https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... s-grounded


Southwest Airlines in Maintenance ‘Emergency’ With More Jets Grounded

Company stresses duty of mechanics, inspectors to get to work
Carrier warns employees could be fired for unexcused absences

Southwest Airlines Co. declared an “operational emergency” Friday because of an unusually high number of aircraft taken out of service for maintenance, and ordered all scheduled mechanics to show up for work or risk being fired.

Cancel flights then. Don’t encourage a mechanic to come in to work sick by threatening them with termination.

Would you want your pilot coming in sick?

What the hell is going on at Southwest? 6 years without a contract for Maintenance workers??? All to save money. Herb would be disappointed. Get it together, Southwest.
-Southwest Fan

Delends on their contract language.

Enough is enough already.
Excited about Hawaii but this kills the happiness.
Herb said Happy employees = Happy customers =Happy shareholders
At this rate sounds more like Eastern airlines than the LUV Airline.

EasternFlyguy

I am a huge SWA fan but if they are short of aircraft why not reactivate N772SW that has been fully repaired following the Philadelphia accident and Is at VCV and N752SW which is also fully repaired after the Burbank incident and sits at MCI?

jetmatt777 wrote:

Cancel flights then. Don’t encourage a mechanic to come in to work sick by threatening them with termination.

Would you want your pilot coming in sick?

Doesn't seem to me that they are sick, but more of a political move by the union, no?

Work action apparently. This is what a lack of agreement for 6 years gets you I guess.

airliner371 wrote:

What the hell is going on at Southwest? 6 years without a contract for Maintenance workers??? All to save money. Herb would be disappointed. Get it together, Southwest.
-Southwest Fan

It takes two to tango

bennett123 wrote:

I always thought working overtime was optional.

Notice that it said SCHEDULED mechanics. That doesn't mean overtime.
It's really a threat against sick-outs and non-strike striking.
WN mechanics have done this before, years ago.
I rarely side with labor (and, frankly, my opinion is only as valuable as the million other opinions out there...) but I feel for those guys if they haven't had a contract in that long!

n471wn wrote:

I am a huge SWA fan but if they are short of aircraft why not reactivate N772SW that has been fully repaired following the Philadelphia accident and Is at VCV and N752SW which is also fully repaired after the Burbank incident and sits at MCI?

Because doing that would require mechanics. The problem isn't lack of aircraft, it is that SWA is short of mechanics.

[twoid][/twoid]

AtomicGarden wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

Cancel flights then. Don’t encourage a mechanic to come in to work sick by threatening them with termination.

Would you want your pilot coming in sick?

Doesn't seem to me that they are sick, but more of a political move by the union, no?

So they should come in if they are sick and legitimately unfit for duty because the company believes some mechanics might not actually be sick?

Is the company going to pay for the employees to get a doctors certification for the common cold, an illness which normally does not normally require a doctor’s note for a short absence?

All of you all who are talking about legitimately sick mechanics coming to work sick are COMPLETELY missing the point. This is the company trying to fight back against any sort of sick out/work action/work-to-rule movement being taken by mechanics, either officially or unofficially, during contract negotiations.

In an article in the Chicago Business Journal, a source gave the example of a plane being pulled from service and sent to the hangar in Houston for a broken tray table.

What is the hold up for the contract? Southwest is usually pretty generous. Why won't the mechanics vote on it?

jetmatt777 wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

AtomicGarden wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

Cancel flights then. Don’t encourage a mechanic to come in to work sick by threatening them with termination.

Would you want your pilot coming in sick?

Doesn't seem to me that they are sick, but more of a political move by the union, no?

So they should come in if they are sick and legitimately unfit for duty because the company believes some mechanics might not actually be sick?

Is the company going to pay for the employees to get a doctors certification for the common cold, an illness which normally does not normally require a doctor’s note for a short absence?

Give me a break. Keep drinking the kool aid.

