easily double their "guaranteed" income by moving to another company outside the airline industry.

As long as the execs are happy I say Mazel Tav.


And your union's leader is attempting to paint Mr. Parker as an overpaid, unfeeling executive. And I find that stance laughable.

Just like many people in this country were unhappy with President Bush before John Kerry became the presumptive democratic candidate...many flight attendants were unhappy with SWA before Thom McDaniel took the helm. Mr. Kerry's candidacy did not create the rancor some harbor towards Mr. Bush...he just gave that rancor a place to call home. Same goes for many of the flight attendants of SWA. It is easy to blame this on Thom McDaniel because is the chosen mouthpiece but those whose views he espouses felt as they do...long before he stepped into the spotlight. These negotiations have simply placed it all under a microscope. Thom's words express the sentiments of much of the membership, definitely not all but more than you'd think. Keep repeating that to yourself until it sinks in. We actually work for Jim....that is a very different experience and perspective than reading a piece in Forbes, a passage in "Nuts" or a blurb in USA Today. Whoever first said the grass always looks greener from the otherside of the fence sure said a mouthful.

No doubt Britanny can't sing, but she does have a nice ass. It's too bad you see "corporate cult". Perhaps more companies need some of this "cultishness".

To a point yes. I think the original idea of this airline bonding as a pseudo-family in the interest of a common goal was brilliant. Doubtless the bond the original employees formed helped them to overcome the tremendous obstacles that threatened to keep SWA from ever getting off the ground. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with taking care of your people. I've never been but I have to think that is Business School 101 that if you take care of your people...they will take care of you. But there comes a point where you cross the line into "groupthink" and that is a dangerous line to cross.


It's far better to have a job at a company that you want to go to work for.

Of course but there is a difference between enjoying where your work and becoming beholden to a company to the point of idolatry.

I have had times where it was tough to make those rent payments to the landlord myself. But your not homeless, so there must be enough in the bank to make the payment.

I am fortunate that I don't have the same level of responsibility that others do....no spouse...no kids....etc. I live simply and I have enough seniority that my pay rate is sufficient to make enough to keep the rent paid and the lights on. But, I live in an inexpensive part of the country...if I lived in one of our expensive east or west coast bases and or I had a family to support, I would have to make the difficult decision of either flying enough to support myself and my family or actually being home to see them or making enough to support myself in a base city or actually being home to enjoy the home I am flying to pay for. That is the damned if you do damned if you don't choice these folks are tired of having to make. Either fly 23-26 days a month and never see your home and family or not fly and not be able to afford that home or family. We understand the concept of paying dues but having to still make that agonizing choice after 10 or 12 years of service is tough to swallow when your work for a company that enjoys the kind of financial success that Southwest has.


There may be 7,000 FA's who feel like it's a cult...that the culture is nothing more than corporate kool-aid. I'd submit to you that there are 70,000 others who have to-mah-toed and to-may-toed enough that they'd gladly trade places.

It is not all 7,000 flight attendants. The union leadership has the majority behind them but it is not unanimous...not even close..that is why Jim Parker is pushing so hard for a vote...all he needs is 50 percent just one...he is rolling the dice that the numbers tilt in his favor. Also, it has been pointed out that in past years the mechanics and ramp agents have also had acrimonious negotiations with the company. One could gather that this sense of discontent with the status quo at SWA exists beyond the flight attendant ranks. We just happen to be the malcontents du jour.

It's called "the grass is always greener" syndrome. Trouble with your attitude is that you believe the grass ain't any greener over here, so you're willing to have the company stop the weed-n-feeding on your side of the fence and let the hogweed infiltrate your field.

Not really. The way I see it, we, the labor groups of SWA are like different varieties of vegetables in a farmer's garden. You've got the corn, tomatoes, peas, and carrots...(ramp, ops, customer service, flight ops, etc.) and they have all gotten their fair share of the Miracle-Gro(12 year top outs, pay raises, etc.) But when it came time to water the broccoli (Inflight Service)Farmer Brown said..."Sorry, I'm almost all out of Miracle-Gro. I know the other veggies got their fair share but there just isn't much left...you'll have to make do with what's left at the bottom of the bottle. I know it's not much and the others got more but it's all I've got, it's better than nothing and I never really liked broccoli anway."

"Substandard wages" is subjective.

Of course. But who is in this particular instance is in a better position to
quantify "substandard"...someone who has busted his or her tail schlepping drinks on 28 minute flights, collecting barf bags, and just generally being there "just in case" the @#$% hits the fan at SWA's behest or someone who hasn't ?

