Www.savingoursouthwest.com

[KCFlyer]

I wish I could have max 10.5 hour duty days too. Very rarely see days that are less than 12 anymore.

Buy given some of the other things (the pay and the offer to match the pilots duty day), is the company being unreasonable?? They're never going to get paid ground time. It'd be a shame if the union forced this to arbitration and the FA's ended up with LESS than the company offered, and still no ground time pay.

 

[Fly]

You are correct there KC. I think they are getting more than their counterparts now.....they may not like if this goes to arbitration (they compare it to others). If it were my choice, I'd take the money and run.

 

[KCFlyer]

KC:

Are those figures (20.01 starting pay etc etc) per hour or per TFP?

I bet they are TFP.

And if they are TFP, the hourly rate looks even better.

That's not what the union thinks. From the website:

There have always been misunderstandings about hour rates for Ground Employees vs. Trips for Pay for Flight Attendants and Pilots. When looking at wages, it is important to know that Flight Attendants and Pilots are only paid for their time when the plane is moving. When you see that a New Hire Flight Attendant rate is $14.67 per Trip For Pay, please remember that the Flight Attendant is only scheduled for 93.5 Trips for Pay per month resulting in gross pay of only 1371.65 and are often away from their families 4-5 days a week.

But... Using my math...MCI-MDW is shown a block to block time of an 1 hour 15 minutes. But....it's 504 miles...two trips. Using the proposed pay (effective 6/1//2004) they would be paid $20 per trip for two trips on a flight that is in the air for one hour. $40 for MCI-MDW. Others that are paid by the hour are making less than $20 for the same trip...and they STILL aren't paid for ground time.

So the company has proposed increasing the the pay by $500 a month (and we won't even include the per diem of $51.60 for each of the "4 to 5 days a week" that they are away from their families. ) Does the union recognize that negotiation involves give and take? If the union wants ground time pay - are they willing to also rid themselves of Trips For Pay and go straight hourly? If so...what are they willing to give up? That's negotiation. Would they be willing to change the proposed pay rate from $20 trip to, say, $18 per hour? And schedule FA's for 100 hours per month? Do the math on that....that deal would be really putting the screws to the FA's...despite the fact that the union "won" paid ground time for them.

I dunno...it seems to me like the company has offered the union 10 gold coins, and the union is holding out because they want five more copper pennies. But I'm still very curious....I've seen what the company has proposed....what has the UNION proposed?

 

[SWAFA30]

SWAFA30 - yes, it has been discussed ad nauseum. However, savingoursouthwest.com is putting it out there again for discussion. But I haven't seen anywhere just exactly what the union is demanding....and what the company has countered with. Just that "Parker" (who will remain CEO even after a contract is reachec) is "screwing" us. If your union leadership wants to enlist some support from outside the union ranks, then they might start by demonstrating how they have been negotiating. So far it seems that they've been pretty active in misquoting starting pay rates to the press and sliding flyers under hotel room doors. Hope they at least included a USA Today or Wall Street Journal with their flyers.

To all,

savingoursoutwest.com was designed for non F/A WN employee groups. As I go through my workday I run into CSAs, Ops Agents, and such who ask what is up with our contract and I don't often have time to give them the full rundown. The website was meant as one stop shopping for other WN work groups to get info. The website was never meant for public consumption. Posting the address to this site was a mistake.

As I said before, we have already discussed this at length to no avail. You feel the way you feel, I feel the way I feel and I suspect neither of us is bugding. Your disdain for my union is so thinly veiled I can see it from all the way out here in L.A. I am just as biased in the opposite direction. Other than passing the time on a lazy Sunday morning, dicussion would be pointless. Nothing that you or I or anyone else says on this board is going to impact the negotiations one whit.

Right or wrong, justified or not the F/A group at SWA feels underpaid, unappreciated and believe me when I tell you they are pi$$ed and they are united which is a dangerous combination. Now the F/A group could in fact be completely off base. They could have an unrealistic, inflated sense of their own worth to the company, and this could indeed be nothing but a shameless attempt to "kill the golden goose" born of a total lack of understanding of market conditions and this could very well be the beginning of the end for SWA. If that is the case it is Jim Parker's job to make his flight attendants understand that. That is a CEO and Lead Negotiators job. His other option is to convince the membership that their union leadership is not acting in their best interest. He is currently failing at it miserably on both counts, at least where the F/A group is concerned. Until that changes this thing will end in one of two ways. JP will "cave" and give the stews what they want or there will be a work action up to and including a strike. Crazy? Probably. But that is the "headspace" that the vast majority of the F/A group is in.