UALFAson wrote:

In an article in the Chicago Business Journal, a source gave the example of a plane being pulled from service and sent to the hangar in Houston for a broken tray table.

Nothing much has changed then in nearly 30 years. Same treatment was dished out to A300's when they entered service in the USA.

jetblueguy22 wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

AtomicGarden wrote:

Doesn't seem to me that they are sick, but more of a political move by the union, no?

So they should come in if they are sick and legitimately unfit for duty because the company believes some mechanics might not actually be sick?

Is the company going to pay for the employees to get a doctors certification for the common cold, an illness which normally does not normally require a doctor’s note for a short absence?

Give me a break. Keep drinking the kool aid.

Sick leave is a benefit. Forcing people to come in to work when sick is just asking for trouble. That’s just plain common sense. The whole point of not requiring a doctor’s note for routine short term illness is so people don’t come in to work and infect your customers and fellow workers. You want people to not be at work when they are sick, especially when it is a safety sensitive position. A mechanic should not be thinking about his runny nose and sore throat when he’s doing an inspection. I don’t see why you’d want someone returning your airplane to service when he should be at home taking care of his sick condition. That’s where his mind is, anyway.

Ah, yes. When your employees are fed up and unmotivated, just threaten them... Works everytime.

wnflyguy wrote:

Enough is enough already.
Excited about Hawaii but this kills the happiness.
Herb said Happy employees = Happy customers =Happy shareholders
At this rate sounds more like Eastern airlines than the LUV Airline.

EasternFlyguy

Hawaii is just as much of an embarrassment as this maintenance situation. This airline has moved at a glacial pace on Hawaii readiness and ETOPS.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Work action apparently. This is what a lack of agreement for 6 years gets you I guess.

To me the is my opinion only. The mechanics at Southwest are represented by the Aircraft Mechanic Fraternal Association commonly known as AMFA. This is an independent "union" without any ties to other unions, labor organizations or AFL-CIO. This was the case when AMFA defeated the IAM or International Associations of Machinists in a union representation election in the early 2000s at Northwest Airlines. Senior management had a party celebrating the IAM's loss. AMFA negotiated one contract with Northwest as Northwest was not in a position to take on a strike. However, Northwest did major preparations to defeat AMFA in the next round of negations for a new contract which resulted in a lockout of the mechanics and cleaners in July of 2005. Northwest wanted AMFA defeated and removed from the property. After about 444 days AMFA capitulated and signed a new contract that Northwest basically dictated. It included language that basically stated that the mechanic and cleaners that worked for Northwest after the contract was signed no longer needed to pay union dues and had other language that crippled AMFA on Northwest's property. I am not saying this because I especially liked the IAM which I considered corrupt. AMFA was then and may still be a stand alone "union" with little or no power and support of other union organizations.
I do not know what Southwest's plan is to do with unions on it's property but if they have managed to delay the implementation of a new contract for six years with AMFA Southwest is determined to remove AMFA from it's property. If they can Southwest may try to remove other unions also. I doubt if they could remove SWAPA which I think represents the pilots. That is the only major group of employees that have union representation with Delta Airlines. Southwest could fire some mechanics for using sickins and probably get away with it. If Southwest cannot get their mechanics under their control they may have to do what Northwest Airlines did and jeopardize the airlines future to remove AMFA from the property and have a sufficient number of their current mechanics cross over any picket lines plus find a sufficient number of of replacement mechanics and new mechanics to work under Southwest Airlines terms. It could become a very costly affair to operate the airline at maybe a fifty percent figure while they are trying to possibly break AMFA and restore the company. I really have no idea what Southwest is planning and how far they will go to get what Southwest wants.

bennett123 wrote:

I always thought working overtime was optional.

Not if it is in your contract, based on local laws. We can be required to work OT, at managements discretion, at the pay rate of time and a half.

NWAROOSTER wrote:

I do not know what Southwest's plan is to do with unions on it's property but if they have managed to delay the implementation of a new contract for six years with AMFA Southwest is determined to remove AMFA from it's property.

