Disgruntled Employees

[Busdrvr]

----------------
On 5/13/2003 1057 AM texflyer wrote:

"I,or we the customer are your boss."

NO YOU ARE NOT! YOU ARE THE CUSTOMER! Read, "Nuts" if you want SWA's Herb Kellehers opinion on the subject. You buy a service, not an employee.


"You may not like it,fine,someone will form an airline that meets our needs (Jetblue comes to mind). That is the free market."


THIS IS NOT A FREE MARKET! The mainline carriers typically pay significantly more for the same government services.

"SWA employees may make the same as you do NOW,but I doubt you ar as efficient as they are (per SWA)."

Actually on a cost per RPM basis, UAL's pilots were among the most efficient in the industry. If you then correct the numbers for seating configuration (our widebodies have about 65% of the seat they are capable of holding "SWA Style", NB fleet is at 80-85%), the gulf widens. The hub and spoke model also, to some extent, dictates lower efficiencies, but pays back typically with a 1.3 revenue multiplier. That's the reason FRNT and Valudeath are going so far as contracting out RJ flying to "feed" their hubs



"Please spare me the elitist,"we want to be treated with respect",code for leave our salaries alone. Fine,but the market dictates that something must be done.........It appears many employees here ALONG with management just want to stick their heads into ground hoping it just passes over."

Were did I mention "respect". I'M NO LONGER FLYING FOR AN AIRLINE, I'M NOW A "CONSUMER", I'M JUST NOT STUPID ENOUGH TO THINK THIS INDUSTRY WILL CONTINUE TO ATTRACT QUALITY AT SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER WAGES. I'm am honestly afraid of what this industryt will become in ten years if things don't change (I'll have to buy a Winnebago), and I foresee the news interviews were the enlightened like yourself keep asking "Why didn't the government protect us, how did they let this happen"

----------------​

Ignorance is Bliss

 

[Busdrvr]

----------------
On 5/13/2003 3:03:02 PM eolesen wrote:

I''d venture to say that a veteran cop in Los Angeles, New York, Washington, or any other city with a gang or drug problem is just as deserving of our respect as a career pilot in the armed services...

Do those retiring cops get to walk into six figure jobs, too? Or is defending our streets really not as important as defending our borders?


Then again, why is this even an issue?...

----------------​

Eric, don''t take my comments out of context. I wouldn''t do the job of many of those professionals for double the money. they do it because they want to serve. My post was merely meant to refute the absolute ludicrousness of saying what happened on 911 and the economic fallout and it''s effect on good working families at AMR are merely "free market forces".


Ignorance is Bliss

 

[Busdrvr]

----------------
On 5/13/2003 136 PM Wild Onion wrote:

I''ll stack my educational credentials up against anyone on this board. I hold 2 bachelor degrees and I have a post graduate degree from a top 10 university in my field.

Busdrv - You''re picking the wrong intellectual fight.

----------------​

Apparently not in Economics...

Ignorance is Bliss

 

[sfb]

The big problem is that most of those folks who were willing to pay the high, high fares which subsidized the salaries that major airline pilots feel they "deserve" just aren''t flying anymore. Corporations have slashed travel budgets or instituted travel bans, and employees either have to fly on discounted fares or simply not travel (using solutions like videoconferencing instead). While there are still some people willing to pay high fares to travel, the number has diminished enough that the choice is between even deeper cutbacks in the number of flights (and thus, headcount) or deep cuts in salaries. And for the families going to Orlando to see Mickey, the difference between $800 and $1000 for tickets for a family of four can mean the difference between flying and driving. Not everyone can afford the extra $200.

It is great that a UA widebody captain is so productive on those long-haul flights; they have to be, given that the non-stage-length-adjusted yields are terrible! $1000 each way to Japan still works out to less than 20 cents per mile (and right now I can buy a round-trip to NRT from ORD on United leaving tomorrow for $1100, well under 10 cents/mile); compare that to WN''s *average* yield on HOU-DAL of close to 35 cents/mile. (Oh, and by the way, if United is this high-class business-traveler-oriented airline, why is it advertising "Camp Carnival family cruising" in the middle of its home page?)