If you get nothing else from my post, understand this, for much of the membership, logic is out the window. Emotion has taken over. The membership Recently, the membership has been buried under an avalanche of memos and the tone from both sides has gotten decidely nasty. This thing has taken on critical mass, the horse is out of the barn, the ship has sailed. All we can do now is sit back and see how it all plays out. In the end we could be watching the LCC model move into it's next phase of evolution. The theory has always been that a mature work force will be the death of the LCC model. I think we are seeing that theory played out before our very eyes. So again, I suggest that we simply move on. If we start talking about the specifics of the F/A contract it is going to devolve into a shouting match a la the US board. We have a good thing going here on the SWA board let's keep it that way.

 

[KCFlyer]

To all,

savingoursoutwest.com was designed for non F/A WN employee groups. As I go through my workday I run into CSAs, Ops Agents, and such who ask what is up with our contract and I don't often have time to give them the full rundown. The website was meant as one stop shopping for other WN work groups to get info. The website was never meant for public consumption. Posting the address to this site was a mistake.

As I said before, we have already discussed this at length to no avail. You feel the way you feel, I feel the way I feel and I suspect neither of us is bugding. Your disdain for my union is so thinly veiled I can see it from all the way out here in L.A. I am just as biased in the opposite direction. Other than passing the time on a lazy Sunday morning, dicussion would be pointless. Nothing that you or I or anyone else says on this board is going to impact the negotiations one whit.

Right or wrong, justified or not the F/A group at SWA feels underpaid, unappreciated and believe me when I tell you they are pi$$ed and they are united which is a dangerous combination. Now the F/A group could in fact be completely off base. They could have an unrealistic, inflated sense of their own worth to the company, and this could indeed be nothing but a shameless attempt to "kill the golden goose" born of a total lack of understanding of market conditions and this could very well be the beginning of the end for SWA. If that is the case it is Jim Parker's job to make his flight attendants understand that. That is a CEO and Lead Negotiators job. His other option is to convince the membership that their union leadership is not acting in their best interest. He is currently failing at it miserably on both counts, at least where the F/A group is concerned. Until that changes this thing will end in one of two ways. JP will "cave" and give the stews what they want or there will be a work action up to and including a strike. Crazy? Probably. But that is the "headspace" that the vast majority of the F/A group is in.

If you get nothing else from my post, understand this, for much of the membership, logic is out the window. Emotion has taken over. The membership Recently, the membership has been buried under an avalanche of memos and the tone from both sides has gotten decidely nasty. This thing has taken on critical mass, the horse is out of the barn, the ship has sailed. All we can do now is sit back and see how it all plays out. In the end we could be watching the LCC model move into it's next phase of evolution. The theory has always been that a mature work force will be the death of the LCC model. I think we are seeing that theory played out before our very eyes. So again, I suggest that we simply move on. If we start talking about the specifics of the F/A contract it is going to devolve into a shouting match a la the US board. We have a good thing going here on the SWA board let's keep it that way.

SWAFA30...if your union really wanted to "shed some light" on things, why won't they post what they feel is a 'fair' contract. All they are doing right now is allowing the company proposal to be shown to the "public", and attempting to paint Jim Parker as Frank Lorenzo II. IF maybe they showed what THEY feel is fair, compared to what the company feels is fair, then perhaps they might even be able to sway some folks over to their side. Because I'll be honest with you....looking at the company numbers, I can't help but feel like they've offered you a pretty good deal.

My disdain for your union is that they haven't made ANY kind of media effort to show what they want...only that the LUV airline has lost it's heart. And to misstate pay numbers. And to "spin" the no ground time pay issue. I do believe that every other workgroup at SWA understands that FA's are not paid for ground time. They also understand that Pilots are not paid for ground time either. No, my friend, that website is geared for those who are ignorant of just what the "ground time" issue is all about. YOu wouldn't walk into a car dealer and tell the salesman "Guess how much I'll pay for this car". But your union is saying that an offer of $20.01 per trip for new hires is "unacceptable". What did the union recommend as starting pay and step pay....TWU 555 had their numbers out there during their negotiations...where are TWU 556's numbers?

 

[swagalleyhag]

KC,

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the Union offer claims that $20.01 is "unacceptable" for new hires. It's the UNION's proposal that would pay new hire's $20.01 to start. The Company's proposal is $15.70. Perhaps the reason you think the Union is being unreasonable is because you're reading the Union's proposal and for some reason think it's the Company's.

