Bruce Had A Bad Day

[AgentOrange]

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. Running an airline can be best served buy somebody brought up from the inside and pays his or her dues. This vested interest in the company's success and KNOWLEDGE of the real operation of how the airline will win the battles in the trenches. No MBA can replace REAL experience.

[post="169029"][/post]​

I suspect that if you put a pilot in charge of the airline, the unions will begin to see the pilot as a manager and then turn him into someone they call incompetent. That is, if that pilot exercises his corporate duties to maximize the airline's profits.

The situation you propose is not possible right now in any U.S. airline. In my opinion, union workers do not have a monopoly on competence. US Air's management may not be as good as say, American's, but they look to have made reasonable choices that have been made out wrongfully by the unions as incompetence when it was in fact events out of their control (RASM not recovering, oil prices rising) that put the airline again in dire straits.

 

[ClueByFour]

I suspect that if you put a pilot in charge of the airline, the unions will begin to see the pilot as a manager and then turn him into someone they call incompetent. That is, if that pilot exercises his corporate duties to maximize the airline's profits.

The situation you propose is not possible right now in any U.S. airline. In my opinion, union workers do not have a monopoly on competence. US Air's management may not be as good as say, American's, but they look to have made reasonable choices that have been made out wrongfully by the unions as incompetence when it was in fact events out of their control (RASM not recovering, oil prices rising) that put the airline again in dire straits.

[post="169133"][/post]​

1. PHL baggage situation.
2. The FF status mile fiasco.
3. A website that is about 5 years behind the rest of the industry.
4. "Getting no love" from Washington.
5. Downsizing the airline to the hubs, and then announcing a "new" point to point strategy.
6. The rather large Airbus lie (and yes, Virginia, it was a lie, not a contingent statement.)
7. The staffing problems at any number of stations.
8. The downsizing of the 757 F cabin at the same time an F fare sale was run to destinations primarily served by 757s.
9. Trying to run a hub operation in PHL.
10. Assuming that RASM would recover.
11. Not hedging more fuel.
12. The PSA August bid situation.

Hmm. Operational failures, strategic failures, IT failures, customer relationship failures. What, prey tell, have the last few sets of occupants at CCY had any real acumen doing? Beating unions with the Chapter 11 stick? I can teach a monkey to do that (and, he'll piss off far fewer stakeholders than "Little Dave").

With the complete absense of any managerial acumen at CCY, there is very little point in any union member (save a pilot) voting "yes" on any proposal, even those that contain profit sharing--for that little nugget assumes that the current crop of managers can actually TURN A PROFIT.

In fact, the last few years in the history of US are more than likely going to end up as study material at Harvard Business School in the "what not to do" case study file.

 

[Dizel8]

"Nobody wants to see anybody lose their job or outsourcing occur, but the IAM is giving the company no choice."

And the company, due to their past and continuing actions, is giving the IAM no choice.

"I do not want contractors working on our aircraft or flying our routes, but the company must lower its unit costs. David Bronner has said the restructuring will go forward with or without employees, therefore, the IAM-M and IAM-FSA have a choice: be part of the solution or watch management seek ways to eliminate you."

So, again, you are not opposed to Mesa flying the Airbis, if that will save the company, even if that means you will lose your job?

"Do I want this to happen? No, of course not. But, unless the IAM agrees to negotiate cost effective ways to maintain and service aircraft, management has no choice but to make the IAM irrelevant to the process."

And regardless of what the IAM agrees to, the company will disregard the contract and will impose further cuts. After all, fool me once..................

 

[Dea Certe]

CluebyFour,

You're absolutely right on. All twelve points could have, should have been dealt with post haste. I think that's what all that bright and talented management should have done, rather than waste time quibbling over labor contracts.

If the contract were used to the best advantage of management, there would be little need to fiddle with them in the first place. There's no need for a Jerry Glass-type to further demoralize the work force. Just a little respect would go a long way.

Were I in management, I would be looking to my workers to supply cost-saving ideas and impliment them immediately. I would want all employees totally focused on delivering the best customer service possible in the most efficient way.

Airlines, by their nature are labor intensive. I think US Airways has way too much bureacracy. Our IT systems are out-dated.

Any frequent flyer knows a good customer service employee is worth their weight in gold. An experienced RES or CSR can spot problems right off and will know the best/quickest way to correct them.

Sadly, I don't believe current management has much intent on "saving" US Airways. I think the plan is (if there is actually a plan at all) is to shrink mainline to MDA.

If Mr. Lakefield is truly concerned about the slow pace of labor negotiations, perhaps he should reconsider having Jerry Glass on the team. Give up on the out sourcing of the Airbus work. It's a loser and a waste of time. I believe the IAM would be less recalcitrant to come to the table and it would show an honest effort at "good faith" bargaining.

Just my thoughts. And I do want to see US Airways thrive. At one time, we had an excellent product. I know the airline industry will not rise to the levels it once was before 9-11, but I have to believe we can still have a pleasant and affordable travel experience.

Dea

 

[AgentOrange]

1. PHL baggage situation.
2. The FF status mile fiasco.
3. A website that is about 5 years behind the rest of the industry.
4. "Getting no love" from Washington.
5. Downsizing the airline to the hubs, and then announcing a "new" point to point strategy.
6. The rather large Airbus lie (and yes, Virginia, it was a lie, not a contingent statement.)
7. The staffing problems at any number of stations.
8. The downsizing of the 757 F cabin at the same time an F fare sale was run to destinations primarily served by 757s.
9. Trying to run a hub operation in PHL.
10. Assuming that RASM would recover.
11. Not hedging more fuel.
12. The PSA August bid situation.

Numbers 1-3, 6-8, and 12 I do not know enough about to comment. Sorry.

No. 4- Getting no love from Washington: Who has Washington given more love than USAir? USAir got a loan; that's more than United and others got.

No. 5- It's harder than you think it is to begin point-to-point service from airports where you do not dominate with difficult work rules and high CASM (thanks to you overpaid labor folks)

No. 9- This is a long ago decision. Philadelphia as the #5 or #6 city in population makes basic sense to have as a center for O&D traffic. It's unfortunate that the company developed into one with two other close hubs (BWI, PIT), but having PHL as a hub alone does not make for a wrong decision.

No. 10- Well, if they didn't assume RASM would recover, then your salary as a line worker would have been cut a lot more in the first bankruptcy.

No. 11- They can't hedge; they do not have the financial standing with counterparties to do so as a strapped company. That is why Southwest is the only airline substantially hedged. Not even American can hedge as much as they want to.