usflyguy
Topic Author
Posts: 1560
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:29 am

WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Mon May 21, 2012 6:11 pm

From www.twu556.org

With 39% of the Membership voting the Overwater/Near International Flying Tentative Agreement was voted down.  The breakdown is as follows:

Eligible voters – 10047

Ballots cast- 3934

Percentage of Membership that voted – 39.16

YES – 1547 – 39%

NO – 2387 – 61%

[Edited 2012-05-21 11:16:52]
My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
 
rampart
Posts: 1798
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:58 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Mon May 21, 2012 6:14 pm

Link is not allowed.

Translate for us. What does this mean?

-Rampart
 
usflyguy
Topic Author
Posts: 1560
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:29 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Mon May 21, 2012 6:18 pm

The tentative agreement to the side letter of the contract that covers overwater (Hawaii) and near international flying did not pass. I'm guessing they'll go back to the negotiation table.
My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
 
rj777
Posts: 1554
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2000 1:47 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Mon May 21, 2012 6:31 pm

I know Southwest won't come out and say it directly, but wasn't one of the reason they got the 738 for Hawaii?
 
wnflyguy
Posts: 890
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:58 pm

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Mon May 21, 2012 6:34 pm

It means the TWU 556 and WN get to go back to the table and fix the the agreement. The last one had way to many loopholes for the WN to use crews in unfavorble working trips that take away the current contract gains in quality of life..Also means the rumored WN taking over FL SJU NOV service may have just got push back until 2013 unless the company and the union will move quickly to rework another side letter..wnfg

[Edited 2012-05-21 11:45:03]
my post are my opinion only and not those of southwest airlines and or airtran airlines.
 
peanuts
Posts: 846
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:17 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Mon May 21, 2012 6:36 pm

Quoting usflyguy (Thread starter):
Percentage of Membership that voted – 39.16

Incredible...
 
WNCrew
Posts: 872
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:22 pm

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Mon May 21, 2012 6:47 pm

It's apparent that our FA's aren't ready to operate any of the Intl routes yet. FL can continue to enjoy them while the WN FA's educate themselves further. I'm disappointed.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
JetBlueGuy2006
Posts: 1482
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 5:38 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Mon May 21, 2012 6:48 pm

Quoting wnflyguy (Reply 4):
It means the TWU 556 and WN get to go back to the table and fix the the agreement. The last one had way to many loopholes for the WN to use crews in unfavorble working trips that take away the current contract gains in quality of life..Also means the rumored WN taking over FL SJU NOV service may have just got push back until 2013 unless the company and the union will move quickly to rework another side letter..wnfg

Does it also mean that the WN and FL groups must say separated for now, so the FL F/A's will be the ones flying to the international destinations?
Home Airport: Capital Region International Airport (KLAN)
 
usflyguy
Topic Author
Posts: 1560
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:29 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Mon May 21, 2012 7:34 pm

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 6):

I agree. What part of it allowed the company to use us unfavorably? It's frustrating that people listen to people that think they know everything but don't take the time to read the information for themselves.

SJU doesn't require ETOPS to operate.
My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
 
User avatar
RWA380
Posts: 4527
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:51 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Mon May 21, 2012 7:40 pm

Quoting rj777 (Reply 3):
I know Southwest won't come out and say it directly, but wasn't one of the reason they got the 738 for Hawaii?

I think they have said the 738 was to be used for the Hawaii market. It is my understanding the 738's are coming to WN with the appropriate equipment for WN to use them on overwater routes with ETOPS requirements.
707, 717, 720, 727-1/2, 737-1/2/3/4/5/7/8/9, 747-1/2/3/4, 757, 767-2/3/4, 777, DC-8-5/6/7, DC-9-1/3/5, MD-80/2/3/7/8, DC-10-10/30/40, MD-11, F-27, F-28, SWM, J31, D38, DH7, DH8, DH4 SD-330, B-146, L-1011-2/500, ATR-42/72, VCV, A-300/310/318/319/320, CR2/7
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6720
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Mon May 21, 2012 7:53 pm

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 2):
The tentative agreement to the side letter of the contract that covers overwater (Hawaii) and near international flying did not pass. I'm guessing they'll go back to the negotiation table.
Quoting wnflyguy (Reply 4):
It means the TWU 556 and WN get to go back to the table and fix the the agreement.
Quoting usflyguy (Thread starter):
Percentage of Membership that voted – 39.16

Being pickey but why exactly does WN have to re-negotiate and agreement when roughly 24% of the F/A's are against it, as this is a contract negotiation and not representative government, there should be something to get the others to pony up their vote either agreement or disagreement, not voting should not be an option.