I agree that a lot of smaller places are going to lose air service partially or altogether -- but I also don''t think it''s unreasonable to expect some people to have to drive an hour or two to reach the nearest airport. ORH lost all commercial air service, but there are a half-dozen airports that still have commercial service within 75 miles. It''s tough to justify 737''s/A319''s into BGM, given the demand at what a network carrier can charge, when people can drive to ALB or SYR.

For which government services do the network carriers pay more? For flying into LGA, DCA, ORD, and JFK, using slots which were *given* to them for free decades ago? No one forces them to serve those airports; Southwest seems to do just fine not serving them. And why should the government have restricted capacity at all airlines? It certainly seems that some of them managed to cut costs without reducing capacity or salaries AND remained profitable. Airlines like Southwest, AirTran, and ATA have continued to receive deliveries from Boeing. While 9/11 was a sharp blow to the industry, it only hastened the impending failures in many of the network carriers'' business models. United, American, and US Airways, for example, were already losing money in 2001. Should the government force Wal-Mart and Target to close stores because K-Mart and Ames went bankrupt? Should the government force Dell to reduce production because Gateway is in bad shape?

The network airlines would not still be profitable; the total capacity added by all the discounters since 9/11 amounts to, at most, 2-3% of total industry capacity pre-9/11. The essential problem is the dearth of people willing to pay full fare.

 

[Mach85ER]

Put this thread into perspective. The most of the operations people here, (of which I am a part), are screwing themselves into the ceiling based mainly on the initial and subsequent comments of the thread starter. This individual has repeatably demonstrated on this forum that he knows little about actual flight and personel operations other than how to antagonize labor. A few others have chimed in with similar drivel, mainly to criticize labor. We are all wasting our time responding to garbage like this. Argue if you want, but remember you are debating someone whose biggest decison is who to call about the "dust bunnies" forming on the carpet walls of his cubicle.

Consider this. From my own experience, there are most likely more pilots with Wharton and other prestigous business school graduates than in management. There are more pilots with graduate level accounting degrees than there are in management. There are more pilots with advanced engineering degrees than there are in management. There are more medical school graduates than exist in AA medical and more than likely more pilots with law degrees than exist in AMR legal. This isn''t some brag or a justification for more money. It''s just the facts. If the market pays little over time, the effect on quality will take place over time. Those babbling about market rates are looking at the short term and not the future. Kinda like only looking 3 months ahead on a stock play. It can have a negative effect on safety over time. If the market pays little for a pilot in the future,so be it. Rest assurred this poster will not fly unless forced to, and will choose a place to live with little traffic overhead.

 

[Busdrvr]

Mach85ER,
WELL PUT, and I''m with you!!!

 

[Busdrvr]

"For which government services do the network carriers pay more?"

Most fee''s are collected on a per pax or percentage of ticket price basis. You may disagree, But I''m of the opinion that if we are paying for aviation infrastructure with these fees then it should be the same fee for every departure. If Larry Kudlow wants to fly on his private jet from a get together at Kennebunk, to a wine tasting party in Napa valley, he should pay the same "fee" as an AMR 777 going from JFK to SFO. Likewise, if a UAL 747-400 is flying from LAX to DEN, then the fees collected by the government should be the same for a FRNT A319 on the same route. Why should the -400 pay over 5 times as much for landing fees? If you want a flat fee per person for security, fine (although, again, the big jet prob uses less per pax when it comes to air marshalls ect) Reward the efficient use of our limited airspace, not punish it. In the past I think the rational was that the big guys could "afford" to pay a bigger portion, those days are gone.

"It''s tough to justify 737''s/A319''s into BGM, given the demand at what a network carrier can charge, when people can drive to ALB or SYR."