To a person making $10 an hour, paying a couple hundred dollars a month for insurance and working out of fear rather than any sense of loyalty to a company, a starting wage of $15 an hour, with a $2 per diem and fantastic benefits as far from being "whored out". When they look at the wage progression that has been offered - they'd wonder how ANYBODY could believe that they were being "used".

I'd love to have a chit chat with them after the sheen wears off their shiny new wings and they are still making less than even the other LCCs and they still don't have parity with the other unions at their airline. $15 a trip is great unless you get based in Oakland and until you realize that jetBlue starts at $20. A 15 year top out is fantastic until it dawns on you that the mechanic who fixes your plane, the pilot who flies it, the provisioner who stocks it, and the ramp agent who loads it all topped in 12. Jim Parker is not the devil...the devil is in the details and you have to actually work under a collective bargaining agreement to see where the holes are.


I don't know exactly where you live, but I have friends here who were laid off from a job paying $60,000 per year having to take jobs stocking a grocery store. They don't feel that they are "whoring themselves out"...they call it "survival".

Taking any honest job you can get to put food on the table is admirable. Failing to stand up for the contribution you make to the success of a company is not.

Everyone is so busy being offended by the way the flight attendants have gone about asking for their raise and horrified that they would have the nerve to ask for one in the first place they never stopped to think if SWA could actually afford the raise.

 

[KCFlyer]

Everyone is so busy being offended by the way the flight attendants have gone about asking for their raise and horrified that they would have the nerve to ask for one in the first place they never stopped to think if SWA could actually afford the raise.

I do believe that Southwest has offered a raise. A pretty good raise at that. But I also see the "they've got 1.8 billion cash in the bank" - and as I pointed out - so did USAirways just 4 short months before their bankruptcy.

I know - a union will not feel like they broke the bank if they got all their raises and the company showed a profit of one dollar....hey...it's a profit and it didn't break the bank. But the flaw with that line of thinking is that eventually, you'll be working for a "non-profit" entity, although they still have to pay taxes. And they still have to buy airplanes.

 

[swflyer]

swflyer - if Thom McDaniel really is a flight attendant for SWA, then he is no better for the company than the cancer that killed my father. The cancer in my dad also thought that it was doing what was "best" for his body. The rest of him felt otherwise.

KC,

I'm really sorry to hear about your father.

This was the most intemperate thing I've heard you say, and I'm surprised at the visciousness. I've never been under the impression you'd post like this.

I've worked at SWA over 12 years, I've been on the Culture Committee with Thom McDaniel and Jim Parker, and I love my job. You really don't know what it's like, on the inside, and how the feeling in the Company has changed. There are still personal relationships, built over the years, but there has been a shift.

I'm sorry we disagree but I won't post/argue on this level. I'm out.

Sincerely,

swflyer

 

[Cart Pusher]

SWAFA30 -

I've enjoyed reading your very well thought out, educated and reasonable responses to KC Flyers posts.

It boggles my mind how someone from the outside can claim to know so much about whats going on at Southwest from the inside. As swFlyer said, KC Flyer couldn't know what it's like on the inside, not having been there.

 

[SWAFA30]

I do believe that Southwest has offered a raise. A pretty good raise at that.

Sure...a "pretty good" raise unless you consider that fact the new-hire pay rate is still below the rest of the LCCs, freezes pay for all seniority levels for 2003 in a blatant attempt to avoid paying retro and forces this union to wait 15 years to reach the top of the payscale instead of the 12 years that has become the standard for the rest of the unions at this company.

But I also see the "they've got 1.8 billion cash in the bank" - and as I pointed out - so did USAirways just 4 short months before their bankruptcy.

