Disgruntled Employees

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

----------------
On 5/14/2003 7:07:58 PM JFKbound wrote:

"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!!

----------------​

JFKbound;
Welcome Aboard !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

With only 2 posts under your belt(on this board), you make more sense than others with "hundreds" of posts.

Keep that "Lurk Mode" ALWAYS ON !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Again, Welcome.

NH/BB''s

 

[Connected1]

----------------
On 5/14/2003 7:07:58 PM JFKbound wrote:

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!!
----------------​

Gratuitous use of quotes, caps, and exclamation points... Rampant mispellings... Sharp anti-management rhetoric... Ladies and gentlemen, I think NHBB has started using a new handle!

 

[JFKbound]

Quote from Connected 1: "Gratuitous use of quotes, caps, and exclamation points... Rampant mispellings... Sharp anti-management rhetoric... Ladies and gentlemen, I think NHBB has started using a new handle!"

Connected, 1) Rampant mispellings? "someting" I guess a typo is "rampant." I was not aware you were the designated "spelling Nazi."
2) No this is not NHBB. If you check the archives I have been registered here since October 2001. When my ISP changed my e-mail address from Comcast@home to Comcast.net I was dropped out of the USAviation system. Been lurking ever since.
3) "Gratuitous," Ooooooo...bet you went to your thesaurus for that one.
4) Obviously my "gratuitous" use of quotes, caps and exclamation points got my point across.
5) Anti-management rhetoric. The truth hurts I guess. Is everyone out to get you?

Just checked. Archives only go back 365 days. Guess you'll just have to trust me.

 

[sfb]

busdrvr-

Duditz makes one of the points as to why larger aircraft should pay more for airport facilities -- it simply costs more to build facilities which can accomodate larger aircraft. Would DIA have been as expensive if they weren''t building every runway to handle 747''s (and if they hadn''t needed all the land to do that)? Airports in the early 1970''s incurred significant costs upgrading facilities to handle the then-new 747''s; estimates of the total infrastructure costs needed for upgrades to handle the A380 run in the billions. Who should pay that? In comparison with a 737, a 747 needs larger gate areas, possibly an additional jetway, more ticket counter space, more ramp space, more baggage claim/make-up space, etc. In the air, a 747 also requires additional spacing between itself and other aircraft due to wake turbulence. One could even argue that the hub-and-spoke carriers (this would include carriers like AirTran, by the way) ought to pay a premium for bank scheduling, since the aviation infrastructure has to be built to accomodate the peaks in their usage, rather than the more constant usage you see from rolling hubs. Efficient use of airspace and airfields cuts both ways -- the network carriers would get a break on their widebodies, but they''d pay dearly for their regional feed (and should pay congestion pricing). Do you think this would help United compete better at airports like IAD and LAX?

The greater emphasis on per-passenger and per-segment fees in recent years is at the urging of the network carriers -- hoping to punish the low-cost carriers by shifting a greater burden of taxation over to them. With fares having dropped substantially (and heavy use of hubs for connecting traffic), this has come back to bite the network carriers. Moreover, one could argue that SWA actually paid *more* per passenger mile in taxes (in the first quarter) given that their yield was 11.99 cents versus UAL''s yield of 10.16 cents.

I do agree with you that highly congested airports should be reserved for the highest/best uses; i.e. first reduce the number of operations by small aircraft, then by corporate jets, then RJ''s/turboprops, then narrowbodies, etc. Again, though, given the number of RJ''s and turboprops tooling around places like ORD, LGA, DCA, BOS, LAX, etc. -- this provides no advantage to the large network carriers.

Business travelers in most smaller cities have a choice between very low frequency on larger aircraft or higher frequency on smaller aircraft. Given more-or-less equivalent pricing practices, they overwhelmingly choose the latter, and they overwhelmingly prefer RJ''s/SJ''s to turboprops. But even smaller markets can support a good amount of mainline jet service IF priced properly. Take LBB. Southwest manages 14 daily departures on 737''s. All together, American Eagle, Delta Connection (ASA), and Continental Express manage 13 daily flights on RJ''s and/or turboprops. While WN''s presence at LBB is undoubtedly a result of its origin as an intrastate carrier, they manage that level of service in a metro area which is actually smaller than the Binghamton example I used earlier.

