The fact is, there is NO WAY to predict who'll still be standing. A few short years ago, United was the biggest airline in the world and making money hand over fist. Then management (as usual) screwed it up. Just hope yours plays fair and has the company's best interest at heart.
American Airlines, The Last One Standing?
- Thread starter nyboilermaker
- Start date
What a bunch of BS. Why is always management's fault? ...because they are easy to blame.... or do you have any facts? speaking of United .... what about Dubinsky and the golden goose quote. See it's not a specific work group is specific greedy people. If you want to put blame name specific people rather that a whole work group because it is offending.Fly said:
"WHY?"air_guy said:
Who makes the decisions? It is not the non-management type that dictates where the income is spent.
Its like blaming the slave for the fall of ROME.
For your next home lesson sit down and think about it.
Management makes the decisions, but management must make decisions that conform to the rules of the labor contract. There are many decisions that just aren't possible due to work rules. If management was free of labor's work rules then they would be fully responsible for the outcome of the airline, but if labor makes it impossible for managment to make ideal decisions then they bear responsibility as well.
WingNaPrayer said:..............
[post="180416"][/post]
For a shareholder of this company Wing, I am surprised at this response....NOT....
Disgruntled EX-EMPLOYEE...Get over yourself and find another axe to grind. In fact if you are so intelligent in the airline business...start one yourself :down:
NewHampshire Black Bears
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 10,153
- Reaction score
- 681
KCFlyer said:
================================================
KCFlyer,
Mabey(just mabey), I'm getting a "little soft", in my ol' retired age !!
.
One thing you said, that I DO agree with is, that time will tell if Arpey is on the "up and up".
As with the "law of the jungle", SHOULD any choice assets become "available", AA WILL be the first to acquire them !!
This is (honestly) tough for me to make predictions about "choice assets", because I really don't want to see any working "stiff", suffer. However, my gut instinct tells me there will be suffering.
This IS a BRUTAL business !!
NH/BB's
NewHampshire Black Bears
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 10,153
- Reaction score
- 681
KCFlyer said:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I screwed up.
My last post was, in regard to "this" quote, not your first !!
My bad.
NH/BB's
upsilon
Senior
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 372
- Reaction score
- 2
Just read the following in Financial Times as part of an article on the state of the airline industry today:
“Employees have also sacrificed a lot. Since 2000, the six largest legacy airlines have shed 115,000 jobs, or 27 per cent of their workforce. US Airways has cut 17,500 jobs, or 38 per cent of its headcount. United has cut 40,000, a similar percentage, and could cut another 6,000 jobs. Delta will cut another 7,000 jobs in the next 18 months.
“That sounds vast. Yet much of this reduction simply reflects how bloated and inefficient many airlines became in the late 1990s.
“United, for example, was snarled in absurd working conditions. If complex overtime rules were not followed, United had to pay both the employee who worked overtime and the employee who should have been offered it.
“These restraints on productivity meant that United used to have 173 employees per aircraft, says Vaughn Cordle, analyst at Airline Forecasts. Now it has 121. Southwest, the low-cost carrier, averages about 86 employees per aircraft.â€
Anyone know what the figure is for AA?
“Employees have also sacrificed a lot. Since 2000, the six largest legacy airlines have shed 115,000 jobs, or 27 per cent of their workforce. US Airways has cut 17,500 jobs, or 38 per cent of its headcount. United has cut 40,000, a similar percentage, and could cut another 6,000 jobs. Delta will cut another 7,000 jobs in the next 18 months.
“That sounds vast. Yet much of this reduction simply reflects how bloated and inefficient many airlines became in the late 1990s.
“United, for example, was snarled in absurd working conditions. If complex overtime rules were not followed, United had to pay both the employee who worked overtime and the employee who should have been offered it.
“These restraints on productivity meant that United used to have 173 employees per aircraft, says Vaughn Cordle, analyst at Airline Forecasts. Now it has 121. Southwest, the low-cost carrier, averages about 86 employees per aircraft.â€
Anyone know what the figure is for AA?
upsilon said:
I read that article - very well written and blunt, as the British press tend to be.