If they go back to the negotiation table they will be doing so to hammer out an agreement based on 2,387 out of 10,047 members
 
bobnwa
Posts: 4485
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:10 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Mon May 21, 2012 8:40 pm

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 9):
think they have said the 738 was to be used for the Hawaii market

I don't think that Southwest has ever said that.
 
User avatar
RWA380
Posts: 4527
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:51 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Mon May 21, 2012 8:51 pm

Quoting bobnwa (Reply 11):

I don't think that Southwest has ever said that

What other aircraft would WN use for their impending Hawaii ops? I have read several times here on A.net Hawaii ops would be 738's. I didn't say they would be exclusive to the Hawaii market, but I'm sure they will launch flights to the 50th state with the 738's they are currently recieving with overwater equipment .

[Edited 2012-05-21 14:38:21]
707, 717, 720, 727-1/2, 737-1/2/3/4/5/7/8/9, 747-1/2/3/4, 757, 767-2/3/4, 777, DC-8-5/6/7, DC-9-1/3/5, MD-80/2/3/7/8, DC-10-10/30/40, MD-11, F-27, F-28, SWM, J31, D38, DH7, DH8, DH4 SD-330, B-146, L-1011-2/500, ATR-42/72, VCV, A-300/310/318/319/320, CR2/7
 
QANTAS747-438
Posts: 1668
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 7:01 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Mon May 21, 2012 8:55 pm

Quoting rj777 (Reply 3):
but wasn't one of the reason they got the 738 for Hawaii?

Yes. It's also the reason WN is spending a TON of money on ETOPS. Not good on the FAs part.
My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
 
Bobloblaw
Posts: 1680
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:15 pm

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Mon May 21, 2012 9:50 pm

Quoting peanuts (Reply 5):
Quoting usflyguy (Thread starter):
Percentage of Membership that voted – 39.16

Incredible...

Not really. Not voting is the same as a NO vote. So if youre against the TA, dont bother voting.

I think WN is putting on a happy face on what seems to becoming just another legacy airline.
 
User avatar
TVNWZ
Posts: 1715
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:28 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Mon May 21, 2012 10:04 pm

Quoting wnflyguy (Reply 4):
It means the TWU 556 and WN get to go back to the table and fix the the agreement.

Only after they receive a loud negotiating table diatribe from the company negotiators about how they have wasted everyone's time and that the leadship apparently can not control their members. They will then ask for a revote. Then the company will get up and adjourn, for effect, saying as they go, "what a bunch of Mickey Mouse hacks. Can't even get the membership to the polls. 39% sheesh."

Union leadership should be ashamed.
 
Maverick623
Posts: 4651
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:13 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Mon May 21, 2012 10:05 pm

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 15):
Can't even get the membership to the polls. 39% sheesh
Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 14):
Not voting is the same as a NO vote.
"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15455
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Mon May 21, 2012 10:07 pm

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 14):
I think WN is putting on a happy face on what seems to becoming just another legacy airline.

Minus all the pre-deregulation baggage   
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
AADC10
Posts: 1509
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:40 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Mon May 21, 2012 10:15 pm

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 14):
Not really. Not voting is the same as a NO vote. So if youre against the TA, dont bother voting.

That was not indicated in the results. If a non-vote was counted as a no, it would have been 15% yes, 85% no. Either way, there was strong opposition.
 
peanuts
Posts: 846
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:17 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Mon May 21, 2012 10:20 pm

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 14):
Not voting is the same as a NO vote.

Ok.
I seem to recall that a few years back not voting was equivalent to a YES vote somewhere...
This may have been in relationship to voting in/out a particular union group. I know, different situation but confusing nonetheless...

[Edited 2012-05-21 15:23:19]
 
User avatar
TVNWZ
Posts: 1715
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:28 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Mon May 21, 2012 10:37 pm

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 16):

The company will still try to shove it down the union leaderships throat. All about leverage.

