AANOTOK
Veteran
- Oct 10, 2009
- 4,627
- 2,242
Will they?
APA leadership meets with USAirways executives
- Thread starter Super FLUF
- Start date
Will they?
777 / 767 / 757 Love
Advanced
- Jan 26, 2012
- 204
- 188
At least someone gets it.....well, Mr. Bates got it to, but his membership didn't.
May I add, that where, is there any empiracle data that points to Parker and company being a better management team? EVeryone rejected him and found other dancing partners, and his own unions are still battling him......so the two biggest complaints union employees have with AA's management is how they run the airline and how they treat labor yet I fail to see what they are smoking to think Parker and company will be an improvement? US Air employees are proud, as they should be, but I bet not proud of their management.
Cheers,
777 / 767 / 757
777 / 767 / 757 Love
Advanced
- Jan 26, 2012
- 204
- 188
That is the funniest thing I have ever read on these forums. Bar none.
Cheers,
777 / 767 / 757
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #35
700,
I thought I would do a little digging to sort out the whole alliance thing WRT to US - and was I surprised - and surprise, surprise, your execs don't tell the real truth.
In fact, about 40% of US TATL traffic flies into Star hubs - and they aren't just FRA and MUC. Normally, carriers get a revenue PREMIUM for their flights into their alliance partner hubs based on the theory that you should have better marketing there. Interestingly, though, US gets average fares well below its alliance partners UA and CO (who reported separately until recently - I wanted to look at a full year's worth of data). And US' average fares even into Star hubs are lower than - oh you don't want to know whose. The only North American airline that US beat was AA who doesn't serve most of US' continental Europe cities with its own metal so sells alot of lower yield connecting traffic.
BUT when you look at non-Star cities, US does better with average fares than they do in their own alliance cities. Tighten the group down even further and US' best performance in Europe is to oneworld hubs! US has been helping the wrong team - or at least its own alliance partners are taking the best revenue for themselves and leaving US with the leftovers. When your friends treat you like this.....
Quite amazing, really.
You also might want to note that I have mentioned other airlines a number of times right along with Delta, all in the context of looking at all of the sides of this discussion.
The reality is you don't want anyone saying anything counter to the AA-US deal. That is the bottom line, plain and simple.
Given that people's lives and career are on the line, I think I'll bring the facts out for those who want to read them. If you don't, move on.
Have you polled the AA and US pilots today since news came out about the terms of this memorandum between US, its pilots, and potential terms with AA?
Did you notice that US' pilots are supposed to give up their change of control clause in return for $10K? Doesn't sound to me to be within a buck an hour like Jimbo thought it would be.
Notice also that industry standard pay for the pilots MIGHT happen after a 3 year parity review - that's a far cry from having an inked contract for pay equal to the average of X, Y, and Z.
Oh, and then we have those clauses about flying might have to be reduced for both groups in order to bring everyone into the fold.
The numbers just don't add up to bring the AA and US pilots up to industry standard pay levels and the evidence continues to mount that Parker has no intention of doing that - and is loading up every successive document with more asteriks.
You know the sad thing is that people are on the verge of making major career and life decisions based on highly faulty assumptions - driven by even faultier data. No one wants to dig to find the answers; if they did and saw the history of both companies and their mgmt teams as well as current industry data exactly for what it is, they couldn't come to the conclusions they are making.
I genuinely fear for alot of people if there isn't some rationality brought to this process pretty fast.
An AA/US merger is at best a bandaid approach to problems that may or may not ever be solved without much deeper change at both companies and almost certainly will not achieve the objectives that are being advertised.
I thought I would do a little digging to sort out the whole alliance thing WRT to US - and was I surprised - and surprise, surprise, your execs don't tell the real truth.
In fact, about 40% of US TATL traffic flies into Star hubs - and they aren't just FRA and MUC. Normally, carriers get a revenue PREMIUM for their flights into their alliance partner hubs based on the theory that you should have better marketing there. Interestingly, though, US gets average fares well below its alliance partners UA and CO (who reported separately until recently - I wanted to look at a full year's worth of data). And US' average fares even into Star hubs are lower than - oh you don't want to know whose. The only North American airline that US beat was AA who doesn't serve most of US' continental Europe cities with its own metal so sells alot of lower yield connecting traffic.
BUT when you look at non-Star cities, US does better with average fares than they do in their own alliance cities. Tighten the group down even further and US' best performance in Europe is to oneworld hubs! US has been helping the wrong team - or at least its own alliance partners are taking the best revenue for themselves and leaving US with the leftovers. When your friends treat you like this.....
Quite amazing, really.
You also might want to note that I have mentioned other airlines a number of times right along with Delta, all in the context of looking at all of the sides of this discussion.
