Dave's Friday Message (from Tokyo)
- Thread starter A319FA
- Start date
Art at ISP
Veteran
PIT,
I respect your position, but I also think you know where MY heart is on the matter. I absolutely agree that the employees have given all they are going to give financially, but there are other efficiencies which can be negotiated which would improve the financial picture. The rolling hub concept for one could result in more pay for the flight crews because they could be flying a little more each day. There are some work rules on the books which are outdated and just plain nonsense in this day and age.
Also remember that I never said ALL fares should be lowered. I said that the fares have to be rationalized. If this is done right overall revenue will increase as more people will pay moderately higher fares for added flexibility and service. AVERAGE fares will increase, therefore revenue will increase, and the odds of being profitable will increase.
Things like rampers sitting on their bottoms watching an airplane wait to be parked just because that gate isn't their zone is unacceptable. If they are trained to do the job and can do it safely, then let 'em do it. The world has changed whether we like it or not, and some of the rules have to change as well.
I am not a radical, but a realist. It CAN work. I just don't think Fort Fumble has the guts to try.
I'm with you PIT, but to a point. I agree there cannot be any more wage concessions, but there are other ways to save and improve efficiency. It's time that everyone started working TOGETHER, not against each other. Some of the bickering and fingerpointing I have seen on this board just make me shake my head in wonder. At the same time management has to realize that the employee is not the enemy. The employees are by far the best in the industry, and deserve to be recognized as such. A happy employee is the best asset management can have.
My best to you and your colleagues..
I respect your position, but I also think you know where MY heart is on the matter. I absolutely agree that the employees have given all they are going to give financially, but there are other efficiencies which can be negotiated which would improve the financial picture. The rolling hub concept for one could result in more pay for the flight crews because they could be flying a little more each day. There are some work rules on the books which are outdated and just plain nonsense in this day and age.
Also remember that I never said ALL fares should be lowered. I said that the fares have to be rationalized. If this is done right overall revenue will increase as more people will pay moderately higher fares for added flexibility and service. AVERAGE fares will increase, therefore revenue will increase, and the odds of being profitable will increase.
Things like rampers sitting on their bottoms watching an airplane wait to be parked just because that gate isn't their zone is unacceptable. If they are trained to do the job and can do it safely, then let 'em do it. The world has changed whether we like it or not, and some of the rules have to change as well.
I am not a radical, but a realist. It CAN work. I just don't think Fort Fumble has the guts to try.
I'm with you PIT, but to a point. I agree there cannot be any more wage concessions, but there are other ways to save and improve efficiency. It's time that everyone started working TOGETHER, not against each other. Some of the bickering and fingerpointing I have seen on this board just make me shake my head in wonder. At the same time management has to realize that the employee is not the enemy. The employees are by far the best in the industry, and deserve to be recognized as such. A happy employee is the best asset management can have.
My best to you and your colleagues..
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
Art,
You are absolutely correct. And the only one on these boards that offers a reasonable solution to the fare inequities.
Does management know this? I believe they do. Will they try it? Not until they gouge the employees first for "good measure" and a sure bet.
That's the entire problem with this mangement and why Labor just can't go down that "yellow brick road" again with the Great Oz.
IMO, if the senior management was truly in this business for the long-haul and not just for a quick-rich-event scheme, then employees would be on board. But, this management now has a history.
Can the customer convince this management of your concept first? Management will pretend to go along, but won't give up the "employee" part of more concessions again.
Art,
Did I tell you how refreshing it is to have you on these boards? I love ya man, and safe travels tomorrow.
You are absolutely correct. And the only one on these boards that offers a reasonable solution to the fare inequities.
Does management know this? I believe they do. Will they try it? Not until they gouge the employees first for "good measure" and a sure bet.
That's the entire problem with this mangement and why Labor just can't go down that "yellow brick road" again with the Great Oz.
IMO, if the senior management was truly in this business for the long-haul and not just for a quick-rich-event scheme, then employees would be on board. But, this management now has a history.
