deltawatch said:
Im a CWA member and I was asking questions of an IAM local president the other day. I ask him if Southwest outsourced heavy, he replied "all of it". Who does their work? Why are they not having the same problem? Im not trying to make a statment, this is just a STUPID question....
deltawatch,
Unlike U and many of the others , UA , HP off the top of my head , WN has had a QA (Quality Assurance) Program built into their outsourcing base. This has been developed over the course of their history..and has paid off for them.
This is something U did not develope to any degree that would match what WN has historically done..or has in place. U is not the only airline to have problems in this regard. I have gotten alike comments forwarded to me by people at UA , HP and JM (Air Jamaica) as well. Most of these problems can be attributed to the drive enforced to meet schedules , lack of on hand parts...and most certainly "parent company observation" of the work in progress.
The comments about ALL of their (WN's) work being outsourced is not exactly true..and the current trend is for them to bring more and more of their work "In-House".
WN enjoys many cost benefits that the legacy carriers will never achieve without a total re-think of how we choose to do business. Hub and Spoke operations have their draw backs regarding turn times ..and employee productivity because of the nature of the operation. These are issues that Point to Point operations have little to no problems with.
WN also creates a greater dependence on "Internet Reservations" where U is more dependent on Reservation / Travel Agencies. These middle man out type functions aid their bottom line..yet trim the employment ranks from within and outside of a company like U or the other majors
The figures released of late show all the legacy carriers with the exception of CO losing money this quarter. U did lose the least amount in actual dollars...but when you take U's actual size compared to that of NW , AA , UA or DL...it all kinda balances out by scale.
WN also wins the war of finances by using a single fleet type that works for them..nor are they focused or distracted by Regional feeds and the financing to develope them....this may change down the road? , but to date it has not been a developmental draw of attention , finances or resources.
WN enjoys a benefit in operating an ALL Boeing Fleet that 99 times out of 100 , can be supported logistically from within the borders of the US. Imagine if you will the difference of having a need in DAL or BWI..and the support was as close as SEA , MCI or ATL as most Boeing support is. Then Imagine the need being in PIT , PHL or CLT...and the same type support has to come from Germany or France. Time , Distance , Transportation and Customs issues just kept the acft in need out of the revenued realm twice to three times as long. Then lets factor how that plays against the need/demand to gain greater utilization from our Acft. ? I'm sure you can see my point when we look at U Vs. WN in a head to head contest for cost.
I have stated many times...the Airbus purchase makes a hell of a one time splash on a spread sheet , for a "Bean Counter" or Fly-Through CEO to boast about...but when you look at things in terms of costs as a fleet ages....the Airbus proves to not be such a bargain when it's examined in OUR career length terms...or in real bang for the buck terms.
U cannot get out of it's own way for a few reasons...and employee wages and whom does our Acft Maintenance aren't either of them. We are victims of individual greed historically , short-sighted moves to benefit the select few...and a failure to see that our operation is too channeled/ narrow to compete with either the Big Airlines or the LCC's effectively. The Fleet diversity is something that still plagues us...and will for sometime yet to come. Training and Logistics alone with the fleet diversity we have eats us alive....something that WN sits back and laughs all the way to the bank at us for.
Lastly...and I know it's not a popular thing to say...our HUBS are simply too close together to be supporting a "mainline operation cost effectively" PIT is on it's own accord too costly year over year to board passengers...and yet be so close to another HUB 40 minutes east by air.
CLT would be an alike disaster if it were not for sound pay as you build financing that the locals had in place vs. what U and Allegheny County "speculated on" with Ed Colodny at the controls. CLT's saving grace is a low cost operation from a facilities standpoint , a much more moderate climate that does not warrant the cost of de-icing 1/10th as much as PIT tends to do...and lastly the CLT area is in an explosive growth mode..and has been since the mid 1980's
You can draw any conclussions you desire...but like Clinton said..."it's the economy stupid"....in our case "It's the Operation Stupid"....not the people whom make it work on a daily basis.