You are correct, but I think you''d agree that a couple hour drive to a distant airport is likely an unreasonable thing to expect of an exec (times money you know) and lack of good service will simply mean those businesses will move to a place with service.

"And why should the government have restricted capacity at all airlines? It certainly seems that some of them managed to cut costs without reducing capacity or salaries AND remained profitable."

Come on, I''ve read your posts, i think you know a lot more about game theory than you are letting on. Why do members of cartels cheat, when it is in the best interest of everyone to hold the line? because it''s in his INDIVIDUAL BEST INTEREST TO CHEAT. So the net effect is EVERYONE CHEATS, and everybody loses. The market isn''t being destroyed just by SWA, granted a capacity cut by them would help, but it''s being detroyed because UAL, AMR, DAL, NWA, CAL are all "cheating". It would be in all their best interest if they ALL cut capacity by 10%, and it stuck, but in every case it''s in each and every one of thems INDIVIDUAL best interest to keep hius capacity as high as possible. SWA could "afford" to cheat, and had SWA cut capacity like the rest, they''d be losing money to (just not as much) AMR and the rest however, get matched on each and every attempt to restore capacity. SFB, I think you understand this, but for those of you who don''t, sorry, I can''t help you, take some night classes

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

----------------
On 5/13/2003 7:43:13 PM Mach85ER wrote:

Consider this. From my own experience, there are most likely more pilots with Wharton and other prestigous business school graduates than in management. There are more pilots with graduate level accounting degrees than there are in management. There are more pilots with advanced engineering degrees than there are in management. There are more medical school graduates than exist in AA medical and more than likely more pilots with law degrees than exist in AMR legal

----------------​

You''re probably right. Because they have as much time off as they do, they can put in the time to get advanced degrees, and until recently, could afford the tuition better than anyone else.

That''s not intended as a slam against pilots, but is instead based on comments from an econ professer at Northwestern University that I''ve known for many years.

But again, what exactly does that prove? That someone was able to sit in classes, write checks, and pass an exam? I know quite a few MBA''s who couldn''t find their way out of a wet paper bag, and I know quite a few people who never finished an associates degree, but can solve some of the most difficult problems that come up in the operation...

What matters most is what''s between the ears, and not what is written on a piece of sheepskin that is bought and paid for.

 

[Busdrvr]

----------------
On 5/14/2003 8:09:50 AM Ch. 12 wrote:


"And busdrvr, your whole arguement against fees paid per passenger or size of aircraft ignores key points. If revenues and costs weren't associated with the number of passengers, maybe your point would be valid, but the fact is, you can't charge a B1900 the same as a 747 and still expect any city smaller than NYC to get any service."

So basically the larger city should subsidize a small cities services? How about this, under current law, the government subsidizes service to smaller cities, THEY STILL COULD. But meanwhile they don't need to allow "minutely" service between two other large cities. Why should one airline have 30 flights a day betweeen two cities and pay the same level of fee's as an airline with 10 flights that carry the same number of pax? Who should get traffic priority? Who should get the slot on a bad weather day? There is a FINITE amount of airspace, quit rewarding those that waste this limited resource.


"Also, weight is a major factor in the needs to repair airside facilities at an airport. Of course a much heavier 747 (fully loaded...that weighs a million pounds according to your estimates) must pay more than a turboprop."


NO IT DOESN'T. Runways are built to withstand the pounding. The weather does more damage to the runway than a -400. The 747-400 also allows the airport to raise OTHER fee's. If you are running a Mickey D's in the local airport, who would rather land at your airport, a 747-400, or a 1900? Which one are you willing to pay a higher lease rate to serve?


"No, AA does not pay more than other, smaller carriers through these fees/taxes. The place that AA does pay more is behind the scenes. It's in the lobbying and legal efforts that continuously save the airline from "anti-competitive" allegations (even when it is blatant) and that enable AA to continue as a mopolistic entity. So, even if AA were to pay more (though it is passenger/weight based), they sure get alot for their dues."