Can the customer convince this management of your concept first? Management will pretend to go along, but won't give up the "employee" part of more concessions again.
Art,
Did I tell you how refreshing it is to have you on these boards? I love ya man, and safe travels tomorrow.
Art -
FYI, I don't work for US. Also, I agree the number of people paying those fares is falling. But yet again, US has decent fares in markets where there is competition. It's the monopoly routes where the fares are still high. As much as it irritates people on this board, I see Siegel's point on this. US is not in a position to lose any revenue whatsoever.
FYI, I don't work for US. Also, I agree the number of people paying those fares is falling. But yet again, US has decent fares in markets where there is competition. It's the monopoly routes where the fares are still high. As much as it irritates people on this board, I see Siegel's point on this. US is not in a position to lose any revenue whatsoever.
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
USFlyer,
U management is already losing revenue with their model, and changing the model to include employee concessions, will NOT change the revenue picture. Somewhere in the equation you have to IMPROVE the product. Faster, easier travel experience, simplicity with fares, and excellent service with clean looking airplanes, that don't look like you just picked up some paper products. Route stucuture has to improve, and since we are a Hub and spoke model, utilize the Hubs more efficiently; and I mean ALL of them.
This mangement is not getting it and we continue to lose revenue because pax are leaving us. We are barely holding on to our loyal travelers.
U management is already losing revenue with their model, and changing the model to include employee concessions, will NOT change the revenue picture. Somewhere in the equation you have to IMPROVE the product. Faster, easier travel experience, simplicity with fares, and excellent service with clean looking airplanes, that don't look like you just picked up some paper products. Route stucuture has to improve, and since we are a Hub and spoke model, utilize the Hubs more efficiently; and I mean ALL of them.
This mangement is not getting it and we continue to lose revenue because pax are leaving us. We are barely holding on to our loyal travelers.
Art at ISP
Veteran
Jetguy,jetguy_50 said:
HP did it and they made money
AA did it in select markets and its working
Jet Blue did it and they're making money
Now I am not saying we can compete with Jet Blue or HP on a cost basis, and there's room for adjustment. But the MODEL works. That's the whole point.
Change is hard but necessary.
Art at ISP
Veteran
PIT,
Thank you for your kind words. For all our sakes I hope it works out. And I'd like to think that they will listen to customers. I know for a fact that they have heard some of what I have to say. It's just a question of will they act on it?
I just hope I get home tomorrow--cause I leave again Monday and it would be nice to see the family for a day or so
Have a great weekend--my best to you.
Thank you for your kind words. For all our sakes I hope it works out. And I'd like to think that they will listen to customers. I know for a fact that they have heard some of what I have to say. It's just a question of will they act on it?
I just hope I get home tomorrow--cause I leave again Monday and it would be nice to see the family for a day or so
Have a great weekend--my best to you.
Sure, it's working for these carriers. Can we say point to point service without the costs of having two low O&D hubs and one high O&D terribly inefficient (at least currently) hub? Plus, US's network of taking people from "Nowhere, USA" to "Nowhere, USA" can't compare to HP's or JB's cherry picking of key business routes. AA to me is on par with UA and DL -- they're all so big and comprehensive they can play with the pricing model in select markets and still stay in business.Art at ISP said:
If you want a better pricing model, I say dump PIT, focus more on point to point services instead of routing everyone thru hubs, roll PHL and then let's talk. Right now I firmly do not believe US is setup to take on a new pricing model. The infrastructure is all designed for a high fare airline. I fault management for not fixing this in Chapter 11. They made a lot of tough choices but not enough in my opinion.
ITRADE
Veteran
JB is a point-to-point carrier, no problem, no question.USFlyer said:
HP is a hub carrier, but HP pays their employees absolute squat. Somebody in another thread was extolling the virtues of HPs cost structure. I responded that US would likely make money if US paid the HP-level wages, and then questioned if the poster would accept HP's pay structure to ensure profitability. There, of course, was no response.
