WN's Flight Attendent Union say yes to 737-800!

[AA 1818]

"Since we began evaluating the opportunity to introduce the Boeing 737-800 into our fleet, the TWU negotiating committee and Leadership Team quickly grasped the potential benefits along with the added operational complexities associated with this decision," said Mike Van de Ven, Southwest Airlines Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. "This was an important step in our due diligence process, and we are pleased that our hard working Flight Attendants recognize the long-term benefits of adding this new aircraft to our fleet."

The decision to add the -800 still isn't final. The carrier is still waiting for a ratification vote with its Pilots' Union, SWAPA, and is continuing to evaluate network and configuration options. Any details regarding firm orders with Boeing, timing, and quantity of deliveries are still to be determined. If the Company pursues the -800, a joint committee would meet to work on the logistical details related to scheduling and bidding procedures that adding a fourth Flight Attendant will require.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Southw....html?x=0&.v=1

Well, looks like things are moving in that direction folks! Hopefully we can see WN grow larger and stronger with the 737-800s in the fleet. Might as well, seeing that the 717s will do away with fleet commonality!

[ACheck]

Why do they get a say? If the company wants to buy new equipment and they will train the staff to use the new equipment why do they have to get approval from the staff?

[DeltaFlyer]

Pilots I can understand, sort of, because their pay is normally affected by the size of equipment they fly and they need an 800 payscale, but for Flight Attendants they get the same trip pay no matter what they are on...

[KGEG]

Why do they get a say? If the company wants to buy new equipment and they will train the staff to use the new equipment why do they have to get approval from the staff?

Because the union is involved. The union could easily disapprove of something the airline wants to do making it doable no longer, if they want to keep their employees happy anyway.

But getting a new version of the 737 is of course a silly thing to squabble over anyway. And Southwest can obviously afford it.

Now say if they couldn't and they did it anyway, then the jobs and/or pay of perhaps a few flight attendants and other union supported jobs would be at risk due to poor money management. Of course that would be down-sizing, defeating the purpose of buying a larger type of 737 to expand. The union is just making sure the decision is beneficial to the workers they stand behind, no matter what that decision is, they have a say if it effects the FA's.

[ACheck]

Well KGEG I have never heard of an airline asking permission from the ground workers or the gate agents. As DeltaFlyer says they if they work aircraft they can work them all.

If anything you should be asking the guys that have to get in and out of the belly's and/or the Cargo department. They are with the aircraft a lot more than the pilots or flight attendants.

[ATrude777]

Pilots I can understand, sort of, because their pay is normally affected by the size of equipment they fly and they need an 800 payscale, but for Flight Attendants they get the same trip pay no matter what they are on...

Not true.

When a F/A is assigned to work a -300/-700 aircraft and the booking count on board is 123 or higher (as -500's capacity is 122 seater) they get more money for working the -300/700.

So it is because of THAT negotiation, that they needed to figure out the -800 due to larger capacity.

My guess is perhaps, if the -800 has 137 folks or less, they get the pay scale of a 300/-700, if it seats 138 or more, they will get a pay scale of a -800 (whatever was agreed between them).

I don't know if this was what needed to be worked out, but no, WN F/A's do get paid diff based on the capacity on the day of the trip inside the aircraft.

In essence, their pay rate is based on a 737-500 seat capacity (was -200 but both seat count was the same). They are paid for 122 passengers. Should the booking rise above 122 passengers (when the -300 came along) they are paid more for that trip. Same agreement was kept for the -700 as it was same seat capacity as -300. Now with the -800, they will need to negotiate the pay terms for the -800 and agree to something between them all. If a 737-300 or 737-700 is only booked to 122 out of 137 and flies 122 passengers, they pay does not increase regardless of the aircraft.

Alex

[AA 1818]

Not true.

When a F/A is assigned to work a -300/-700 aircraft and the booking count on board is 123 or higher (as -500's capacity is 122 seater) they get more money for working the -300/700.

So it is because of THAT negotiation, that they needed to figure out the -800 due to larger capacity.

My guess is perhaps, if the -800 has 137 folks or less, they get the pay scale of a 300/-700, if it seats 138 or more, they will get a pay scale of a -800 (whatever was agreed between them).

I don't know if this was what needed to be worked out, but no, WN F/A's do get paid diff based on the capacity on the day of the trip inside the aircraft.

In essence, their pay rate is based on a 737-500 seat capacity (was -200 but both seat count was the same). They are paid for 122 passengers. Should the booking rise above 122 passengers (when the -300 came along) they are paid more for that trip. Same agreement was kept for the -700 as it was same seat capacity as -300. Now with the -800, they will need to negotiate the pay terms for the -800 and agree to something between them all. If a 737-300 or 737-700 is only booked to 122 out of 137 and flies 122 passengers, they pay does not increase regardless of the aircraft.

Alex

And this is what pisses me off about the state of our industry.

What you have above, Alex, is what's fair and well organized. It may seem a bit complicated, but I understand the math here well. If you work with more people, and you have to do harder work, you get paid more. A simple, honest, and fair principle.

Yet, look at the shambles that is the rest of the industry. At most other U.S. based carriers, you get paid horribly regardless of what you do, and yet we always wonder why we are touted as having (as a nation) some of the rudest and seemingly careless Flight Attendants.

It just sucks that an "LCC" has more common sense, and more dignity than "Legacy" carriers. It's appalling...

[Foxtrot]

^Maybe that's why WN flight attendants in general seem to be happier in general, and go the extra mile. Don't get me wrong, they still would go the extra mile regardless, and that's the WN standard of customer service and the culture, but it does give them the added incentive. And I agree, the more you work, the harder your work is, the more you should get paid.

[Curtis Malone]

...and yet we always wonder why we are touted as having (as a nation) some of the rudest and seemingly careless Flight Attendants.

I don't wonder, it's a fact. A big part of the problem is that the carriers have been discouraged from applying any sort of standards to FA recruitment. I once saw a parody successory poster with a bunch of Hooters girls and the poster was titled "Sexism-only the ugly bitches complain". Said bitches seem to have successfully infiltrated airline HR department.

SQ has the right idea. As does KL and a number of others.