AMR Needs More Revenues, Funding To Meet Liquidity Needs

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 6/16/2003 9:29:38 AM KCFlyer wrote:

I doubt seriously that many Congressmen will want to piss of their constituents by raising airfares to a point where a large number of them will not be able to afford to fly. Therefore, it''s going to be up to the airlines to keep costs down to maintain affordable airfares. It''s pretty much what you''ve got now.

Who says they would have to raise them that much or at all? SWA pays more than AA yet they still offer cheap fares.



When you go 36 hours without sleep, does it really matter if it''s indoors or out?

Yes it does. Try working outside on a feild trip to Bangor in the middle of the winter in the midle of the night. When you are tired you feel the cold even more. It makes a difference but since you have not done it, you dont know. Even if you are working a regular shift your body starts to slow down in the middle of the night, Summertimes not that bad but its rough in the winter. I''m lucky in that I have enough seniority at the moment to avoid nights.

I did bank software conversions.

Sounds tough.

I was usually on the road from Saturday until Thursday - every week.The typical conversion meant we left Dallas on an early morning flight on Saturday, arrived at the bank around noon, and worked all day and all night Saturday, all day and as far into the night was we needed to on Sunday, and were there during the day to train bank employees and at night to train the operators on how to run the updates. Once the initial 36 hour shift was done, then the typical workday was about 18 hours. We''d fly home Thursday, go in to the office on Friday to prep for the next conversion, stay up late on Friday to do laundry and pack for the departure that next Saturday. I did that for about 3 years. Holidays were a primo conversion date because we had the "luxury" of an extra day to get the bank converted and in balance. About once a month we were able to stay in the local office for a week to give us a break from the road.&nbsp.

Three years, thats it? Plus you only did that three out of four weeks, its not like you did it for three years straight.What do you do now? Try talking to an airline employee who works weekends and holidays for their entire career. They dont get a break 25% of the time.
----------------


​

----------------​

----------------​

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 6/17/2003 6:15:12 AM Bob Owens wrote:


Bob, I really don''t want to get into a "mines bigger" argument, but a couple of things - first off, try a software conversion sometime, with a weekly workload equal to what I was doing. Then tell me sarcastically that it sounds tough. How much do you make per hour after you have worked your 8 hour shift? Is it more than your "straight pay"? ..how about those holidays...are those worked at "straight pay"...because if you made even a nickle more per hour, you were paid for it...I was paid for 40 hours a week, regardless if I worked that 40 hours over 7 days or two days. You mock the software aspect, but I''d suspect you''d be crying like a baby when you realized you weren''t getting ANY overtime pay. That''s something even your "sorry" TWU gets for you. But a lot of those folks you lump in with "management" can only WISH they made as much as a mechanic after they''ve gone into their 60th hour in a given workweek...20 hours beyond what they are being paid for. And yep, after 3 years, I called it quits and moved on. Sticking with godawful working conditions, working those midnights in Bangor in the freezing temperatures (even in July) 7 days a week for 10 years, must make you either a fool or a masochist. Or did you not get a "break" every once in a while? Second, in a younger life, I held a "blue collar" job, loading trucks on an open loading dock in Ohio. I''d venture to guess that winters in northeast Ohio are about as bad as winters in Bangor - and it''s a real blast in a "white out" where you can''t even see the edge of the dock (and the tempurature is well below zero). And since I was working at a dairy, going inside to "warm up" meant going into a 35 degree cooler. I did that for 5 years, so combine that with the 3 I did software conversions, then I''m only two years shy of your 10 year limit there.

And it''s convenient that you point to Southwest as making a profit while charging low fares. Before 9/11, I recall a helluva lot of posts about Southwest and their ilk "dragging down" the industry. When questioned on the costs then, everybody points out that Southwest doesn''t serve Podunk Iowa or they don''t fly international, or they don''t do whatever else it is that made the other airlines different. Are you suggesting that AA drop the flights to Podunk and Paris? And I can tell you that even in the conservative republican Kansas side of the KC metro area, the locals would raise holy hell if our Congressman forced Southwest to raise their fares so that AA could compete and show a profit. Because "regulation" would pretty much mean that all the low fare carriers would be "penalized" by being forced to charge a higher fare to provide the same transportation as the majors. It''s pretty obvious that the fares couldn''t be "regulated" at the level that Southwest, Airtran, and Jetblue can charge - the other airlines would still bleed money.