It may count that way, it does not necessarily mean that is the way the majority of the membership feels. That is unless there was a deliberate campaign by the union leadership to have the members not vote. Was there?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 12037
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 12:00 am

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 6):
It's apparent that our FA's aren't ready to operate any of the Intl routes yet. FL can continue to enjoy them while the WN FA's educate themselves further.

That amazes me. What exactly didn't the FA's like? If you ask for too much, than these *new* flights will not be profitable and that means WN shouldn't fly them. Ugh... A reason for FL flights...

I went through the TWU site to try and find the issues:
http://twu556.org/overwaternear-inte...tative-agreement-pairing-examples/

It seems to be over the 03:00 central time, carrying passports (required for all f/a), and some other minor issues.

I would really like to know what the issue was.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 14):
I think WN is putting on a happy face on what seems to becoming just another legacy airline.

I think WN has a window, but I hope their unions realize that the A320NEO will enable VX and B6 to also fly to Hawaii. Any delays strengthen AS in the islands. This is an era of 'first mover advantage.'

Quoting rj777 (Reply 3):
but wasn't one of the reason they got the 738 for Hawaii?

"Southwest Chief Executive Gary Kelly has said that the 737-800 could allow flights to Mexico, Canada, Alaska and Hawaii."

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/04...ines-attendants.html#storylink=cpy

Lightsaber

ps

I assume UA/CO has at least sent some nice flowers to the TWU as a 'thank you.'

[Edited 2012-05-21 17:08:07]
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15455
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 12:23 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 21):
I think WN has a window, but I hope their unions realize that the A320NEO will enable VX and B6 to also fly to Hawaii. Any delays strengthen AS in the islands. This is an era of 'first mover advantage.'

I think the bigger problem is that it's really an era of lower cost advantage, and that ship has long sailed at WN
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
gothamspotter
Posts: 311
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:54 pm

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 1:17 am

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 9):
I think they have said the 738 was to be used for the Hawaii market. It is my understanding the 738's are coming to WN with the appropriate equipment for WN to use them on overwater routes with ETOPS requirements.

It's clear that's what they plan on doing, but the airline has never admitted it publicly.
 
WNCrew
Posts: 872
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:22 pm

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 1:26 am

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 14):
Not voting is the same as a NO vote.

Not for us it isn't. If you don't vote, it's simply not counted as anything. It's a simple tally of YES vs NO votes.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 8):
What part of it allowed the company to use us unfavorably?

Nothing that I could see. The company could already build pairings that went into a 3rd day and could already operate red-eye flights. All it takes is one LOUD pot-stirrer and a bunch of bobble-dead sheep who'll listen and BOOM you have a bunch of NO votes. As if the FA's know anything about Intl anyway.... sigh
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
Wingtips56
Posts: 762
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:26 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 1:34 am

I wonder if this will affect WN's plan to create an international hub at KHOU/Hobby. Is short-haul into Mexico (where nobody really wants to go currently) and Central America enough to justify expanding facilities, or is a mix with long-haul markets essential?
Worked for WestAir, Apollo Airways, Desert Pacific, Western, AirCal and American Airlines
 
usairways787
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:42 pm

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 1:59 am

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 14):
I think WN is putting on a happy face on what seems to becoming just another legacy airline.

Southwest is not a legacy carrier.
"Pre departure walk around complete, all doors closed, ready for pushback"
 
barney captain
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 2:09 am

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 24):
Quoting usflyguy (Reply 8):
What part of it allowed the company to use us unfavorably?

Nothing that I could see. The company could already build pairings that went into a 3rd day and could already operate red-eye flights. All it takes is one LOUD pot-stirrer and a bunch of bobble-dead sheep who'll listen and BOOM you have a bunch of NO votes. As if the FA's know anything about Intl anyway.... sigh

It's simple really. Changing the definition of ADG from Average Daily Guarantee to Average Duty Guarantee means they can schedule you for a 3 day trip that only pays 2. That's not something I or any pilot I've talked to is interested in.

Expect the pilots to soon follow suit.
Southeast Of Disorder
 
usflyguy
Topic Author
Posts: 1560
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:29 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 2:47 am

Oh, the misinformation...
My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
 
skycub
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:49 pm

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 3:04 am

I will tell you the "galley gossip" I have heard among my co-workers....

