Trouble Ahead

[WNjetdoc]

Thanks but I have been reading the thread since its inception.

My point is that the reason for posting a loss is more important than the loss itself. This is true for any company, not just Southwest.

I believe we had a good reason as any, the first and last time we had a loss. Since we've only had that one loss then thats all I can say about it. Do you work for a airline? If so how many reasons do you have for posting losses?

I've read lots of posts on the WN board and you seem very anti WN....why?

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Very good, the Gulf war ended a while ago, whats your point? My point was in response mweiss saying, "if WN posts a loss, even once, the company is going into oblivion". I pointed out that we had infact posted, I believe, two quarterly losses and had not gone into "oblivion". You may want to read the whole thread prior to making a post so quickly.

That other junk you had about the F/A's going on strike and grocery workers, etc, was way out there. I suppose to you it made sense. I was making another valid point to you posters implying if WN's F/A's went out on strike then that would be the end of labor peace at WN. I stated that a group had went out on strike at WN and labor peace didn't crumble to the ground. The company continued to make money.

You must not let blind hatred rule your posts there sparky.

I back our F/A's and hope there is a settlement that is good for both them and our company.

WNjetdoc,

Allow me to inform you about "JS".
I've been posting, along with him, and others for a while now, on this BB, PLUS the old Plane Business BB.

JS is very savvy.(smart)
JS is VERY "NON-UNION" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(and this next statement confuses me about "JS" the MOST.

JS knows that it was just a matter of time(YEARS) before WN would find finally find themselves in a legitimate "UNION TUSSLE". However, "JS,s" logical brain, is being "overridden" by his NON UNION heart.
I'd wager that he know's very well, that WN will still be "king of the hill" if they have to "kick in" more, to the F/A's than they had planned.
HERB, or no HERB !!!!!!!!!!!

JS, or ANYBODY on here, who thinks that "airline honeymoon's" last FOREVER, well they still believe in,

Santa clause,
The Easter Bunny
and
NO "white collar crime"(ENNRON etc.) :unsure: :unsure: :unsure:


NH/BB's

 

[JS]

NHBB, you mean there's no Santa Claus? Say it ain't so!

Here's my Christmas present for today -- BHM cattle chutes photo!

 

[Fly4ALiving]

Best of luck to the WN flight attendants.

Don't let the spin doctors fool you into believing that a living wage; improved working conditions; and an overall quality work life are inconsistent with the continued success of your company.

 

[KCFlyer]

Best of luck to the WN flight attendants.

Don't let the spin doctors fool you into believing that a living wage; improved working conditions; and an overall quality work life are inconsistent with the continued success of your company.

Yes...I understand that managers have to go to employees homes and FLOG them to get them to come to work at Southwest. Actually, I think they've build a "slave quarters" just off airport property where employees are served only gruel and moldy bread for dinner. Geez...they get 32,000 applications per year for folks wanting to work for Southwest. Sounds like their wages are "livable" already. Seems like their working conditions ain't that bad, and their overall quality of work life greatly exceeds that of the "majors".

 

[JS]

The term "living wage" IS spin. "Living wage" is the sugar-coated version of artificially high wages legislated by a liberal local government.

 

[Fly4ALiving]

Yes...I understand that managers have to go to employees homes and FLOG them to get them to come to work at Southwest. Actually, I think they've build a "slave quarters" just off airport property where employees are served only gruel and moldy bread for dinner. Geez...they get 32,000 applications per year for folks wanting to work for Southwest. Sounds like their wages are "livable" already. Seems like their working conditions ain't that bad, and their overall quality of work life greatly exceeds that of the "majors".

"Sounds like"?

"Seems like"?

"Appears like" you don't know what you're talking about. Do you know these things for a fact?

 

[KCFlyer]

Do you know these things for a fact?

Hell man...it's the internet....EVERYTHING is a fact.

Fact 1. If someone isn't earning a "living wage" and doesn't seek other employment, then they are either a fool, or the wage is in fact "livable".

Fact 2 - Outside of tidying up the cabin, the FA's working conditions are no different than other majors. In some respects, they can be considered better, since there are not required to serve "hot meals" on any flights and don't run the risk of getting burned. They also don't have a first class compartment where one of their coworkers is kept, leaving the back cabin understaffed.

FAct 3 - I'll leave this open for any FA who wants to answer...would you trade your job for one at one of the other majors? And be sure to focus on "quality of work life" in your response.

 

[Fly4ALiving]

Hell man...it's the internet....EVERYTHING is a fact.

Fact 1. If someone isn't earning a "living wage" and doesn't seek other employment, then they are either a fool, or the wage is in fact "livable".