That's not my quote but I will respond nevertheless. If the now famous and oft quoted $1.8 billion were all the money SWA were ever going to have I would say "Leave it alone!" by all means. But SWA has proved quarter after quarter after quarter after quater...52 consecutive quarters to be exact... that they are able to consistently keep putting the money in the bank. I have said before and I will say again...I am not completely unreasonable. If the unions' proposal puts the company in financial jeopardy. Say so. Jim Parker is an attorney right? Attorneys are supposed to be able to plead their case or "persuade" right? Then plead your case Jim. If you truly care about the flight attendants at SWA and you believe that the union is not acting in their best interest...time to do some serious persuadian. Instead of putting another petty, bitchy, letter in mailbox responding to the latest thing Thom McDaniel did to tick you off write me not Thom me...a real letter and here is what I want to see. I want to see point by point, line by line what the union's proposal if enacted would do to this company. Tell me exactly how many new cities we will not be able to open, aircraft we will be unable to buy, tickets we will be unable to issue and ultimately flight attendants we will be unable to employ if I get the payraise I am asking for. Rather than trying to convince me to accept your proposal Jim, convince me why I should not accept the union's proposal. I have seen the numbers from the union's economist stating that the proposal on the table will not significantly raise or CASM and threaten our low-cost advantage. I have heard the company and union detractors poo-poo those numbers but what I have not seen or heard are the cold, hard, black and white numbers showing that rubber-stamping the union's proposal will irreparably harm SWA. What I do have are vague gloom and doom letters and statements filled with the same "the sky is falling" rhetoric that the union is being accused of propogating with regard to "the death of the SWA culture" The propoganda knife cuts both ways. I beg of you in the name of all that is holy Thom, Jim, one or both, my "petty, bitchy" letter file is fat and getting fatter....make it stop...please. Newsflash. I reached my saturation point over a year ago and have simply tuned out this crap when I get it from either side. I only keep them because they have become a conversation piece at dinner parties. Put some emotion and rheortic free facts in my mailbox Jim and I'm all ears. Moving on to US....USAirways has a horribly flawed business plan. SWA does not. $26 million last quarter and Philly is ready and waiting to begin printing money for SWA. But, hey...I'm flexible. How about the company adopts the unions proposal and includes an "escape clause" that allows them to revert to our current contract if the profits fail to materialize. The company makes money...I make money...the company don't make money...I don't make money. I could live with that. Where do I sign?


I know - a union will not feel like they broke the bank if they got all their raises and the company showed a profit of one dollar....hey...it's a profit and it didn't break the bank. But the flaw with that line of thinking is that eventually, you'll be working for a "non-profit" entity, although they still have to pay taxes. And they still have to buy airplanes

Some unions?...yes. This union...no. "Full Pay til the last day" has not become the battle cry...yet. In every one of the avalanche of union communiques I have received there is always a statement to the effect that a "financially healthy SWA is part and parcel of a fair contract" or something like that. Meaningless, a$$-covering, rhetoric?? maybe. But, I'm not quite ready to make that leap just yet. I have to believe that Union NT has to "get" that if SWA is bankrupt the best contract in the world is suddenly good for nothing more than maybe lighting the barbecue.

 

[Fly]

SWAFA30 - Bravo! Well thought out post and, as usual, well written.

 

[KCFlyer]

It boggles my mind how someone from the outside can claim to know so much about whats going on at Southwest from the inside. As swFlyer said, KC Flyer couldn't know what it's like on the inside, not having been there.

You're right...I don't know diddly squat. I'm just a customer and a fan (historian) of Southwest longer than most of the FA's posting here have worked for them. I am well aware that even in the closest families, there are sometimes disagreements. God only knows how well I know that. But these negotiations have gone farther with vitriol towards the company and Jim Parker in particular than any other workgroup in the past. And I stand by my statement that Mr. McDaniels actions, and the actions of the negotiating committee are a cancer to the company. When you've successfully got employees thinking about their company as "just another employer", then you've done a great job of putting the blinders on your membership. IMHO, once everything is settled, you can't just pull an Emily Litella and say "Nevermind" and have everything be okay again. So yeah, I see the culture beginning to crack with the FA's.

I think it all goes back to the ill conceived "strategic bargaining campaign"...you know the one, the one that the union wanted to pursue to educate me, the "non-insider", to the living hell that is the life of a Southwest Flight Attendant. I must admit that it did have an impact on me - the "non-insider". I held stock in Southwest for over 15 years. Based on nothing more than the "culture". I've ridden the market up and down. But they've successfully convinced me to get out - the company is changing after 30 years and not for the better, IMHO. I sincerely hope that I am wrong - I've got a lot of friends who are on the "inside" at LUV, and a good chunk of their compensation is realted to the stock price. I think the culture is one of the reasons that the big brokerage houses on Wall Street own a LOT of Southwest stock. I hope that the strategic bargaining campaign doesn't convince them to do what I did and sell their stake.

Sorry y'all don't like my take on this....I liked to think that my posts were also well tought out. But I chimed in occasionally on the Rampers negotiations (only after having to search all over cyberspace to find some facts). I don't think I chimed in at all on the mechanics negotiations - there wasn't a lot there to find. But all one has to do is pick up any newspaper in any major town, or any national publication, and lo and behold, there is the union version of the negotiations right there in black and white. If you disagree with me, fine - but just remember that your unions leadership decided to INVITE my opinion with their "strategic bargaining campaign". Surely you didn't think everybody would buy the union line, hook line and sinker, did you? So bear with anybody else who isn't an "insider" who might post on this topic - the union apparently WANTS the public to know. But only what THEY want them to know. Get the parties back to the table, and drop the stinking media campaign. You'll get fewer comments from "non-insiders" and you just might get a contract.