Many people I fly with voted no simply because they were unhappy with the WN/FL flight attendant seniority list integration vote.

I have heard time and time again: "I'm voting no. If we would have voted no on the seniority list integration, we would have gotten a better deal the second time around like the mechanics did."

That's the impression I have gotten: My co-workers (at least at my base) feel that if we would have voted down the first seniority list integration proposal, we would have been offered a better deal the second time around (like the mechanics got). Therefore, with the overwater/international proposal, a rejection of the first offer would sweeten the deal on the second proposal.

Quoting rj777 (Reply 3):
The last one had way to many loopholes for the WN to use crews in unfavorble working trips that take away the current contract gains in quality of life..

Yes, speaking of loopholes and quality of life, I believe one of the issues in the overwater/international agreement pertained to food on international flights. It was something like: "If, due to immigration and customs in foreign countries, crew members are not allowed to bring food with them, the company will work with the flight attendants to reach an acceptable solution."

What, exactly, does that mean??? That is totally open-ended and non-specific. Bringing food through customs is a clear issue, so why don't we determine a contractual solution to the problem before it happens rather than saying that we will work to reach an acceptable solution in the future??

Quoting peanuts (Reply 5):
Incredible...

Yes... 39%. Incredible and sad. It is amazing that people won't take two minutes to vote on things that directly impact their working environment. It doesn't surprise me, tough. I believe it was something like 50% voted on the AirTran seniority integration agreement and even less voted in our election for union officers a month or so ago.

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 6):
It's apparent that our FA's aren't ready to operate any of the Intl routes yet.

The majority of crews I work with actually have no desire to fly international or overwater. It isn't a matter of "being ready." It's a matter of having no desire to do so.

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 6):
FL can continue to enjoy them while the WN FA's educate themselves further. I'm disappointed.

The majority of people I fly with at my base would be happy to leave all international flying to AirTran. In fact, the majority of people I fly with out of my base would be happy to never leave Texas. Count me among them. I would be happy to fly back and forth from Dallas to West Texas all day.

I didn't sign on to fly international. If that was my desire, I would have applied at Delta or United. You may be disappointed, but that is your personal opinion.

Of course, I also remember your harsh words regarding your co-workers during the seniority integration talks. Therefore, I will consider that when I read your comments on this issue.

Quoting JetBlueGuy2006 (Reply 7):
Does it also mean that the WN and FL groups must say separated for now, so the FL F/A's will be the ones flying to the international destinations?

First of all, vote or no vote, the WN and FL flight attendant groups are and would have still been two separate groups.

FL flight attendants are sloooowly joining the ranks of WN flight attendants. And I do mean slooooowly.

WN aircraft are still staffed only with WN crew members. WN aircraft are not flying international. FL FAs are sloooowly going through WN training and as they complete WN training, they will be flying WN routes on WN aircraft.

It is, for all scheduling and staffing purposes, still two two different carriers.

Quoting par13del (Reply 10):
Being pickey but why exactly does WN have to re-negotiate and agreement when roughly 24% of the F/A's are against it, as this is a contract negotiation and not representative government, there should be something to get the others to pony up their vote either agreement or disagreement, not voting should not be an option.

If they go back to the negotiation table they will be doing so to hammer out an agreement based on 2,387 out of 10,047 members

I am not sure I understand your comment. However, I will try to respond based on what I think your point is.

There has to be an agreement between the company and the flight attendants. Too many things are undetermined pertaining to overwater and international flying. Things regarding scheduling, work rules, etc etc.

I think it is sad that there needs to be an incentive to vote.... to get the others to "pony up their vote." There should be no more incentive other than the fact that they are determining their future work rules, quality of life issues, etc. However, as sad as it is, the voter turn out has always been low among our flight attendants.... whether it is for union officers, contracts, seniority list integrations and/or work rule changes.

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 9):
I think they have said the 738 was to be used for the Hawaii market. It is my understanding the 738's are coming to WN with the appropriate equipment for WN to use them on overwater routes with ETOPS requirements.
Quoting bobnwa (Reply 11):
I don't think that Southwest has ever said that.
Quoting RWA380 (Reply 12):
What other aircraft would WN use for their impending Hawaii ops? I have read several times here on A.net Hawaii ops would be 738's. I didn't say they would be exclusive to the Hawaii market, but I'm sure they will launch flights to the 50th state with the 738's they are currently recieving with overwater equipment .