AA may have done it in select markets, but clearly is not expanding the program. AA tried its "value pricing" several years ago and dumped it.
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
Itrade,
Do you know when you speak about U employees accepting HP cost structure, is the exact verbage, and I mean verbatim exactly how you stated it above, from Siegel. You know how many e-mails I have from the guy with these exact words for the entire last Winter stating if we had HP's pay structure, we would be profitable? How come that is? Breaking bread with the guy lately?
Siegel continually makes his attempts to compare a "lemonade stand" and The Coca Cola Company as if they are the same and comparable. LOL...
Customer you say? huh? Since when are customers so concerned about U employees wage structure? Your in Asia huh? So is Dave. Oh yea, your China, he's Japan, or is it the other way around? On the same flight back to the states, perhaps?h34r:
Do you know when you speak about U employees accepting HP cost structure, is the exact verbage, and I mean verbatim exactly how you stated it above, from Siegel. You know how many e-mails I have from the guy with these exact words for the entire last Winter stating if we had HP's pay structure, we would be profitable? How come that is? Breaking bread with the guy lately?
Siegel continually makes his attempts to compare a "lemonade stand" and The Coca Cola Company as if they are the same and comparable. LOL...
Customer you say? huh? Since when are customers so concerned about U employees wage structure? Your in Asia huh? So is Dave. Oh yea, your China, he's Japan, or is it the other way around? On the same flight back to the states, perhaps?
h34r:
ITRADE
Veteran
Because its a basic tenet that when costs outstrip revenues, you're going to lose money. When you've got a HP-style wage structure, it's easier to match costs to revenues. It does not take a Harvard or UPenn MBA to understand that.PITbull said:Itrade,
Do you know when you speak about U employees accepting HP cost structure, is the exact verbage, and I mean verbatim exactly how you stated it above, from Siegel. You know how many e-mails I have from the guy with these exact words for the entire last Winter stating if we had HP's pay structure, we would be profitable? How come that is? Breaking bread with the guy lately?
....
Customer you say? huh? Since when are customers so concerned about U employees wage structure? Your in Asia huh? So is Dave. Oh yea, your China, he's Japan, or is it the other way around? On the same flight back to the states, perhaps?
My return to the U.S. isn't until later this month. I would have no way of knowing when somebody else returns. But I'll certainly say hi if he winds up on the same flight...I will be returning via NRT.
At least the reporter could avoid misspelling Chiames' name. Pitbull, remember that everything is on the table.
PIT Tribune-Review
Chaimes yesterday said "everything" must be on the table when cutting costs, including the salaries of the more than 7,000 US Airways employees in Southwestern Pennsylvania.
Siegel has promised U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn Hills, that the airline would keep a hub at Pittsburgh International at least until next Labor Day and will maintain about the same level of service until then -- regardless of whether a new deal would be reached. The promise was made to give both sides time to negotiate a new deal.
Chaimes, though, has said Siegel's promise to Santorum is not legally binding.
NY Times
A spokesman for the airline, David Castelveter, said yesterday that the airline was studying every aspect of its operations, from labor costs to its routes to the types of aircraft it deploys and the schedules it operates, to determine where savings can be found.
"Everything is on the table," he said. "There is nothing that we are not looking at right now."
PIT Tribune-Review
Chaimes yesterday said "everything" must be on the table when cutting costs, including the salaries of the more than 7,000 US Airways employees in Southwestern Pennsylvania.
Siegel has promised U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn Hills, that the airline would keep a hub at Pittsburgh International at least until next Labor Day and will maintain about the same level of service until then -- regardless of whether a new deal would be reached. The promise was made to give both sides time to negotiate a new deal.
Chaimes, though, has said Siegel's promise to Santorum is not legally binding.
NY Times
A spokesman for the airline, David Castelveter, said yesterday that the airline was studying every aspect of its operations, from labor costs to its routes to the types of aircraft it deploys and the schedules it operates, to determine where savings can be found.
"Everything is on the table," he said. "There is nothing that we are not looking at right now."