I agree with SWAFA30 that no matter what we say, those who "disdain" (to use your own words) our Union won't change their minds. But at least use the correct information while you bash us.

Keep in mind that our Negotiations began in May, 2002, so we are still negotiating wages for 2002 and 2003 even though those years have now past, and we do expect back pay.

Current Management's Proposal Union's Proposal
New Hire Pay
2002 $14.67 $15.70 $20.01
5-year Pay 2002 $21.01 $22.98 $29.67
10-year Pay $29.72 $31.35 $41.13


The Company's proposal doesn't even cover the increased cost of living between 1997 and 2002 (example: a raise only considering cost of living would be $17.01 for new hires - the Company's proposal is well below that).

You keep calling my Union a bunch of liars about our wages (OK, I think you said that they are misrepresenting... I take that as saying that they are lying... but then I am VERY supportive of my Union and am a little bit sensitive). Please tell me how they are lying?

Our minimum line pays 80 TFP per month. $14.67 x 80 (TFP/month) x 12 months = $14,083.20 - which would be the base, i.e. minimum pay that a Flight Attendant would receive unless he/she was on leave or gave away his/her trips. OK, I'll give this one to you, new hires are on Reserve for most of their first year, and the reserve guarantee is 93.5. So $14.67 x 93.5 (Reserve TFPs/Month) x 12 months = A WHOPPING $16,459.74.

While you continue to call my Union liars, or misrepresenters, I've seen you make no mention of the absolute lies that our Company spokespeople continue to tell the press... that a new hire makes $24,000 a year.... that would only be if he/she worked 136.33 TFP per month... about 1.5 times the average line schedule.

Our Company spokespeople also have REPEATEDLY told the press that a 5-year Flight Attendant working 3 days per week makes $30,000. Let me put this into perspective for you. A 3-day trip generally pays around 20 TFP. Considering there are 52 weeks in the year, working 3-days a week, at 5-year pay, ($21.01 5-year pay x 20 TFP for a 3-day trip x 52 weeks per year) is a whopping annual salary of $21,850.40! How the Company can make the claim that a 5-year Flight Attendant working 3 days per week and make $30,000 with a straight face is beyond me.

KC, I hope you'll read this and begin to hold Southwest Airlines Management to the same standards you're holding TWU 556. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

You all can continue to try and negotiate our Contract for us... but the bottom line is that it is US, the Flight Attendants at SWA who have to live under it. I don't think we're being unreasonable.

And before any of you reply to me that if I'm unhappy, I should leave... Well, don't want to burst your bubble, but I am happy, I like working here, and I don't want to quit. We're in Contract negotiations now, and it's our chance to make improvements in our Contract. The Flight Attendants have made concessions since 1986, and it's time to make corrections. The Union's proposal only affects Southwest's cost per ASM 5 one hundredths of a penny. Regardless of what any of you may think, we're not looking to kill the golden goose.

 

[SWAFA30]

SWAFA30...if your union really wanted to "shed some light" on things, why won't they post what they feel is a 'fair' contract. All they are doing right now is allowing the company proposal to be shown to the "public", and attempting to paint Jim Parker as Frank Lorenzo II. IF maybe they showed what THEY feel is fair, compared to what the company feels is fair, then perhaps they might even be able to sway some folks over to their side.

I said it before. I will say it again. savingoursouthwest.com was never meant for public consumption. The public campaign is meant to embarass Southwest and "shame" them back to table. Nothing more nothing less.


Because I'll be honest with you....looking at the company numbers, I can't help but feel like they've offered you a pretty good deal.

I disagree and of the two of us, I am the only who works for Southwest as a flight attendant. That does not mean that your opinion is worthless but it does mean that your lack of experience doing my job puts you at a disadvantage. I am biased to but I am at least biased with the benefit of experience.

My disdain for your union is that they haven't made ANY kind of media effort to show what they want...only that the LUV airline has lost it's heart.

We are bargaining with SWA management, not the media. See my previous point about embarassing the company.


And to misstate pay numbers. And to "spin" the no ground time pay issue.

Please elaborate.

I do believe that every other workgroup at SWA understands that FA's are not paid for ground time. They also understand that Pilots are not paid for ground time either.

You could believe that but you would be wrong. I have been interacting with other workgroups as an employee of this comapny for close to a decade. Heck, I used to be part of another workgroup. My own brother(a TWU 555 ramp agent) did not even know that I don't get paid when the airplane is parked at the gate.