I know the talk of Hawaii has been rampant and I know Southwest has said they would like to fly there. However, I don't believe that the 737-800s were ordered simply for that purpose.

From what we were told in -800 training, no.... not all of the 737-800s are coming ETOPs equipped. Some, yes. But not all. Some are coming into the fleet strictly for flying within the Continental United States.... for longer routes and for flights out of slot constrained airports like LaGuardia, Newark and Washington National.

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 13):
Not good on the FAs part.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. While I will refrain from commenting on ground operations contractual negotiations since I am not directly impacted by them, I would ask that you do the same for inflight contractual negotiations.

Your opinion of our decision would be similar to my opinion that ground operations personnel should not be paid double time when they are mandatoried to work on their first day off.

I don't do your job and you don't do mine.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 14):

I think WN is putting on a happy face on what seems to becoming just another legacy airline.

It is certainly not Herb's airline anymore.

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 15):

Union leadership should be ashamed.

Union leadership has nothing to be ashamed of. Union leadership has contacted us via email and telephone messages encouraging us to vote. We have received messages on out intranet site reminding us to vote and union leadership has had people sitting in our lounges for weeds now to answer questions about this topic and encourage us to vote on it. I do not know what else they could possibly do other than knock on our doors and invite themselves in and take us by the hand to vote.

Our membership can barely get 50% of us to vote on union officers and seniority issues. The level of apathy is sad.

It is not union leadership that should me ashamed... it is our membership that should be ashamed.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 21):
That amazes me. What exactly didn't the FA's like? If you ask for too much, than these *new* flights will not be profitable and that means WN shouldn't fly them. Ugh... A reason for FL flights...

WN was a highly profitable airline for 30+ years flying domestically. WN was a highly profitable airline flying passengers within Texas and California. WN was a highly profitable airline offering a reliable product between secondary airports. Most of the people I fly with don't understand why there is a sudden need to fly internationally.

Yeah, times change... but Southwest had the recipe for success for 30+ years. Low fare, high frequency service to secondary airports. Suddenly, with all of the changes..... Southwest isn't so profitable. Sure, there is the fuel issue. Sure, the airline business is changing.... but in the past few years, Southwest has changed their 30+ year recipe for success and suddenly the money is not coming in the way it was before.

Maybe that's why there was the "no" vote... too many people see it as yet another step in WN becoming like everyone else.

As for what WN FA's don't like.... as I said before... the people I have been flying with don't like the FL seniority list integration and think that they need to vote down everything that is not presented to them the first time so they don't get another bad deal.
My opinions are my own. They are not representative of my employer, my union or my co-workers. They are all mine.
 
skycub
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:49 pm

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 3:08 am

filler delete....

filler
filler
filler

[Edited 2012-05-21 20:19:36]
My opinions are my own. They are not representative of my employer, my union or my co-workers. They are all mine.
 
usflyguy
Topic Author
Posts: 1560
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:29 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 3:39 am

Quoting skycub (Reply 29):

And if southwest hadn't expanded outside of Texas, they wouldn't be around still. If they hadn't expanded out of the southwest, they wouldn't be around now. 30, 20, and even 10 years ago, the workforce was much younger getting much lower average wages. If we don't continue to evolve, we'll go the way of PanAm, Eastern, Braniff, etc... Ask all of those people that don't like the change if they rather work for one of those carriers that is no longer in business.
My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
 
N243NW
Posts: 1597
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 4:29 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 4:01 am

Quoting skycub (Reply 29):
The majority of crews I work with actually have no desire to fly international or overwater. It isn't a matter of "being ready." It's a matter of having no desire to do so.

Do you think this might have been a contributing factor in the low voting turnout? Perhaps some crewmembers knew they wouldn't be bidding for those trips anyway, so they didn't care whether or not the TA passed.
B-52s don't take off. They scare the ground away.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15455
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 4:02 am

Quoting skycub (Reply 29):
It is certainly not Herb's airline anymore.
Quoting skycub (Reply 29):
Southwest has changed their 30 year recipe for success and suddenly the money is not coming in the way it was before.