----------------​

 

[j7915]

KCFlyer:

"And it''s convenient that you point to Southwest as making a profit while charging low fares. Before 9/11, I recall a helluva lot of posts about Southwest and their ilk "dragging down" the industry. When questioned on the costs then, everybody points out that Southwest doesn''t serve Podunk Iowa or they don''t fly international, or they don''t do whatever else it is that made the other airlines different. Are you suggesting that AA drop the flights to Podunk and Paris? And I can tell you that even in the conservative republican Kansas side of the KC metro area, the locals would raise holy hell if our Congressman forced Southwest to raise their fares so that AA could compete and show a profit. Because "regulation" would pretty much mean that all the low fare carriers would be "penalized" by being forced to charge a higher fare to provide the same transportation as the majors. It''s pretty obvious that the fares couldn''t be "regulated" at the level that Southwest, Airtran, and Jetblue can charge - the other airlines would still bleed money."

Some stuff deleted...
There is room for improvement at AA, and the other majors. However your are too flip in saying that SWA''s business model can replace the network of the other carriers. So far SWA has not made any attempts to link to international flights, are they even providing a convenient link to Hawaiian connections? And that is part of the USA.

The efficiency of one size fits-all fleets can''t be beat. Contracting out most maintenance can''t be beat either. It will be interesting to see how JetBlue does when they start flying RJ, i. e. fleet diversification. JB also has not started into heavy maintenance cycles. I suspect that Airbus may set up overhaul facilities, to cater to JB and to enter the MRO market.

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 6/17/2003 11:31:14 AM j7915 wrote:

There is room for improvement at AA, and the other majors. However your are too flip in saying that SWA''s business model can replace the network of the other carriers. So far SWA has not made any attempts to link to international flights, are they even providing a convenient link to Hawaiian connections? And that is part of the USA.

I''m not saying that SWA''s business model can replace the other carriers...Bob is. I was pointing out that Bob thinks reregulation would be a good thing, and points to SWA as an example - in order for AA and the others to be able to compete on a cost basis with SWA, they would pretty much HAVE to adopt the SWA business model...otherwise, when the good old "reregulation" occured, the government would have two choices - regulate the airfares to SWA or JB or Airtran levels, which would mean that the other carriers would still be facing the very same cost cutting efforts that they are now, or regulate airfares to allow the others to make a profit, and in effect "penalize" the low cost carriers by forcing them to charge a fare that is higher than what they would have charged.

The efficiency of one size fits-all fleets can''t be beat. Contracting out most maintenance can''t be beat either. It will be interesting to see how JetBlue does when they start flying RJ, i. e. fleet diversification. JB also has not started into heavy maintenance cycles. I suspect that Airbus may set up overhaul facilities, to cater to JB and to enter the MRO market.

I''m still not sold that the JB move was all that good either. I still think they''ve run some "funny numbers" to state that the costs will be a penny more per ASM than the 320''s. If anything, I think the JB move opens the door for the pilots to unionize.






----------------​

 

[Bob Owens]

KCFlyer

Quit complaining and organize!​

 

[Bob Owens]

----------------
On 6/17/2003 11:38:19 AM KCFlyer wrote:

I''m not saying that SWA''s business model can replace the other carriers...Bob is

Funny I dont remember saying that!

I was pointing out that Bob thinks reregulation would be a good thing, and points to SWA as an example - in order for AA and the others to be able to compete on a cost basis with SWA, they would pretty much HAVE to adopt the SWA business model...otherwise, when the good old "reregulation" occured, the government would have two choices - regulate the airfares to SWA or JB or Airtran levels, which would mean that the other carriers would still be facing the very same cost cutting efforts that they are now, or regulate airfares to allow the others to make a profit, and in effect "penalize" the low cost carriers by forcing them to charge a fare that is higher than what they would have charged.