While you can find a few execs (fewer these days than three years ago) who are willing to pay a price premium of several hundred percent for the convenience of service from the small-city airport to a hub, that market is pretty small these days. But it''s funny, one could argue that Manchester, NH is a small market which really doesn''t deserve the level of air service it receives -- aside from the fact that MHT has been well-marketed as a convenient and less expensive alternative to BOS. It''s also funny that people complain about what they don''t have -- in small cities, they complain that there''s not enough air service; in large cities, they complain that there is too much air service and it makes too much noise.

I do understand game theory, and I do understand cartel pricing, but that is beside the point. SWA doesn''t engage in cartel pricing, though, and they don''t charge high fares simply because they can. Compare (2Q02 numbers) a near-monopoly route like BNA-RDU for WN with a near-monopoly route like PHL-CLT for US (they have comparable stage lengths). WN''s average fare was $93; US''s average fare was $288. And, moreover, that was an increase on both airlines from their pre-9/11 average fares. Do you think that US Airways could have stimulated passenger traffic (and not needed to cut as much capacity) had they changed their pricing strategy? Philadelphia and Charlotte are both larger than either Nashvile or Raleigh-Durham, and yet more people traveled between BNA and RDU than between PHL and CLT. I would have used United as an example, but they don''t really have any comparable near-monopoly routes of that stage length (SFO-SAN competes indirectly with OAK-SAN).

Southwest hasn''t followed the cartel moves of increasing change fees and eliminating travel agent commissions (yes, they still pay a commission). And they actually did cut capacity in a number of markets (they just don''t announce that stuff usually). They parked a number of new aircraft in the desert for several months and postponed deliveries from Boeing; they also have not added a city in 19 months (they had been adding a new city every 5-6 months, on average).

If SWA had cut capacity by 10-15%, they''d probably be losing a bit of money because they would probably have kept everyone on the payroll (given their determination to avoid layoffs). Of course, they also wouldn''t have been able to hire folks laid off by other airlines, either. But it still wouldn''t have fixed the problems at the network carriers; WN would simply have sold fewer discounted fares with fewer seats to sell. The hub-and-spoke carriers still wouldn''t have been able to exert pricing power, because people weren''t willing to pay what they were asking. US Airways is arguably the network carrier least exposed to discounters, and yet they were the first into bankruptcy and have asked for some of the deepest cuts.

I don''t believe the root of the problem has been cartel airlines "cheating" by adding back capacity; rather I believe it is that passengers just aren''t willing to play along anymore. The Internet gives potential passengers far better pricing/schedule information than ever before. In an economy where profits are under pressure at most corporations and deficits loom for most governmental entities, travel is one of the first budget items to see the axe. And with the increased hassle of so-called enhanced security at airports (mostly window-dressing, IMHO, since it is un-American to profile), fewer people are willing to fly shorter routes at premium prices (the BOS-LGA-DCA Shuttles are an obvious casualty).

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

----------------
On 5/15/2003 1:55:01 PM JFKbound wrote:

Quote from Connected 1: "Gratuitous use of quotes, caps, and exclamation points... Rampant mispellings... Sharp anti-management rhetoric... Ladies and gentlemen, I think NHBB has started using a new handle!"

Connected, 1) Rampant mispellings? "someting" I guess a typo is "rampant." I was not aware you were the designated "spelling Nazi."
2) No this is not NHBB. If you check the archives I have been registered here since October 2001. When my ISP changed my e-mail address from Comcast@home to Comcast.net I was dropped out of the USAviation system. Been lurking ever since.
3) "Gratuitous," Ooooooo...bet you went to your thesaurus for that one.
4) Obviously my "gratuitous" use of quotes, caps and exclamation points got my point across.
5) Anti-management rhetoric. The truth hurts I guess. Is everyone out to get you?

Just checked. Archives only go back 365 days. Guess you''ll just have to trust me.



----------------​

JFKbound;

AFTER AA goes BK-11, I wonder if "connected 1", will still be "connected"

IMHO, when BK happens, the only thing that will be "connected", will be his lips, firmly planted on his boss''s ASS.
Even at "that", there''s still no guarentee.

If these "lying, cheating, scamming A**HOLES, (AA), EVER goes BK, there will be a TON of "I TOLD YOU SO(s)", being distributed on this board.

NH/BB''s

Ps,
I''ll have to flip a coin, as to who gets the first one.
A77igw, or "connected 1 " (smootch) ''He He He"

 

[Connected1]

That sound you hear is the collection of lurker-friends of mine getting the grandest of chuckles from that comment.