I've long suspected that WN's culture and history would prove to be a double edged sword, and a big obstacle to overcome.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 31):

And if southwest hadn't expanded outside of Texas, they wouldn't be around still. If they hadn't expanded out of the southwest, they wouldn't be around now

  
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
skycub
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:49 pm

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 4:03 am

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 31):

And if southwest hadn't expanded outside of Texas, they wouldn't be around still. If they hadn't expanded out of the southwest, they wouldn't be around now. 30, 20, and even 10 years ago, the workforce was much younger getting much lower average wages. If we don't continue to evolve, we'll go the way of PanAm, Eastern, Braniff, etc... Ask all of those people that don't like the change if they rather work for one of those carriers that is no longer in business.

Ehhh...

Pan Am had the issue of only being allowed to fly internationally for many many decades. They ordered a massive fleet of 747s just before the gas crisis. They overpaid for National which got them a domestic system that did not do anything to feed their international operations and also got them a fleet of DC-10s which did not fit in with Pan Am's fleet of 747s and L-1011-500s. They were the flag-carrying airline of the USA which brought on terrorist attacks including flight 103. Their route system was primarily international which caused people to not fly them during the 80s because of terrorism fears.

Eastern was the victim of employees who hated their management. When the mechanics and rampers went on strike, the pilots and flight attendants refused to cross the picket lines. Texas Air Corp slowly sold off all of their most valuable assets to their sister airline, Continental. Anything of value was sold.... the employees HATED the company and were more happy to shut the airline down than allow them to keep flying.

Braniff over expanded, flying 747SPs to unprofitable destinations like Guam, they exploded in growth after deregulation to cities like Cleveland and Albany... their management invested in villas in Acapulco and they lost all concept of what they were. They had not made money in years....

All of the airlines you mentioned had tragic flaws in their operating strategy.

If anything, your comment goes to show why airlines should stay small. Stick to what they do best.

Pan Am bragged that they were the most experienced airline. Name a city from Abidjan to Zurich....and they flew there. GONE.

Eastern.... the largest airline in the free world. GONE.

Braniff.... profitable until they decided to fly 747s to Guam, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Amsterdam..... GONE.

Southwest...made money flying to small cities.... highly profitable. Now with LaGuardia, Boston, Newark, Minneapolis, etc etc not so profitable.

You name Pan Am, Eastern and Braniff.... they all expanded rapidly....and where are they today?
My opinions are my own. They are not representative of my employer, my union or my co-workers. They are all mine.
 
gizmonc
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:51 pm

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 4:07 am

After readying the HUGE post by SKYCUB, it is apparent that majority of the SWA FA's are unhappy. SWA has a very liberal policy when it comes to dropping trips. Same with Ramp and Customer service. But what I dont understand is if a senior person does not want to fly international or over water flights don't bid them. The results of the vote was rather pathetic, a small few decided the fate of 10,000.
 
skycub
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:49 pm

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 4:20 am

Quoting gizmonc (Reply 35):
After readying the HUGE post by SKYCUB, it is apparent that majority of the SWA FA's are unhappy.

I never said that. I never said the majority was unhappy. I was speaking only for the people at my base. The people at MY base are not necessarily unhappy. We just don't like the options presented to us.
My opinions are my own. They are not representative of my employer, my union or my co-workers. They are all mine.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 4:38 am

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 14):

Not really. Not voting is the same as a NO vote. So if youre against the TA, dont bother voting.

I don't think so. Isn't this the rule that the NMB changed just before the DL/NW elections, to where not voting didn't count as anything, as before not voting counted as a no vote.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
asteriskceo
Posts: 440
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:42 pm

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 5:17 am

Quoting skycub (Reply 29):
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. While I will refrain from commenting on ground operations contractual negotiations since I am not directly impacted by them, I would ask that you do the same for inflight contractual negotiations.

Your opinion of our decision would be similar to my opinion that ground operations personnel should not be paid double time when they are mandatoried to work on their first day off.

Uhh—so much for refraining from commenting on ground operations contractual negotiations. You're cute when you're angry!  
 