Best of luck to all SWA FA's - I'm out.

 

[SWAFA30]

You're right...I don't know diddly squat. I'm just a customer and a fan (historian) of Southwest longer than most of the FA's posting here have worked for them.

Now now...don't go getting your feelings hurt. You and I both know that your thoughts and opinions are regarded by most on this board....myself included as much more than "diddly squat".

But can I ask you this...can you for even a moment understand that those of us who work here might have a more complete picture of how SWA really is as an employer? You're schooled in SWA history. I admire that but any serious student of history will tell you that history is ALWAYS written from someone's perspective. Revisionist history is a very real thing and I would submit that the most thorough study of SWA history cannot be compared to having cashed an SWA paycheck year in and year out. It is the difference between "observing" something and living it... I went to see "The Alamo" last night...long movie...lots of details....I learned alot...I would like to know more so I might go check out a few books from the library or do a little Google search and see what I can find...but ya know what...after I have done all of my research I will still only have part of the story? Why? Because I was not there. I did not actually hear the incoming cannons, smell the blood and gunpowder or watch my friends die defending that rickety old adobe. I suspect that had Jim Bowie, Sam Houston, and Davy Crockett been sitting with me in the theater last night they would have spent much of the 2 hour, 17 minute running time of the filming yelling at the screen and/or laughing there 200 year old a$$es off at how wrong the filmmaker got it because they of course were there. There is no subsitute for experience....none.


I am well aware that even in the closest families, there are sometimes disagreements. God only knows how well I know that. But these negotiations have gone farther with vitriol towards the company and Jim Parker in particular than any other workgroup in the past. And I stand by my statement that Mr. McDaniels actions, and the actions of the negotiating committee are a cancer to the company.

Frankly, I marvel at your downright refusal to acknowledge that Jim Parker has slung just as much if not more mud than Thom McDaniel and I hold him even more responsible. Why? Because my mother taught me that a fight starts with the second punch. Even if the unions' media campaign...strategic bargaining whatever you want to call it was a sucker punch Mr. Parker still had the power to resist the urge to stoop to the unions' level. The high road has always been there...Jim just keeps choosing not to take it. But, it's never too late.


When you've successfully got employees thinking about their company as "just another employer", then you've done a great job of putting the blinders on your membership.

Or maybe Southwest really is just another company. I understand that accepting that may be the death of a precious and longheld dream...sorta like finding out there is no Santa Clause. That being the case I understand that your desire for the truth not to be true is much stronger than my ability to help you make peace with that fact. The human mind is funny that way.

IMHO, once everything is settled, you can't just pull an Emily Litella and say "Nevermind" and have everything be okay again. So yeah, I see the culture beginning to crack with the FA's.

That goes both ways KC. This union has said some ugly stuff about one man...Jim Parker. Jim Parker has said some equally hurtful things about the entire membership. The plain unvarnished truth is the the culture was in trouble long before all of this came to a head for many reasons. I started working here in the mid-ninties. In the late 90's this company was growing at break neck speed. In a previous post I referenced SWA's desire to hire the right people. There came a point that in some instances we needed people so badly, our ability to be selective suffered. On the coasts especially filling entry level front line station postions is tough. I don't care how good the benefits are, 8 bucks an hour is chump change in California and most of the Northeast. For awhile our guard was down and we hired people who we would have otherwise never given a second look. Another side effect of this growth is that there were simply more people. In the "good old days" everyone knew each other....this place was like a small town. Warm, cozy, friendly. But try as you might when you have 40,000 people on the payroll who are literally spread out all over the country...you just can't foster the same sense of closeness, community...and yes...culture as when this company was a fraction of our current size. My supervisor is responsible for me and 150 other flight attendants all by her lonesome. How is she possibly supposed to build a personal relationship with me or her other 149 charges when she is dealing with that kind of ratio? When you set up that kind of circumstance...culture suffers. Despite Colleen's best efforts the logistics are just too great an obstacle to overcome. To their credit the company continues to try and to a point they suceed. But just saying you have "culture" to anyone who will listen does not make it so. The flight attendants are not killing the culture. Jim Parker is not killing the culture. The culture is dying of natural causes. I think that the concept is so painful to acknowledge that it is easier for both sides to blame to other than to face the real fact...I can understand that.

I think it all goes back to the ill conceived "strategic bargaining campaign"...you know the one, the one that the union wanted to pursue to educate me, the "non-insider", to the living hell that is the life of a Southwest Flight Attendant.