My point about SWA is that they are considered low cost yet they pay their mechanics more.

The efficiency of one size fits-all fleets can''t be beat. Contracting out most maintenance can''t be beat either.

Like Peoples Express? They contracted out all their maintenance. What they got was young kids right out of school who were more interested in partying than working. Didnt they actually ''rotate'' and wreck an airplane on a high speed taxi? That commuter that crashed down in the Carolinas is another fine example of cost savings at its best.

It will be interesting to see how JetBlue does when they start flying RJ, i. e. fleet diversification. JB also has not started into heavy maintenance cycles. I suspect that Airbus may set up overhaul facilities, to cater to JB and to enter the MRO market.

I''m still not sold that the JB move was all that good either. I still think they''ve run some "funny numbers" to state that the costs will be a penny more per ASM than the 320''s. If anything, I think the JB move opens the door for the pilots to unionize.








----------------​

----------------​

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 6/17/2003 8:12:39 PM Bob Owens wrote:

KCFlyer

Quit complaining and organize!​

----------------​

You organized and what did it get you??? MIdnights in the winter at Bangor. And you''ve done it for 10 years without a break. And here''s a clue....voting out TWU and voting in AMFA or IAM or the fraternal order of Elks isn''t going to change your situation much - it at all. Naw...calling it quits was a far better soloution. You and RV4 should try it sometime.

 

[j7915]

----------------
On 6/17/2003 8:24:56 PM Bob Owens wrote:

----------------

On 6/17/2003 11:38:19 AM KCFlyer wrote:

I''m not saying that  SWA''s business model can replace the other carriers...Bob is


Funny I dont remember saying that!



I was pointing out that Bob thinks reregulation would be a good thing, and points to SWA as an example - in order for AA and the others to be able to compete on a cost basis with SWA, they would pretty much HAVE to adopt the SWA business model...otherwise, when the good old "reregulation" occured, the government would have two choices - regulate the airfares to SWA or JB or Airtran levels, which would mean that the other carriers would still be facing the very same cost cutting efforts that they are now, or regulate airfares to allow the others to make a profit, and in effect "penalize" the low cost carriers by forcing them to charge a fare that is higher than what they would have charged. 


My point about SWA is that they are considered low cost yet they pay their mechanics more.


The efficiency of one size fits-all fleets can''t be beat. Contracting out most maintenance can''t be beat either.


Like Peoples Express? They contracted out all their maintenance. What they got was young kids right out of school who were more interested in partying than working. Didnt they actually ''rotate'' and wreck an airplane on a high speed taxi? That commuter that crashed down in the Carolinas is another fine example of cost savings at its best.



It will be interesting to see how JetBlue does when they start flying RJ, i. e. fleet diversification. JB also has not started into heavy maintenance cycles. I suspect that Airbus may set up overhaul facilities, to cater to JB and to enter the MRO market.



I''m still not sold that the JB move was all that good either.  I still think they''ve run some "funny numbers" to state that the costs will be a penny more per ASM than the 320''s.    If anything, I think the JB move opens the door for the pilots to unionize. 









----------------​

----------------​

----------------​

"My point about SWA is that they are considered low cost yet they pay their mechanics more."

How many line mechanics does SWA employ?

How many overhaul mechanics does it take to maintain SWA''s fleet of around 300 planes?

Everyone talks about SWA''s mechanics, that is like talking about AA''s line mechanics, and ignoring the maintenance bases. I would believe that the avionics components from SWA are overhauled by people with comparable pay as at AA, they probably also work under different work rules. How about their aircraft overhaul and engine overhaul? I think that these labor costs should be counted when talking about the maintenance costs.

 

[Winglet]

AA Aviator wrote:

"Winglet, time to move on. APA didn''t do this. The industry just isn''t supporting the jobs you think exist."

I am. The APA has proven itself irrelevant and industry management has taken full advantage to break the unions while they can. Even when the economy comes back to full steam and the airlines are making money hand-over-fist, the unions will be stuck with long-term sweetheart contracts they approved. Management even timed the contracts so that renewal will probably be during another down cycle in the industry. Like I said . . . a masterstroke by management.