No, my friend, that website is geared for those who are ignorant of just what the "ground time" issue is all about. YOu wouldn't walk into a car dealer and tell the salesman "Guess how much I'll pay for this car". But your union is saying that an offer of $20.01 per trip for new hires is "unacceptable". What did the union recommend as starting pay and step pay....TWU 555 had their numbers out there during their negotiations...where are TWU 556's numbers?

Where Oh where are you getting this $20.01 from!!! As I said over on A.net. I have the company's proposal on my lap and the starting pay in 2008, when the contract has fully matured is still only $17.35.

 

[SWAFA30]

Oops...I hit the send button too soon and now I can't edit my post. Anyway...just surfed over to A.net, so I at least have some clarity on the whole $20.01. But look at me, I am doing what I swore I was done doing and that is debating the same tired issues we have debated over and over. I think it is time to agree to disagree and move on. Agree or disagree, right or wrong the flight attendants of SWA have drawn line in the sand. Like I said before the ship has sailed, this thing is much bigger than it appears to the outside world, a "full pay till the last day" mentality has set in and once that takes hold....well we all know how that story always ends. We are very well aware that this could cost us our jobs. However, that is a risk most of us myself included, are willing to take. I am not budging, let them do their worst. There was life before Southwest. I have no doubt, there will be life after Southwest. One door closes, another opens.......

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

We are very well aware that this could cost us our jobs. However, that is a risk most of us myself included, are willing to take. I am not budging, let them do their worst. There was life before Southwest. I have no doubt, there will be life after Southwest. One door closes, another opens.......

Hate to hear that you feel that way.

Once upon a time, a very wise man said democracy as a political institution could not withstand the ravages of time, it would only last until the public realized it could vote itself largesse out of the public treasury.

Perhaps so it is with airlines.

The Mechanics I've talked to, by and large, are very antipathetic to the FA's demands. They are still in a bit of a snit that the FAs won't or don't or didn't even recognize the Mechanics union.

Right now you have ground ops, mechanics, and pilots with very good contracts. You reckon they will cross a picket line if it means getting paid those good wages?

I've listened to both sides of this argument and watched it develop. I've tried to keep an open mind.

I've about come to the conclusion that this is all about greed and union power. It has little or nothing to do with the Flight Attendants and even less to do with keeping WN a healthy, prosperous carrier.

I wish.....I wish....that WN management could have seen what would happen today in the days immediately following the 9-11 tragedy. Southwest didn;t furlough anyone. Southwest didn;t boot anyone out on the street. In the big scheme of things, it probably cost the shareholders a few bucks. But it was the right thing to do. Or so it seemed.

I cannot abide liars. But right below them in the hierarchy of things I hate are the whiners and malcontents....the "what have you done for me lately" people.

It'll be a sad day when Parker locks the Flight Attendants out. But there were FAs before the current crop, and there will be FAs after a short intermission while new ones are hired and trained. Remember the PATCO strike?

Lest anyone say that the bllom is off the rose at Southwest, let me remind them that we went through the same deal with the mechanics in 1977 or 78, sa I recall. A lockout/strike is infinitely preferable to caving in. A few cave-ins and there you are in USAirways' shoes. The company cares about not going there. but the union is not too worried.

An even larger picture.....could it not be possible that the WN union folks are in bed with union folks at AA, UA, US etc etc? The higher they force the ASM cost at WN, the more level the playing field, and the less likely a catastrophic Chapter 7 occurs at the other carriers.

Southwest has the most enlightened management of any air carrier out there. I am not sure why the FAs do not wish to see and admit that, but they won't. That being the case, Mr. parker...lock 'em out.

 

[KCFlyer]

KC,

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the Union offer claims that $20.01 is "unacceptable" for new hires. It's the UNION's proposal that would pay new hire's $20.01 to start. The Company's proposal is $15.70

I got that from this link. Why would the union put out something that said it was a company proposal? I guess I got the $20.01 from the 6/1/2004 numbers.

 

[KCFlyer]

galleyhag...another thing that causes a little "disdain" with me is that I do believe that union politics is taking the front seat in your negotiations....Take a look at the mechanics board....look at how the TWU is taking some awful hits from the AMFA supporters. Is it true that since your mechanics voted in the AMFA that your union refuses to recognize them? Could that be in "retaliation" for what happened over at AA? I mean the mechanics voted out the Teamsters, not the TWU...why would your union not recognize them - even if they ARE fighting a battle against the same AMFA over at American?