Truth be told, I am a member of management who has become very skeptical of the direction of this company in my 5 years here. Whether it be MRTC, maintaining loser routes for their "halo" benefits, reconfiguring 763s on a whim, establishing Monte Ford''s IT kingdom after spinning off Sabre, or using market-driven management paychecks as a political tool to negotiate union contracts, I have never felt like the top brass in the company has been truly concerned with doing what is financially right. They are more concerned with making their decisions look good. The decision making process at this company starts with a hunch and ends with contrived financial analysis to support it. Perhaps I am just naive, but I think that''s a little backwards.

In short, my "connections" are not linked to my livelihood. They are my peers in key areas of the company that I keep up with on a daily basis. They keep me informed on the goings-on around the company so that I can come here and dispell any rumors or propaganda that the uninformed might spread. In exchange, they get a big kick out of when I get a rise out of the belligerent types.

And, for the record, I will be leaving the company on Independence Day on my own terms, and I would never kiss anything attached to my boss.

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

----------------
I have never felt like the top brass in the company has been truly concerned with doing what is financially right. They are more concerned with making their decisions look good.
----------------​

Some are, some aren''t. There are a few VP''s who appear to be in this for their own glory, and are using AMR as a stepping stone. Then there are the rest who bleed red, white, blue, and silver, and plan to be here for life.

One thing I do believe: Gerard''s down to earth manner is probably a very good reflection of how he approaches decisions. One of Don''s faults as I saw it was that he rarely came out of the clouds and into VFR conditions. He relied on what ATC and the numbers were showing him. Gerard is a lot more likely to say "show me" rather than rely soley on what the instruments are telling him.

----------------
The decision making process at this company starts with a hunch and ends with contrived financial analysis to support it. Perhaps I am just naive, but I think that''s a little backwards.
----------------​

I disagree, having had to present stuff to Arpey, Richardi, Garton, and other VP''s where they had their mind made up in one direction, and we were able to sway their opinion.

I don''t doubt some decisions were made that way with Carty, but I do know that both Jeff Campbell and Gerard were pretty outspoken some decisions where the business case was as strong as a wet piece of toilet paper.

 

[Connected1]

----------------
On 5/16/2003 10:12:22 AM eolesen wrote:

One thing I do believe: Gerard''s down to earth manner is probably a very good reflection of how he approaches decisions.
----------------​

I think you''re right about Gerard. He is a straight-shooter, and if the company has an hope, it rests on his shoulders. His challenge will be to manage the political struggles that happen within his organization in his effort to arrive at the best solution.

----------------
On 5/16/2003 10:12:22 AM eolesen wrote:

I disagree, having had to present stuff to Arpey, Richardi, Garton, and other VP''s where they had their mind made up in one direction, and we were able to sway their opinion.
----------------​

Perhaps, but the nature of your work demands that initiatives begin at your level and move upward. Arpey, Garton, and especially Richardi are not experts in your subject matter, and they learn from you as they make their decisions.

In my experience in corporate finance, initiatives come from above and your ability as an analyst is measured based upon how well you can support the ideas. Refuting them is unheard of unless someone from the upper ranks is clearly off-base and you can generate enough lower level opposition. The MRTC decision was a "solve for zero" exercise - what do we have to assume in order to make this a breakeven proposition, and are those assumptions tolerable? That was a flawed strategy, because they had already decided that the project was worth doing. The analysis was a waste of time unless it came up with outrageously bad numbers, but when you''re changing that little capacity, you''re not going to get outrageously bad numbers.

Just one of several situations that I encountered while there...

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 5/16/2003 10:12:22 AM eolesen wrote:

Some are, some aren't. There are a few VP's who appear to be in this for their own glory, and are using AMR as a stepping stone. Then there are the rest who bleed red, white, blue, and silver, and plan to be here for life.

One thing I do believe: Gerard's down to earth manner is probably a very good reflection of how he approaches decisions. One of Don's faults as I saw it was that he rarely came out of the clouds and into VFR conditions. He relied on what ATC and the numbers were showing him. Gerard is a lot more likely to say "show me" rather than rely soley on what the instruments are telling him.

----------------​

WOW!

We either need to implement larger retention bonuses to keep this new idea group on our side...

...or we should just give Eric the suck ass of the month award!

Had we only known that the BIG solution was to get rid of Carty, the union leaders might have pushed the removal button sooner and saved us all some grief.

I say the emlpoyees are more "SHOW ME" than Arpey ever thought about being. And Arpey best get busy "showing us" instead of sending meeting goers on to the interenet to talk a good game!