Now who's the conspiracy theorist. How much does AMR spend for it's fleet of Black Helo's with the "hush kits"? BTW as for AMR's "Mopolistic" (they are very clean?) behavior, SWA typically garners a larger share of any market they go into, and won't hesitate to price it's seating below costs to get "established", so are they monopolistic?, or do you need first class seating to be anti-competative?


"...THAT is what I mean by your attitude that everything is a conspiracy. How can you control the number of sick people?! You should work for Fox News...I think you'd have a future."

They control the number of DOCTORS! Quit sniffing glue! A fair number of folks go overseas for a medical education now due to the limited number of medical school slots in the US. It's not a conspiracy, it's a fact. Dr's alos do a fair amount of lobbying to prevent "non Dr's" from performing some simple procedures and writting scripts (under the guise of "safety")



Ignorance is Bliss

 

[Connected1]

The human instinct of self-preservation does not vary with the size of one''s paycheck. So, on that point, I''m going to have to disagree with the Wharton grad who used the pseudo-word "repeatably."

Maybe we could do without all of this posturing and start a new, interesting thread?

 

[Ch. 12]

----------------
On 5/13/2003 7:43:13 PM Mach85ER wrote:

Consider this. From my own experience, there are most likely more pilots with Wharton and other prestigous business school graduates than in management. There are more pilots with graduate level accounting degrees than there are in management. There are more pilots with advanced engineering degrees than there are in management. There are more medical school graduates than exist in AA medical and more than likely more pilots with law degrees than exist in AMR legal. This isn''t some brag or a justification for more money. It''s just the facts. ----------------​

...consider this. There are 100''s of pilots for every one person in management. Just by playing the odds, of course there will be more pilots with advanced degrees than managers. I can assure you that the proportions are vastly different, though. And anyways...why does it matter?

And busdrvr, your whole arguement against fees paid per passenger or size of aircraft ignores key points. If revenues and costs weren''t associated with the number of passengers, maybe your point would be valid, but the fact is, you can''t charge a B1900 the same as a 747 and still expect any city smaller than NYC to get any service. Also, weight is a major factor in the needs to repair airside facilities at an airport. Of course a much heavier 747 (fully loaded...that weighs a million pounds according to your estimates) must pay more than a turboprop. No, AA does not pay more than other, smaller carriers through these fees/taxes. The place that AA does pay more is behind the scenes. It''s in the lobbying and legal efforts that continuously save the airline from "anti-competitive" allegations (even when it is blatant) and that enable AA to continue as a mopolistic entity. So, even if AA were to pay more (though it is passenger/weight based), they sure get alot for their dues.

And...regarding this...

"It is pretty slick though how Dr''s have been smart enough to control supply instead of price "

...THAT is what I mean by your attitude that everything is a conspiracy. How can you control the number of sick people?! You should work for Fox News...I think you''d have a future.

 

[texflyer]

To Busdrvr and Mach. My point is by reading your posts,I wander do you fully grasp how much the market has changed from over time. It sucks to take a paycut,(my company has cut back on salaries too)I agree,but without return of the business traveler (ahem,ahem),the world pre-911(read salaries) will not return.

Mach,you are referring to a diluting of talent in the airline industry. I do not know about the future,but to return to what you are referring too,then there must be a reduction......a big reduction of capacity and raising of fares(which many will argue is the best eventually)..........When you have figured on how to do that let me know,so I can write that best seller.

 

[Duditz]

----------------
On 5/14/2003 8:37:09 AM Busdrvr wrote:

...Also, weight is a major factor in the needs to repair airside facilities at an airport. Of course a much heavier 747 (fully loaded...that weighs a million pounds according to your estimates) must pay more than a turboprop...


NO IT DOESN''T. Runways are built to withstand the pounding. The weather does more damage to the runway than a -400.