HPRamper
Posts: 4633
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:22 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 5:23 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 21):
I think WN has a window, but I hope their unions realize that the A320NEO will enable VX and B6 to also fly to Hawaii. Any delays strengthen AS in the islands. This is an era of 'first mover advantage.'

Don't forget now G4 starting service from even smaller markets to Hawaii which will even further dwindle the pool of potential passengers who would otherwise drive to a WN-served airport to fly. The window is indeed growing very small.

Quoting WNCrew (Reply 24):
Not for us it isn't. If you don't vote, it's simply not counted as anything. It's a simple tally of YES vs NO votes.

I think it depends on what the vote is on. I recall back when HP and US merged, the ramp on both sides had to vote on which union would represent the combined group, IAM or TWU. In that situation, I think a no vote equaled a "NO" vote, or something along those lines. Basically the IAM easily won because it was a simple majority vote and the only way for TWU to win out would have been for a bunch of US people voting to drop the IAM.

Quoting skycub (Reply 29):
Many people I fly with voted no simply because they were unhappy with the WN/FL flight attendant seniority list integration vote.

I have heard time and time again: "I'm voting no. If we would have voted no on the seniority list integration, we would have gotten a better deal the second time around like the mechanics did."

That's sort of like cutting off your nose to spite your face isn't it? They are totally separate issues.

Quoting skycub (Reply 29):
The majority of crews I work with actually have no desire to fly international or overwater. It isn't a matter of "being ready." It's a matter of having no desire to do so.

Southwest needs to adapt to it or they will really fall behind. That's part of the reason for the FL buyout - management knows it. It seems that some WN employees are really not looking into the future and are way too comfortable with the status quo which is a dangerous thing.

Quoting skycub (Reply 29):
The majority of people I fly with at my base would be happy to leave all international flying to AirTran.

That can only be temporary at best and was really not even supposed to be the plan in the beginning. It's all supposed to be one happy airline, right?
 
ASFlyer
Posts: 1308
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 1:25 pm

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 5:31 am

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 14):
Not really. Not voting is the same as a NO vote. So if youre against the TA, dont bother voting.

Actually, this isn't true at all. In a contract vote, only the votes that are cast are counted. Therefore, if 2000 people of 10,000 voted and of that, 1500 voted in favor of a contract, it would pass. That means that 10,000 people allowed 1500 to decide their fate. Representation votes are different than contract votes.
 
skycub
Posts: 318
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:49 pm

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 5:33 am

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 39):

That can only be temporary at best and was really not even supposed to be the plan in the beginning.

"The plan in the beginning?"

The plan in the beginning was to fly between Dallas, Houston and San Antonio.

That was the plan in "the beginning."

And Southwest made money doing that.

What "beginning" are you referring to?
My opinions are my own. They are not representative of my employer, my union or my co-workers. They are all mine.
 
HPRamper
Posts: 4633
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 4:22 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 6:20 am

Quoting skycub (Reply 41):
"The plan in the beginning?"

The plan in the beginning was to fly between Dallas, Houston and San Antonio.

I was specifically referring to the comment about AirTran, which I quoted, hence I am talking about the AirTran buyout. I never said anything referring to WN of years past.
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1188
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 6:47 am

Quoting skycub (Reply 29):
WN was a highly profitable airline for 30+ years flying domestically. WN was a highly profitable airline flying passengers within Texas and California. WN was a highly profitable airline offering a reliable product between secondary airports. Most of the people I fly with don't understand why there is a sudden need to fly internationally.

Yeah, times change... but Southwest had the recipe for success for 30+ years. Low fare, high frequency service to secondary airports. Suddenly, with all of the changes..... Southwest isn't so profitable. Sure, there is the fuel issue. Sure, the airline business is changing.... but in the past few years, Southwest has changed their 30+ year recipe for success and suddenly the money is not coming in the way it was before.

LUV has a higher P/E than companies like GOOG. Investors expect it to either grow, or get much better margins. Either that, or the stock will tank. The issue with the union would seem to be that you just voted down growth, and you sure as hell aren't going to readily vote for better margins. That doesn't bode well for the stock.
 
Airportguy1971
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2003 6:49 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 6:50 am

Quoting usairways787 (Reply 26):
Southwest is not a legacy carrier.