SWA pilots went more than four years beyond the amendable date. Unions can put a less lucrative agreement up for a vote or they can hold out for more. There's no single correct answer. SWA can't kill any union if that union has the support of SWA's other unions - that was the key failing of AMFA and NWA.

UALFAson wrote:

All of you all who are talking about legitimately sick mechanics coming to work sick are COMPLETELY missing the point. This is the company trying to fight back against any sort of sick out/work action/work-to-rule movement being taken by mechanics, either officially or unofficially, during contract negotiations.

In an article in the Chicago Business Journal, a source gave the example of a plane being pulled from service and sent to the hangar in Houston for a broken tray table.

If the broken tray table was in the exit row, that plane wasn’t going anywhere. In Mexico, a southwest plane wasn’t grounded because of a broken tray table, too. Mexican authorities wouldn’t allow them to push back until it was fixed...and it wasn’t even in the exit row.

jetmatt777 wrote:

Sick leave is a benefit. Forcing people to come in to work when sick is just asking for trouble. That’s just plain common sense. The whole point of not requiring a doctor’s note for routine short term illness is so people don’t come in to work and infect your customers and fellow workers.

Yes, it is, and if someone is legitimately sick, they shouldn't come in. Having said that, if they're out for more than 3 days it's reasonable for the company to ask for a doctor's note. I always remind employees that while sick leave is a negotiated benefit, it should be treated like insurance that pays you when you're truly too ill to report for work, and like insurance, the insurance company could raise your rates (take disciplinary action) or even drop you (terminate employment) if it's chronically over-used or misused. Again, common sense.

FLIHGH wrote:

UALFAson wrote:

All of you all who are talking about legitimately sick mechanics coming to work sick are COMPLETELY missing the point. This is the company trying to fight back against any sort of sick out/work action/work-to-rule movement being taken by mechanics, either officially or unofficially, during contract negotiations.

In an article in the Chicago Business Journal, a source gave the example of a plane being pulled from service and sent to the hangar in Houston for a broken tray table.

If the broken tray table was in the exit row, that plane wasn’t going anywhere. In Mexico, a southwest plane wasn’t grounded because of a broken tray table, too. Mexican authorities wouldn’t allow them to push back until it was fixed...and it wasn’t even in the exit row.

I dont think thats true. Most of time this type of "diversions" created by management. In fact, a plane sent to the hangar in houston for requred maintenance and an item added to workpackage for broken table. But this served to public like your example. I see it so many times so many diiferent places.

This just unfortunate for WN. They are already very poor with on time stats. Can’t help. But when your customers are buying and expecting cheap they tend not to be as disappointed when things go off the rails.

Was wondering what was up. This explains all they delays at MDW yesterday when the weather was fine.

mcdu wrote:

This just unfortunate for WN. They are already very poor with on time stats. Can’t help. But when your customers are buying and expecting cheap they tend not to be as disappointed when things go off the rails.

More b.s. You think people choose economy in UA et al because they’re special? Google employees (for example) don’t mind being late on WN? Give me a break.

It always fascinates me how on thread after thread, year after year, topic after topic, airliners.net always ends up debating vulture capitalism via aviation.

Remember the thread a while back about how "AA investors were upset that additional revenue was going for things like new planes and raises for 'the help' instead of to investors"? That's vulture capitalism: sucking every bit of life out of a business for maximum profit in the short term, bleed the carcass dry, then turn it over to the creditors, and move on to the next victim.

If you spend six years arguing over whether to pay your employees fairly, you have no business being in business. You're doing that for sport and for bragging rights later. But once you're in that stratosphere of the "senior management club", you've got your golden parachute, so why should you care about your business?

Whatever else I think of the ethics and greed of the original robber-barons, they at least had a goal: the primary mission of their company was to survive long-term, and their products were to be associated with quality. Henry Ford at least knew you had to pay your workers enough money to buy their products. Today, that's not the case. Today one can take six years to come to an agreement with the people who make their planes safe to fly, quibbling over pennies, and call it "capitalism".

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

It always fascinates me how on thread after thread, year after year, topic after topic, airliners.net always ends up debating vulture capitalism via aviation.

Remember the thread a while back about how "AA investors were upset that additional revenue was going for things like new planes and raises for 'the help' instead of to investors"? That's vulture capitalism: sucking every bit of life out of a business for maximum profit in the short term, bleed the carcass dry, then turn it over to the creditors, and move on to the next victim.

If you spend six years arguing over whether to pay your employees fairly, you have no business being in business. You're doing that for sport and for bragging rights later. But once you're in that stratosphere of the "senior management club", you've got your golden parachute, so why should you care about your business?

Whatever else I think of the ethics and greed of the original robber-barons, they at least had a goal: the primary mission of their company was to survive long-term, and their products were to be associated with quality. Henry Ford at least knew you had to pay your workers enough money to buy their products. Today, that's not the case. Today one can take six years to come to an agreement with the people who make their planes safe to fly, quibbling over pennies, and call it "capitalism".

If by “fairly” you mean “with a contract”, I’m not sure whose fault that is? If by “fairly” you are referring to “wages and benefits”, can you be more specific?

TTailedTiger wrote:

What is the hold up for the contract? Southwest is usually pretty generous. Why won't the mechanics vote on it?

generous no... Like most other companies Southwest wants to spend the least amount of money on their employees. There is a reason labor contracts are negotiated and not based off goodwill

Wow. I'm not sure what to say. My employer has elevated turnover ever since mandatory overtime became the norm. In this environment (good jobs) people are no longer desperate to keep a job. The lost decade is over.

The fraction of the profits to labor must increase. Period. WN isn't offering anything special, so they are no longer 1st choice.

A reasonable offer must be arrived at. I've been accused of being anti-labor here over the last decade. That was because we had an extended shortage of carrier jobs. Now there is a shortage of trained people.

So now WN must offer a better contract than they want. Threatening termination takes decades to be forgiven.

We're is the popcorn smilie.

Lightsaber

wouldn't have this problem if they would bargain in good faith, demand out strips supply of AMT's now..don't think they can pull an NWA manuever now.

I’ve long said that WN is an amateur airline. They had a unique model that served them well, but there have been clear lapses of judgement in their culture from the beginning.

I am not a fan, and have started suggesting people avoid them. There are too many missteps WRT maintenance and I find that unconscionable. After everything the US aviation industry has done to improve safety culture this is a major step backwards.

-G

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

If you spend six years arguing over whether to pay your employees fairly, you have no business being in business. You're doing that for sport and for bragging rights later.

And CEO's have no right to be CEO's, and senior managers to be in senior management.

Amazes how pedantic a CEO can be in respect to debating the interpretation of a single benefit or bonus for themselves, yet expect negotiators representing hundreds or thousands of employees to agree terms overnight, or sooner.

Your entire post was a good one.

AMFA’s response to WN.

http://www.amfanational.org/?zone=/unio ... 20Airlines

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

It always fascinates me how on thread after thread, year after year, topic after topic, airliners.net always ends up debating vulture capitalism via aviation.

Remember the thread a while back about how "AA investors were upset that additional revenue was going for things like new planes and raises for 'the help' instead of to investors"? That's vulture capitalism: sucking every bit of life out of a business for maximum profit in the short term, bleed the carcass dry, then turn it over to the creditors, and move on to the next victim.

If you spend six years arguing over whether to pay your employees fairly, you have no business being in business. You're doing that for sport and for bragging rights later. But once you're in that stratosphere of the "senior management club", you've got your golden parachute, so why should you care about your business?

Whatever else I think of the ethics and greed of the original robber-barons, they at least had a goal: the primary mission of their company was to survive long-term, and their products were to be associated with quality. Henry Ford at least knew you had to pay your workers enough money to buy their products. Today, that's not the case. Today one can take six years to come to an agreement with the people who make their planes safe to fly, quibbling over pennies, and call it "capitalism".

This is probably more of a management problem, particularly when airlines have been profitable for years. Delta has managed both sides very well. I will not be flying Southwest anymore.

Altwarrior: So you will not be flying SWA anymore.....oh my goodness I wonder if they will survive!!

MIflyer12 wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

I do not know what Southwest's plan is to do with unions on it's property but if they have managed to delay the implementation of a new contract for six years with AMFA Southwest is determined to remove AMFA from it's property.

SWA pilots went more than four years beyond the amendable date. Unions can put a less lucrative agreement up for a vote or they can hold out for more. There's no single correct answer. SWA can't kill any union if that union has the support of SWA's other unions - that was the key failing of AMFA and NWA.

Northwest Airlines unions NEVER supported each other during a contract dispute. The pilots at Northwest did not want the support of any other unions as they figured rightly could shut the airline down without any other unions on the property support. Thus they felt they did NOT need to support any union's labor disputes though a handful of pilots that did. Thus is prior to AMFA gaining representation outside unions supported the striking mechanics as they belonged to the AFL-CIO and had close relations with outside unions that either refused to deliver needed goods and by other mechanics. AMFA is and was a one horse show and felt they could go it alone. This was and still may be the case. With Southwest Airlines it is a matter of how far the management wants to go to eliminate AMFA. I am NOT sticking up for either side. I have read the AMFA contract a long ago in the past and it was well written in Southwest's favor. At the the time almost every critical item had the disclaimer at the end "at the discretion of Southwest Airlines." Southwest Airlines may be just a training ground for mechanics that want to move onto one of the so called major airlines such as Delta and United. This is what happened when American Airlines had a true B-scale in wages and benefits for new hires who would never top out at the level of the A-scale mechanics. American eventually had to drop the true B-scale and allow new hire B-scale mechanics to reach the same scale as mechanics who were working at American before the separate B-scale was negotiated.

Gabrielz wrote:

I’ve long said that WN is an amateur airline. They had a unique model that served them well, but there have been clear lapses of judgement in their culture from the beginning.

I am not a fan, and have started suggesting people avoid them. There are too many missteps WRT maintenance and I find that unconscionable. After everything the US aviation industry has done to improve safety culture this is a major step backwards.

-G

Hasn’t every airline - and certainly every major - had lapses in judgment? AA at LIT or 9E over Missouri or OH in LEX or 9L in BUF? What’s unique about WN’s judgment?

Pehaps we need to loose the "overtime" word, when in your contract it should could be extra time or additional time or assist time. In the old days "overtime" was always above anything you signed up for.

It seems to be quite the week for so-called 'emergencies'...

could it just be that people are sick with the flu like most of Texas ?

" Southwest Airlines may be just a training ground for mechanics that want to move onto one of the so called major airlines such as Delta and United. .Southwest has traditionally paid it's techs better than the majors, this is SWA management playing games, with the current economy it would be harder to do what NWA did, SWA needs to settle this now.

charlienorth wrote:

" Southwest Airlines may be just a training ground for mechanics that want to move onto one of the so called major airlines such as Delta and United. .Southwest has traditionally paid it's techs better than the majors, this is SWA management playing games, with the current economy it would be harder to do what NWA did, SWA needs to settle this now.

If WN pays techs more than the majors than management can play games for quite some time..

If WN pays techs more than the majors than management can play games for quite some time.. That was in the past with all the foot dragging they've fallen behind. It would be nice to settle and have to pay back pay to 2012.

the beatings will stop when moral improves

disappointed WN flyer.

get the mechanics a contract.

Is it true SWA management is trying to get the mechanics to allow them to outsource their heavy maintenance? If what I’ve heard is true, this is essentially a mechanics “scope” fight.


ILL