----------------​

Of course, a 747-400 landing on a runway that was BUILT to handle a 747-400 will not be damaged by that landing. The point is that the rumway had to be built to accomodate that type of aircraft. Wider, longer, thicker = greater cost. A little less sophistry perhaps?

 

[Segue]

----------------
On 5/13/2003 820 PM Busdrvr wrote:

"For which government services do the network carriers pay more?"

Most fee''s are collected on a per pax or percentage of ticket price basis. You may disagree, But I''m of the opinion that if we are paying for aviation infrastructure with these fees then it should be the same fee for every departure. If Larry Kudlow wants to fly on his private jet from a get together at Kennebunk, to a wine tasting party in Napa valley, he should pay the same "fee" as an AMR 777 going from JFK to SFO. Likewise, if a UAL 747-400 is flying from LAX to DEN, then the fees collected by the government should be the same for a FRNT A319 on the same route. Why should the -400 pay over 5 times as much for landing fees? If you want a flat fee per person for security, fine (although, again, the big jet prob uses less per pax when it comes to air marshalls ect) Reward the efficient use of our limited airspace, not punish it. In the past I think the rational was that the big guys could "afford" to pay a bigger portion, those days are gone.

"It''s tough to justify 737''s/A319''s into BGM, given the demand at what a network carrier can charge, when people can drive to ALB or SYR."

You are correct, but I think you''d agree that a couple hour drive to a distant airport is likely an unreasonable thing to expect of an exec (times money you know) and lack of good service will simply mean those businesses will move to a place with service.

"And why should the government have restricted capacity at all airlines? It certainly seems that some of them managed to cut costs without reducing capacity or salaries AND remained profitable."

Come on, I''ve read your posts, i think you know a lot more about game theory than you are letting on. Why do members of cartels cheat, when it is in the best interest of everyone to hold the line? because it''s in his INDIVIDUAL BEST INTEREST TO CHEAT. So the net effect is EVERYONE CHEATS, and everybody loses. The market isn''t being destroyed just by SWA, granted a capacity cut by them would help, but it''s being detroyed because UAL, AMR, DAL, NWA, CAL are all "cheating". It would be in all their best interest if they ALL cut capacity by 10%, and it stuck, but in every case it''s in each and every one of thems INDIVIDUAL best interest to keep hius capacity as high as possible. SWA could "afford" to cheat, and had SWA cut capacity like the rest, they''d be losing money to (just not as much) AMR and the rest however, get matched on each and every attempt to restore capacity. SFB, I think you understand this, but for those of you who don''t, sorry, I can''t help you, take some night classes

----------------​

Interesting you mentioned cartel. Isn''t organized labor simply a cartel? In non-unionized fields (like management) everyone negotiates their own pay based on their skill set, the supply of the skills set, and the company''s demand for that skill set. Everybody is a free agent. With unions, the company is forced to go "sole supplier" and pay one price. If the company can''t pay the price, then tough luck.

 

[JFKbound]

"You my friend are very very ignorant to think that anyone owes you anything."

Hey A77IGW,
Please show me, "my friend" where in my post I said ANYTHING about anyone "owing" me. My reply was to your statement that a service academy education was paid for by the government and therefore I "owed" someting to you!!

"These management bean counter pukes are the ones keeping your employed."

I would respectfully beg to differ. Looking at the BONEHEADED moves (no need to go over that as it has been repeated adnauseam) this bunch of "bean counters" has made over the last three years and it is obvious to me that this company is still in business (and thereby keeping me employed) DESPITE them. AND it is ONLY because we bent over and took the paycuts that I am still employed. I would therefore conclude "my friend" that I am employed due to my own and my fellow employees efforts!!!

"Just not the men and women that thjink I owe them something"

Let me get this straight. YOU owe me nothing!! This company owes me ONLY a FAIR and EQUITABLE compensation for the services I provide it. NOTHING MORE!!!

And, yes, I do realize you were responding to Busdriver. But after lurking here for a while I felt compelled to
reply to your Service Academy statement. Lurk mode ON!!