They are evolving into one. Here's to the beginning of the end of the VERY plain plane...
 
peanuts
Posts: 846
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:17 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 7:10 am

Quoting usflyguy (Thread starter):
Percentage of Membership that voted %u2013 39.16
Quoting peanuts (Reply 5):
Incredible...
Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 14):
Not really. Not voting is the same as a NO vote. So if youre against the TA, dont bother voting.
Quoting peanuts (Reply 19):
I seem to recall that a few years back not voting was equivalent to a YES vote somewhere...
This may have been in relationship to voting in/out a particular union group. I know, different situation but confusing nonetheless...
Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 14):
Not really. Not voting is the same as a NO vote. So if youre against the TA, dont bother voting.
Quoting WNCrew (Reply 24):
Not for us it isn't. If you don't vote, it's simply not counted as anything. It's a simple tally of YES vs NO votes.
Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 14):
Not really. Not voting is the same as a NO vote. So if youre against the TA, dont bother voting.
Quoting mayor (Reply 37):
I don't think so. Isn't this the rule that the NMB changed just before the DL/NW elections, to where not voting didn't count as anything, as before not voting counted as a no vote.
Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 14):
Not really. Not voting is the same as a NO vote. So if youre against the TA, dont bother voting.
Quoting ASFlyer (Reply 40):
Actually, this isn't true at all. In a contract vote, only the votes that are cast are counted. Therefore, if 2000 people of 10,000 voted and of that, 1500 voted in favor of a contract, it would pass. That means that 10,000 people allowed 1500 to decide their fate. Representation votes are different than contract votes.

Ok. I'm really curious now as to what the correct assumption is. Please, someone help...lol.
 
FlyboyOz
Posts: 1744
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2000 10:05 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 8:04 am

lol... I guess it's probably too long to fly to Hawaii
The Spirit of AustraliAN - Longreach
 
swafa
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:33 am

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 8:06 am

It is my impression that the low voter turn out was a result of indifference (for lack of a better word). Only a few of us have actual experience with international rigs. We hear info/propaganda from the union and the company. Throw in the galley talk from f/a's who are unhappy with the agreement ( we all know the unhappy ones tend to be the most vocal) and nobody really knows how to interpret the new rigs or how it's really going to effect us. On top of that, this agreement becomes amendable again in 1 year. As a result, Many of us seem to lack any real passion about the vote. also, I think most f/a's assumed it would pass anyway and I'll bet with higher voter turn out it would have. I would not be surprised if the company asked for another vote on the existing language....if that's legal option.

I think we all understand that the international thing is a forgone conclusion. It's going to happen. and I, and probably most others are excited about it and realize the necessity of this move. I just want to make sure that our contract language guarantees to the greatest reasonable extent that SWA has to use its flight crews in the most effective and productive way possible.
 
xdlx
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:29 pm

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 10:15 am

Quoting usairways787 (Reply 26):

Not so sure anymore....at least the only one doing things traditionally.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6720
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: WN FA's Vote Down Overwater/Near International

Tue May 22, 2012 10:37 am

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 39):
That's sort of like cutting off your nose to spite your face isn't it? They are totally separate issues.

Staff usually have one paycheck, everything that affects it is regarded as pay, so unless ecah staff member has a lawyer in their back pocket to interpret and give technical answers, this is what you get.

Quoting swafa (Reply 47):
We hear info/propaganda from the union and the company. Throw in the galley talk from f/a's who are unhappy with the agreement ( we all know the unhappy ones tend to be the most vocal) and nobody really knows how to interpret the new rigs or how it's really going to effect us.

Also a union problem, the leadership of the union and its members should ensure that each and every member is able to read and understand exactly how their lives are affected by the agreement by simple talking to their significant others, who in most situations is the family and not lawyers and other experts. We know management can "hide" things in language, it also appears as if union management does the same.

Quoting skycub (Reply 29):
I am not sure I understand your comment. However, I will try to respond based on what I think your point is.

You did a good job, thanks for the response, you clarified a number of unasked questions.
Personally I hope there is a revote regardless of the result, such a small number of the work force should not be deciding on the quality of life for the majority. The purpose of the union is being lost if the members do not even show up to vote on union only issues much less management.

Issues like this may force legislators to re-visit union voting rules, for good or bad.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos