SWA transition bid needs to be reopened!

[Ty Webb]

Wishbone! What's up? :laugh:

 

[Lear70]

wishbone! what's up? :laugh:

lmao!

 

[Bake]

H.s. Ty, that was funny

 

[Ty Webb]

There are about 5 or 6 in that series.

This is the best one: http://youtu.be/AK6Pr0G7U3w

 

[General Lee]

Heard Airtran MX got word of a New 717 conversion time line. Nothing to late 2013 if at all. So GK can find a 717 buyer. Hows that for One LUV.

Can you explain this in English? Honestly, I don't understand this.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[Bake]

No worries gen lee, that's vodka language and it's not worth the electrons to explain because it isn't true.

By the way, I took you off ignore, don't screw it up buddy!

 

[jpd05]

Probably a shot accross the bow to both mechanics unions and the SWA FA's. The later has been brewing for awhile. Rumblings from DAL seem to indicate a strong desire to establish minimum work targets to get benefits. Quite a few "senior mama's" give all their trips away to run their side businesses (ie. real estate, Amway or whatever) but still cost the company through sick calls (when they can't give something away), vacation (5 weeks at 30-40 TFP per X $55.74 per TFP), Profit Sharing (PS) on the vacation and family health benefits costing "tens of thousands" per family. Again, this is for someone who has zero productivity and never shows up to work except for training. When the company was very junior, this wasn't a problem. It is now now that those top of scale trips are being picked up by other top of scale employees costing the company, and as GK would say, us, quite a lot in PS. Moral killer? I don't know. I just know some of the midgrade FA's are beginning to grumble about this issue. While the FA's still want the ability to take tons of time off if they need to, alot are starting to want to see some targets enforced over something like a 3 month rolling period. Not to say all the "senior mama's" are doing this. I just flew with one out of DAL 2 wks ago (7XX - almost 40yrs) who averages over 120 TFP every month. Proudly showed her pic from 1978 with the hot pants and all. Time had taken its toll.

The problem with minimums is that the people that want to fly alot wont be able to if people are not giving stuff away.

 

[scoreboardII]

Probably a shot accross the bow to both mechanics unions and the SWA FA's. The later has been brewing for awhile. Rumblings from DAL seem to indicate a strong desire to establish minimum work targets to get benefits. Quite a few "senior mama's" give all their trips away to run their side businesses (ie. real estate, Amway or whatever) but still cost the company through sick calls (when they can't give something away), vacation (5 weeks at 30-40 TFP per X $55.74 per TFP), Profit Sharing (PS) on the vacation and family health benefits costing "tens of thousands" per family. Again, this is for someone who has zero productivity and never shows up to work except for training. When the company was very junior, this wasn't a problem. It is now now that those top of scale trips are being picked up by other top of scale employees costing the company, and as GK would say, us, quite a lot in PS. Moral killer? I don't know. I just know some of the midgrade FA's are beginning to grumble about this issue. While the FA's still want the ability to take tons of time off if they need to, alot are starting to want to see some targets enforced over something like a 3 month rolling period. Not to say all the "senior mama's" are doing this. I just flew with one out of DAL 2 wks ago (7XX - almost 40yrs) who averages over 120 TFP every month. Proudly showed her pic from 1978 with the hot pants and all. Time had taken its toll.

Can anyone define "quite a few"?

Is it 5? 25? 500?

5%? 25%?

I bet it's less than 1/2%, 50-100FA's in total.

This is a sad attempt to lower a cost which really costs the company nothing, yet if "fixed", will ruin 100% of the folks QOL.

This is a zero sum game, 100% of the lines get flown. If someone wants to give away 100%, and someone else gets that 100%, what is the harm to the company? They man for the flights they need, until they stop hiring to many people, the company has no real reason to stop the practice.

The health benefit cost is a red hearing, you have to employee the number of employee's you have, so those are fixed costs.

What? You say management is not properly managing and hiring to many? Again, not our problem.

 

[nimtz]

The health benefit cost is a red hearing, you have to employee the number of employee's you have, so those are fixed costs.

What? You say management is not properly managing and hiring to many? Again, not our problem.

Health benefits are a fixed cost? Funny they went up approx 7% last year. In an industry with microscopic margins do you suppose that matters? Even better the employees all got to pay a big chunk of that. Sure not our problem that you can't force Mrs Soccer Mom to contribute to the bottom line. But if management came after them to I don't know go to work, I wouldn't expect my union to waste any contractual leverage on those in it for the 'flying and benefits'.

 

[scoreboardII]

Yes, a fixed cost ,even if they increase year over year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_cost

trust, me, they can fire all the deadwood as far as I'm concerned. If they are so concerned, why not just fire them? Thats right, they need to embarass them into working or quiting. Which won't work.

I just find it a failing to go after this minuscule margin when they could be doing many things better.