I agree that the 8:15 am messed up the timing; however, if they intended to do the unveiling next week, they could have flown the repainted 738 to DFW under cover of darkness the following night.
American Airlines rebranding ‘very soon’
- Thread starter usa1
- Start date
I agree that the 8:15 am messed up the timing; however, if they intended to do the unveiling next week, they could have flown the repainted 738 to DFW under cover of darkness the following night.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
An American Airlines employee asked aviation consultant Michael Boyd, head of the Boyd Group International, for Boyd’s opinion of the new American Airlines logo and livery. Boyd, who speaks his mind, responded.
Here’s the part of his reply Thursday to that employee that Mr. Boyd was comfortable having repeated:
Subject: RE: AMERICAN AIRLINES NEW LIVERY: DISGRACE
It’s hard to have any sense of humor when poor management judgment like this comes to light. The competition should be very reassured.
A completely unnecessary re-branding and re-packaging of airplanes, gates, airports, backwalls, and all the rest will cost tens – maybe hundreds – of millions. At a time when retirees aren’t sure of healthcare, employees are losing jobs, and the competition is ready to pounce, to do what Horton is doing is not only an ego trip, but completely professionally irresponsible. It won’t generate a single new passenger. It won’t make American (no longer “AA,” I see) one bit more competitive. If employees have low respect for senior management – this is clearly a symptom of the cause.
Very disappointing.
Here’s the part of his reply Thursday to that employee that Mr. Boyd was comfortable having repeated:
Subject: RE: AMERICAN AIRLINES NEW LIVERY: DISGRACE
It’s hard to have any sense of humor when poor management judgment like this comes to light. The competition should be very reassured.
A completely unnecessary re-branding and re-packaging of airplanes, gates, airports, backwalls, and all the rest will cost tens – maybe hundreds – of millions. At a time when retirees aren’t sure of healthcare, employees are losing jobs, and the competition is ready to pounce, to do what Horton is doing is not only an ego trip, but completely professionally irresponsible. It won’t generate a single new passenger. It won’t make American (no longer “AA,” I see) one bit more competitive. If employees have low respect for senior management – this is clearly a symptom of the cause.
Very disappointing.
JFK Fleet Service
Veteran
We replaced the eagle with a pair of 3D glasses...gotta' love it.
Listening to these idiots trying to explain the evolution of the brand makes me want to vomit.
I wonder what Crandall thinks of the 'Symbol of flight'...
Listening to these idiots trying to explain the evolution of the brand makes me want to vomit.
I wonder what Crandall thinks of the 'Symbol of flight'...
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
There is no question now, why AA is in the shape is it in. And it has nothing to do with labor cost.
777 / 767 / 757 Love
Advanced
- Jan 26, 2012
- 204
- 188
SO, can someone tell me if they did not re-brand, what the composite airplanes would be painted to look like to match the non-composite ones?
Cheers,
777 / 767 / 757
Cheers,
777 / 767 / 757
Yes, but that doesn't justify applying paint to the polished surfaces of the existing fleet. Yes, the 787s will have to be painted and the composite surfaces of the existing fleet are already painted.
The numbers Boeing used were 1998 numbers. Were the TWU wage rates far below industry standard then (I know they are now)?.
My point is that the slight cost advantage that Boeing concluded in 1998 has completely gone the other way now, especially at AA where the polishing is done at very low labor rates and fuel is almost six times as costly as in 1998.
Painting in 1998 didn't cost much extra in fuel when fuel was $0.55/gal and mechanics made more money than they do now. Now, when fuel is $3.20/gal and AA's mechanics are low-wage, polishing the existing fleet has to be the much cheaper alternative to heavy paint. Yes, the 787s will have to be painted, but that's no excuse for adding hundreds of pounds of silver paint now to the existing aluminum-skinned 777s, 767, 757s and 737s. They could have stayed shiny, polished aluminum at lower cost. Of course, the 787s would have looked different when they arrived (since they have to be painted).
I'm not sure I follow your faulty logic. This moronic decision by Tom Horton is somehow evidence or proof that AA's labor costs were not out of line with the rest of the industry? Sorry, but that fails.
I think Horton's Folly on the new livery is completely stupid (in agreement with many others), but you're incorrect - AA's labor costs were far above those of the competition.
Maybe the greedy pilots cost were way above everyone else's but definitely not the mechanics.
"Labor costs" and "wage rates" are not synonymous. AA's maintenance labor costs were far higher than at other airlines. Your wage rates are low, but your labor costs were too high.
Too high? Once again we have to go into this? Come on you know better. Still keep repeating the same misleading lie over and over again.
Was it higher? Yes. Too high? You are giving an opinion based upon an incomplete picture. You say Yes based upon one thing, comparing labor costs with carriers that outsource, well thats just dumb.
There really isnt any way you can make such a statement because there are no exact comparasions.You would need a ton of data from all the carriers to come to such a conclusion and the carriers keep that info closely guarded. They cant even make such a determination, just a guess.
Yes AA pays more in total labor costs but thats all you can say, you dont have nearly enough info to state whether they pay too much or not. Even Arpey couldnt answer that, so I doubt you could.
When others outsource their aircraft the labor costs may dissapear off your radar but they are still there.
Since AA still does most of their labor in house they will still likely have higher maintenance labor costs but only number crunchers who dont really know anything about the business would see that as a problem. Paying an MRO may lower your labor costs but may not lower your operating costs, it could increase them.
The reason why I say there are no exact comparasions is because even if you add in what others pay for outsourcing that still is not an apples to apples comparasion. Why? Because there are still many other variables. If a competitor has a younger fleet then the depth of the checks are lighter therefore less expensive to do whether you do it in house or outsource. If they do a lot of 3P work that offsets the numbers as well. what type of equipment do they operate, what leases do they pay? Does AA get dirt cheap rates on old higher maintenance aircraft? So if they kept the MD-80s because they got them cheap but they require more manhours to maintain than brand new 737-800s is it a fair judgement to say that AA's labor costs are too high? In your black and white world of spreadsheets you look at the very limited information and make assumptions that everything else is the same, when its not, and it leads you into making dumb statements like that. or was it simply your intent to mislead?
I wasnt challenging what you wrote.
I dissagree with repainting the fleet as well.
My guess is its a way of laundering more money so more of it ends up in the hands of banks by funneling the work to vendors that they have an interest in and less for the workers.
Like the A-300s when we got them
Tex-Mech
Veteran
Do you know if the repainting counts against the outsourcing cap, or is that not considered a maintenance cost?
Similar threads
- Locked