I think while there are people dying in Iraq and the Middle East and starving in much of the Third World we can take the "living hell" analogy off the table. If this job truly were that bad we would not be willing to do it for any amount of money. Cleaning the aircraft does not suck. Cleaning it 5 or 6 times a day and not getting paid for it does. Earning only 14 some odd bucks a trip as a newbie doesn't necessarily suck....riding on the crew van with a jetBlue crew and finding out they started flying the same month you did making $6 more per hour and their company is still raking in money working hand over fist does. Flying does not suck...having to fly 6 days a week, week in and week out to support your family does. Even the angriest SWA flight attendant will tell you that by and large they enjoy the work...they are just sick of doing more with less and getting less in return.

I must admit that it did have an impact on me - the "non-insider". I held stock in Southwest for over 15 years. Based on nothing more than the "culture".

I wish I had the luxury to make my financial decisions based on something as intangible and fleeting as "culture" but I don't.

I've ridden the market up and down. But they've successfully convinced me to get out - the company is changing after 30 years and not for the better, IMHO. I sincerely hope that I am wrong -
I've got a lot of friends who are on the "inside" at LUV, and a good chunk of their compensation is realted to the stock price.

Basing "a good chunk" of your income on stock...any single stock is lunacy. This industry in general and this airline in particular are just on 9/11 type event away from financial anarchy. If another handful of passenger planes go down at the hands of terrorists...commerical aviation as we know it is over, finished, done. Wanna work or invest in airlines fine....but it is foolhardy to put your nest egg in an industry that is at the mercy of so many factors that are so far outside of it's control.


I think the culture is one of the reasons that the big brokerage houses on Wall Street own a LOT of Southwest stock.I hope that the strategic bargaining campaign doesn't convince them to do what I did and sell their stake.

They own SWA stock because SWA has a solid business plan and LUV has a proven track record on the NYSE. I like to think that when one is managing portfolios and mutual funds, fiduciary duty precludes brokers and fund managers from making multi-million and billion dollar decisons based on "culture". Wall Street cares about "culture" only as it applies to SWA's ability to deliver dividends to investors. As long the company stays in the black, they could give a damn if Colleen sends me a birthday card.


Sorry y'all don't like my take on this....I liked to think that my posts were also well tought out.

They are...always have been. Like I said. Don't go gettin your feelins hurt...we're just chattin here.

But I chimed in occasionally on the Rampers negotiations (only after having to search all over cyberspace to find some facts). I don't think I chimed in at all on the mechanics negotiations - there wasn't a lot there to find. But all one has to do is pick up any newspaper in any major town, or any national publication, and lo and behold, there is the union version of the negotiations right there in black and white.

Here's a suggestion...put the paper back down. You already know what it's gonna say. You already know you're gonna disagree. Why not just save yourself the aggrevation? We have to live this crap day in and day out...our jobs may very well be on the line but for the life of me I will never undestand why anyone who doesn't have to be involved in this quagmire would even give it a second thought. Isn't there anything else compelling going on in the world?

If you disagree with me, fine - but just remember that your unions leadership decided to INVITE my opinion with their "strategic bargaining campaign". Surely you didn't think everybody would buy the union line, hook line and sinker, did you? So bear with anybody else who isn't an "insider" who might post on this topic - the union apparently WANTS the public to know. But only what THEY want them to know.

Again, the selective truth telling goes both ways. SWA spokesmen keep telling the press I make over $30,000 a year working only 3 days week. I keep all of my pay stubs and I can't find one with those kinda numbers to save my life. If you're gonna wag your finger at one side, you gotta wag your finger at both. Intellectual honestly requires nothing less.

Get the parties back to the table, and drop the stinking media campaign.

Done....well at least the first part. Thom just told us he and Jim have scheduled a meeting on April 30th. Hope springs eternal. As for the"stinkin media campaign" I am hard pressed to find anyone on the outside of this thing beyond reporters assigned to the "Organized Labor" or "Aviation" beat who are even paying attention. Nobody else really seems to care. Reason enough to agree to a media blackout....likewise reason enough to not care whether one occurs or not. I guess Thom and Jim came to the same conclusion and that's why they have agreed to meet.

You'll get fewer comments from "non-insiders" and you just might get a contract.

Commentary fron non-insiders does not bother us...well not me anyway. Non-insiders that think that they know better what is best for SWA flight attendants than actual SWA flight attendants...that tends to push our buttons. Noone likes to be condescended to KC... noone.

Best of luck to all SWA FA's - I'm out.

Thank You. We'll keep you posted.