Fact 2 - Outside of tidying up the cabin, the FA's working conditions are no different than other majors. In some respects, they can be considered better, since there are not required to serve "hot meals" on any flights and don't run the risk of getting burned. They also don't have a first class compartment where one of their coworkers is kept, leaving the back cabin understaffed.

FAct 3 - I'll leave this open for any FA who wants to answer...would you trade your job for one at one of the other majors? And be sure to focus on "quality of work life" in your response.

Each one of the points you make is only an OPINION.

I will agree with you on one thing, even though I do not believe it was your intention: Only on the Internet can people pass off obvious opinion, as fact.

And that is all you have done.

 

[Bear96]

Fact 1. If someone isn't earning a "living wage" and doesn't seek other employment, then they are either a fool, or the wage is in fact "livable".

I think there is a hole in your logic.

If I am making $12K/yr now, and I seek other employment but the only other options out there available to me are paying less than $12K, then by your definition it follows that $12K is in fact a "living wage?"

George Bush-think at its finest! Let them eat cake.

 

[johnny gearpin]

KCFlyer wrote

Hell man...it's the internet....EVERYTHING is a fact.

 

[mweiss]

"Living wage" is the sugar-coated version of artificially high wages legislated by a liberal local government.

Hey, it's not about liberal vs. conservative. It's about understanding the second-order effects of one's actions.

On a first-order basis, "living wage" (even in quotes) is a fine thing. But the world doesn't live by first-order conditions (if it did, airplanes would be just huge fans and never move ). Often, the second-order conditions are more significant. This is one of those cases.

But, while we're at it, let's not forget about the third order conditions as well. If wages fall enough, people are forced to use the public safety net, which places the burden on those of us who do get a "living wage."

And the fourth order? Wal-Mart, who recognizes the third-order condition and takes advantage of it, thus, through a rather convoluted but very real path, steals from all of us to pay for its low prices that it uses to get us to shop there.

 

[KCFlyer]

I think there is a hole in your logic.

If I am making $12K/yr now, and I seek other employment but the only other options out there available to me are paying less than $12K, then by your definition it follows that $12K is in fact a "living wage?"

Never said that. But your bring up a good point - if one can only find jobs that they qualify for that pay less than $12K per year, then it would seem that the person has achieved a rather high paying job for their skill level if they are making $12K per year. They might look into Costco - I hear they pay their cashiers nearly $20 per hour, pay most of their health insurance, and have many other benefits. It's just that it's hard to get Costco stores in the air. Also, are you saying that if one is being paid $12K a year and cannot qualify for a higher paying job, then it should become the employers responsiblity to pay them $20K per year? But I believe you and I are thinking in different ways...in the unionized world, a person can start at $12K a year, and over time, work their way to $50K per year without having to improve in any way from what they were doing that first year. And so you have folks in union jobs making $30K per year who talk about how "unfair" their employer is because they balk at paying them $50K during negotiations, but they can't leave for a similar union postition somewhere else because they have to start over at entry level wages.

George Bush-think at its finest! Let them eat cake.

Way off on that one. I loathe G.W. Bush. Didn't vote for him last time, won't vote for him this time. If you doubt me, why not ask New Hampshire Black Bears to tell you my stance on Dub-ya.

 

[WNrforlife]

KC -
You mean to tell me you're going to vote for the poodle? (Kerry)

ROTFLMAO

 

[Boeingguy]

This comes from another aviation forum"
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the number one foundation of what Southwest was built on and will continue to be is cost control. People and culture comes in 2nd to that. In public speaking, Herb and Colleen will probably reverse the order but I think everyone knows that cost is # 1 and people are # 2 despite your hopes and dreams otherwise. After all if there is no cost control, there can be no people.

I think it was Samual Gompers, first President of the AFL before merging with the CIO who said. "The greatest harm a company can do to their employees is not to be profitable". Looking around at the carnage in the industry, I think that appears to be true.

Looking to the past for consistent behavior, management has always been tough when it comes to labor negotiations but has usually ended up negotiating something reasonable with everyone in a fairly reasonable time frame. I'm sure they want this wrapped up with the F/As but, because of the company's behavior in the past it leads me to think there is something in what the F/As want that the company is simply not going to risk what I think is their # 1 goal, that being cost control and they are very willing to go to the mat for it. Sure, there may be a price in doing that, but apparently they feel not as large a price if they don't.

By the way, there is a very interesting article in the April issue of the 'Harvard Business Review', page 62 called "Hardball, Five Killer Strategies for Trouncing The Competition" and Southwest is mentioned as much or more than any other company. One of the points among many is that "The Hardball Player (i.e. succesful companies) ventures closer to the boundary". Another -- "They are not satisfied with today's competitive advantage -- they want tomorrow's"