Don't know what the number is right now, but at 12/31/03, American Airlines had about 84,800 employees in 2003 and 741 flying (not counting those in storage) mainline aircraft at 12/31/03 for an average of 114 employees per aircraft.
AMR's number (which, of course, includes Eagle) at 12/31/03 was 96,400 employees and 1001 flying aircraft for an average of 96 employees per aircraft.
Not too bad considering that so many of AA's planes are much larger than WN's 737s and that those larger planes carry larger crews and often fly much farther than WN's average 558 mile stage; all combined with the obvious fact that an airline like AA flying all over the world will, of course, require more employees than WN.
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
- Reaction score
- 584
<_< Hello Bear! I hope retired life is suiting you!!! More time for football??? With the rush to B/K Court, to shead Pension Funds, I hope and pray all will be well with "ALL" of us in say FIVE years!!!!!! :unsure:
FWAAA said:
I'm a little confused about the ratio of employees to aircraft. Aircraft come in many sizes of capacity and this should be taken into account. I believe a more valid ratio for passenger carriers would be employees per seat or even more valid, employees per ASM. Could Mr. Cordle (or someone else) provide statistics on that measure? I would welcome comments from others on this observation. :huh:
jimntx
Veteran
I don't think it is meant as any scientific economic/financial measure of a company's health or staffing levels. It's just a point of comparison which probably indicates that one airline has more desk jockeys than another. As far as "legal" staffing requirements, remember that the difference in minimum crew for most 757/767 configurations is only one more crew member than minimum crew for a S80, 737, or A319.
Now comparing a regional that flies only RJs vs. a "mainline" airline like AA or SWA would not be fair. But, if SWA has an average 86 employees per a/c and another has 173 per a/c, you can not attribute all that difference to a/c size. You have to ask, what those other 87 people are doing?
Now comparing a regional that flies only RJs vs. a "mainline" airline like AA or SWA would not be fair. But, if SWA has an average 86 employees per a/c and another has 173 per a/c, you can not attribute all that difference to a/c size. You have to ask, what those other 87 people are doing?
rotate said:
I reversed the numbers in the following calculation because each airline flies so many ASMs per employee. If it were employee per ASM, we'd be looking at very small fractions.
In 2003, Southwest flew 2,185,601 ASMs per employee.
In 2003, AA flew 1,948,219 ASMs per employee.
In 2003, AMR (including Eagle) flew 1,802,967 ASMs per employee.
AA's performance using this metric is not too shabby, considering all of AA's long-haul flights on which full meals are served, which are staffed by many more FAs than required by the FAA. Does WN fly a single flight with more than the minimum FA staffing? No WN flight has relief pilots or double crews, like many flights to Europe, Deep South America or all flights to NRT.
Another interesting metric is the employee cost per ASM. Because WN farms out most of its heavy maintenance (and AA performs most heavy maintenance in-house), I added contract maintenance and repairs and materials to each airline's labor cost for this calculation.
Again in 2003, WN spent 3.69687 cents per ASM on labor and repairs and maintenance.
In 2003, AA spent 4.5669 cents per ASM on labor and repairs and maintenance.
In 2003, AMR spent 4.67418 cents per ASM on labor and repairs and maintenance. Eagle really is more expensive than mainline.
Even though in many cases the hourly wages are higher at WN, their employees produce an ASM at lower cost than do the employees at AA. Represented employees will place all the blame at the feet of management, and management will counter that many of the inefficiencies are created by the labor agreements that union members demanded (and threatened to strike if not agreed to by AA).
Who knows who is right. The truth is somewhere in between. A large international airline with a huge hub and spoke network is by design a little less efficient than WN's mostly point to point model.
What is certain is that WN flies a butt a mile more cheaply (nearly a penny cheaper just on labor cost) than does AA. Add in the money WN is saving due to its successful fuel hedging strategies this year, and no wonder WN is still profitable.
Wretched Wrench
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 1,626
- Reaction score
- 12
Oneflyer said:
Under the TWU/AA contract only the first eligible employee who is bypassed is paid.
Most unions have the same provisions in their contract.
Similar threads