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

----------------
On 5/16/2003 10:56:13 AM Connected1 wrote:

In my experience in corporate finance, initiatives come from above and your ability as an analyst is measured based upon how well you can support the ideas.

​

Your ability as an analyst should be judged based on how well you can look at the idea from every direction, and come up with a best case/worst case scenario from it, as well as how accurate your analysis was once a project is implemented. I don't know of anyone who was ever fired or denied promotion for having the guts to call a dumb idea a dumb idea...

----------------
The MRTC decision was a "solve for zero" exercise - what do we have to assume in order to make this a breakeven proposition, and are those assumptions tolerable? That was a flawed strategy, because they had already decided that the project was worth doing. The analysis was a waste of time unless it came up with outrageously bad numbers, but when you're changing that little capacity, you're not going to get outrageously bad numbers.

​

People will be arguing MRTC about as long as they've argued about retiring the 747 freighters in 1984...


Dave, call me a suck ass all day long if you like, but I will continue to call things like I see them. Have you ever seen someone work differently when they work under a different crew chief or tech lead? Why do you think that professional football teams change coaches, instead of changing players? Atheletes can and do play differently for different coaches. Managers and VPs are no different.

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 5/16/2003 12:30:30 PM eolesen wrote:

Dave, call me a suck ass all day long if you like, but I will continue to call things like I see them. Have you ever seen someone work differently when they work under a different crew chief or tech lead? Why do you think that professional football teams change coaches, instead of changing players? Atheletes can and do play differently for different coaches. Managers and VPs are no different.

----------------​

Hot Dang!

We are going to win the Superbowl!

Only thing is, I think the players earn more than the coach in Football, and when the team wins the Superbowl, Stanley Cup, Championship ect., the player wins the MVP not the coach.

On a more serious note Eric, I do not really fault you for being excited about a change from Carty, I am also. I just couldn''t resist the chance to give you the suck ass of the month of award. You are a good guy, good employee, and exhibit great knowledge about our business. GO FOR IT CHEERLEADER! I hope you are more than correct, and also hope that Arpey is going to execute a plan that leads, like Crandall always did, instead the failed follow-the-leader plans of the recent past.

Don''t be fooled by my own sarcasm or humor, we were in desperate need of a change in leadership, and you are closer than me to that part of our business. If you say things are better and a plan is forthcoming, I thank you for your opinion and hope you are correct.

 

[RV4]

----------------
On 5/16/2003 2:44:27 PM KCFlyer wrote:




Hmmm..how much did Tampa Bay pay to snag Gruden?
----------------​

Against better judgement because of way off topic response rules:

Inside a packed and wired ballroom at the Marriott Waterside in Tampa, the Buccaneers introduced Jon Gruden as the seventh head coach in team history, a hire that was announced on Monday. What was not officially revealed until Wednesday was the compensation Tampa Bay sent to the Raiders to convince them to release Gruden from the final year of his contract as Oakland’s head coachInside a packed and wired ballroom at the Marriott Waterside in Tampa, the Buccaneers introduced Jon Gruden as the seventh head coach in team history, a hire that was announced on Monday. What was not officially revealed until Wednesday was the compensation Tampa Bay sent to the Raiders to convince them to release Gruden from the final year of his contract as Oakland’s head coach.

As has been widely reported, the Buccaneers surrendered a total of four draft picks for the most highly-regarded young coach in the National Football League. Those picks will be spread over the next three years.

The most immediate gain by the Raiders is Tampa Bay’s first and second-round picks in the 2002 draft, set for this April 20 and 21. The Buccaneers are slated to pick 21st in the first round, then begin alternating, round by round, with Seattle between the 20th and 21st slots.

Also:

In a twist of fate, in a twisted process, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers have hired Jon Gruden to become their head coach. Gruden who was the coach of the Oakland Raiders was hired by the Bucs and signed to a 5 year $17 million dollar contract. Earlier in the week the Bucs had been very close to a deal with San Francisco 49ers coach Steve Mariucci. However it is likely that Raiders Owner Al Davis did not want Gruden to leave for San Francisco after the season and would have rather let him go to Tampa while getting some compensation in return.

 

[KCFlyer]

----------------
On 5/16/2003 2:32:20 PM RV4 wrote:




Hot Dang!

We are going to win the Superbowl!

Only thing is, I think the players earn more than the coach in Football, and when the team wins the Superbowl, Stanley Cup, Championship ect., the player wins the MVP not the coach.


----------------
​

Hmmm..how much did Tampa Bay pay to snag Gruden?