I'm sorry....I think that the TWU is using you guys as pawns...trying to "show the world" that the TWU isn't a "company union". And in doing so, I honestly believe that they are doing a real disservice to their members at Southwest. That's too bad, because I DO think you folks at Southwest are the best in the business. But I think you guys are the "left flank" in a bigger battle that the TWU is fighting.

 

[wnfan37]

However, that is a risk most of us myself included, are willing to take. I am not budging, let them do their worst. There was life before Southwest. I have no doubt, there will be life after Southwest. One door closes, another opens.......

I seriously doubt that one. And give me a break - this is exactly the kind of baseless banter that the extreme left-wing union folks are pushing. Does anyone else think the union would rather strike than find a good contract? Completely ridiculous. Thank goodness it's only a handfull of you left-wingers causing all the cute-sy ads in USA Today and the like. Embarassing the company? Please. You're embarassing yourself. Seems like lots of folks need jobs these days. Maybe you'll be one of them soon.

 

[swagalleyhag]

I think that the TWU is using you guys as pawns...trying to "show the world" that the TWU isn't a "company union".

Wrong again KC.

The TWU International was initially very skeptical of our approach in these rounds of negotiations, and from what I hear were none too happy when our Union hired a non-TWU attorney and non-TWU PR consultants. I honestly think if our Local had taken the traditional TWU approach, we would have caved and agreed to yet another substandard contract. The good thing about TWU though is that they do stand behind the Locals and allow them pretty much complete autonomy. If we succeed, they'll definitely be happy, but if we fail, don't think for one second we won't get an "I told you so" from Sonny Hall (TWU International President).

The Membership of our Local is behind our Local Leadership. Our Negotiating Team is doing the will of the Membership. If we in fact did have a rogue Team leading these Negotiations, there would be some kind of Membership uprising. Although I've run into maybe 2 or 3 individuals who want us to take the Company's offer, every other FA I've discussed this with is completely behind our Negotiating Team.

Oh, and by the way... you've mentioned arbitration several times in your postings on this matter. TWU 556 will not accept binding arbitration (B.A. must be accepted by both parties, otherwise, you fast forward to self help under the RLA). Arbitration is rarely good for Unions, and our Local's Leadership will not take the power of the vote out of the hands of the Membership.

 

[KCFlyer]

Wrong again KC.

The TWU International was initially very skeptical of our approach in these rounds of negotiations, and from what I hear were none too happy when our Union hired a non-TWU attorney and non-TWU PR consultants. I honestly think if our Local had taken the traditional TWU approach, we would have caved and agreed to yet another substandard contract. The good thing about TWU though is that they do stand behind the Locals and allow them pretty much complete autonomy. If we succeed, they'll definitely be happy, but if we fail, don't think for one second we won't get an "I told you so" from Sonny Hall (TWU International President).

The Membership of our Local is behind our Local Leadership. Our Negotiating Team is doing the will of the Membership. If we in fact did have a rogue Team leading these Negotiations, there would be some kind of Membership uprising. Although I've run into maybe 2 or 3 individuals who want us to take the Company's offer, every other FA I've discussed this with is completely behind our Negotiating Team.

Oh, and by the way... you've mentioned arbitration several times in your postings on this matter. TWU 556 will not accept binding arbitration (B.A. must be accepted by both parties, otherwise, you fast forward to self help under the RLA). Arbitration is rarely good for Unions, and our Local's Leadership will not take the power of the vote out of the hands of the Membership.

All I ask galleyhag is that whatever you finally approve, who will you hold responsible for the shaft? YOur non TWU negotiatior or the company? Because as Tex pointed out...I do belive that management will decide on a lock out before they ever grant ground time pay.

So far, it appear your non-TWU negotiator has pissed of managment enough that they are now making a REDUCED offer from what they offered back in July.

 

[wwtraveler99]

I would like to start this by saying I do support the F/A in their contract negotiations. I checkout the web address and I have a little problem with it. Why? It contains inaccurate or misleading information. Since I am a current memebr of the TWU555, I can say for certain that the stock option figuer is misleading. The options range from about 600 (if this is wrong I will repost the correct number.) up 1400 plus 10 for each year of service IF you are a 10 year + employee. Lets use an example of a 16 year employee. They would be granted option of 760 in the first year and 770 in the second. This comes to a total of 1530. I am not saying that someone is not going to recieve 1600+ in options. But the way it is posted on the web site make it sound as though EVERYONE gets 1600+ in options.

Again I wish the best for our F/A group and I would also like to see correct information posted when they put things out for public viewing.