The reality is you don't want anyone saying anything counter to the AA-US deal. That is the bottom line, plain and simple.
Given that people's lives and career are on the line, I think I'll bring the facts out for those who want to read them. If you don't, move on.
Have you polled the AA and US pilots today since news came out about the terms of this memorandum between US, its pilots, and potential terms with AA?
Did you notice that US' pilots are supposed to give up their change of control clause in return for $10K? Doesn't sound to me to be within a buck an hour like Jimbo thought it would be.
Notice also that industry standard pay for the pilots MIGHT happen after a 3 year parity review - that's a far cry from having an inked contract for pay equal to the average of X, Y, and Z.
Oh, and then we have those clauses about flying might have to be reduced for both groups in order to bring everyone into the fold.
The numbers just don't add up to bring the AA and US pilots up to industry standard pay levels and the evidence continues to mount that Parker has no intention of doing that - and is loading up every successive document with more asteriks.
You know the sad thing is that people are on the verge of making major career and life decisions based on highly faulty assumptions - driven by even faultier data. No one wants to dig to find the answers; if they did and saw the history of both companies and their mgmt teams as well as current industry data exactly for what it is, they couldn't come to the conclusions they are making.
I genuinely fear for alot of people if there isn't some rationality brought to this process pretty fast.
An AA/US merger is at best a bandaid approach to problems that may or may not ever be solved without much deeper change at both companies and almost certainly will not achieve the objectives that are being advertised.
Agreed. I'm not terribly surprised, since UA and LH left US on the outside looking in (of the immunized joint venture) for all these years. As I'm sure you're well aware, US is the only legacy airline in this country that is still forced to compete with its Transatlantic alliance "partners" since US lacks antitrust immunity that would permit it to coordinate fares, schedules, capacity, etc. Apparently, when you have to compete with your "partners," your revenues suffer. Basically, US gets very little benefit from Star from delivering those passengers to the Star hubs. The frequent flyers of US love it, as they benefit from the codeshares, the "seamless" travel that was touted in the late 1990s when Star and Oneworld formed, plus the ability to earn and burn miles across the alliance, but the airline, US, gains very little. US joined Star in 2004 and here we are, eight years later, and US is still competing with its "partners." Looks like UA and LH are well aware of the deficient revenue/profit potential of the PHL and CLT hubs, and made the decision years ago to exclude US from the profit-sharing immunized joint venture party.
- Banned
- #39
That would only be the pilots and FAs, and I doubt $321 million was made of those two groups.
Dont worry you just joined the concession club again, this time you had no choice, yet you took concessions in 2003 and still ended up in chapter 11.
Dont worry you just joined the concession club again, this time you had no choice, yet you took concessions in 2003 and still ended up in chapter 11.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #40
How quickly you forget (or choose to forget) that US employees have given a couple of times too.
Actually, 700, the biggest factor that contributed to US' success compared to its peers was cost control, not revenue gains. That other airline that you don't like to talk about plus the one you want to mAArry US both outperformed US in revenue.
US controlled non-fuel and fuel costs better than its peers; specifically, US policy to not hedge allowed it to benefit from the fall in fuel prices in May. I'm not taking away that US decided hedging was not necessary - just that their success came more from outperforming their peers on costs than on the revenue side.
And the standard line about how much more US' labor costs would be if they were equal to airline XY (insert any name) could be added.
Pilots and FAs are key parts of an airilne even if US ground workers have fared better in relation to their peers with salaries. US' crew salaries are well below average.
Actually, 700, the biggest factor that contributed to US' success compared to its peers was cost control, not revenue gains. That other airline that you don't like to talk about plus the one you want to mAArry US both outperformed US in revenue.
US controlled non-fuel and fuel costs better than its peers; specifically, US policy to not hedge allowed it to benefit from the fall in fuel prices in May. I'm not taking away that US decided hedging was not necessary - just that their success came more from outperforming their peers on costs than on the revenue side.
And the standard line about how much more US' labor costs would be if they were equal to airline XY (insert any name) could be added.
Pilots and FAs are key parts of an airilne even if US ground workers have fared better in relation to their peers with salaries. US' crew salaries are well below average.
N288AA
Member
You are right they have given a couple of times, but not with this current management. Both trips thru BK were with CCY management not Tempe!
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #42
but the current leadership group hasn't minded keeping US people at the super-low wages others obtained before them, right?
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #44
and AA employees had what other choices? Maybe that is part of why they are fighting back more this time.
Again, before you go touting how great US is doing, keep in mind the road US has been down.
Glass houses and rocks?
Again, before you go touting how great US is doing, keep in mind the road US has been down.
Glass houses and rocks?
Similar threads
