Final Union Faces Deadline

[BoeingBoy]

BoeingBoy, your words ares spoken as a true "hardliner". Can you tell me how ALPA's advisors now feel about the current state of affairs and the company's prospects since the GE announcement? By the way, it's interesting how you have two different communication styles on this and the ALPA board.

[post="230024"][/post]​

As usual, cast aspersions and refuse to discuss the facts.....

Jim

 

[700UW]

Picking out words again?

The Purpose of this Agreement is, in the mutual interest of the Company and the employees, to provide for operation of the services of the Company under methods which will further, to the fullest extent possible, the safety of air transportation, the efficiency of the operation, and CONTINUATION of employment under conditions of reasonable hours, proper compensation and working conditions.

Asking 50% of the workforce to vote themselves out of a job does not fit that description.

 

[vc10]

Really? A friend of mine, an executive at another major airline, says that RJ70s, if anything, have lower CASM than 737s.

I suspect you're thinking "But these are bigger - 70 & 90 seaters." Yes they are, but they still have higher unit costs than the mainline aircraft. To cite just one factor, the company's figures show that the Emb-170's "ownership" cost per flight hour (just to have the plane on the property) is higher than the A320, A321, B737-300, B737-400, B767, and A330. When you factor in the lower ASM's generated per flight hour for the Emb-170, you start to get an idea of the size of the problem.

[post="230000"][/post]​

 

[700UW]

Less seats higher costs.

 

[ClueByFour]

In regard to violating a S.1113(e) order, that would be superseeded by a S.1113© order per the comapny's motion. Furthermore, I understand the company has a security firm, security camera's, and other services in place in case of any job action. Remember TPA.

If the IAM-M walks upon abrogation, it matters not what is in the 1113© order, since you cannot get the replacement workers trained and badged in a day, or even a week. To have already done so would have violated the 1113(e) order currently in place (and provide the instant case for appeal and or reconsideration of the 1113 motion, all the while the airline is not flying due to a potential lack of mechanics).

Security cameras cannot fix airplanes. How many airplanes were overhauled in Tampa after the hanger closed?

Think before blustering.

 

[Winglet]

Lakefield thinks the mechanics can be given the bum's rush, bamboozzed, and manipulated . . . . like the pilots. He's bet everything that they'll cave. If they hang tough, he knows he can't replace them. He's got a corporate revolver pointed at his temple and is telling the mechanics, "Accept my terms and let me outsource you, or I'll pull the trigger."

If 51% of the mechs figure they have nothing to lose anyway, or don't mind watching US Airways corporate brains all over the wall, they're going to say "Shoot, you mother-%$#%*&."

 

[PITbull]

Lakefield thinks the mechanics can be given the bum's rush, bamboozzed, and manipulated . . . . like the pilots. He's bet everything that they'll cave. If they hang tough, he knows he can't replace them. He's got a corporate revolver pointed at his temple and is telling the mechanics, "Accept my terms and let me outsource you, or I'll pull the trigger."

If 51% of the mechs figure they have nothing to lose anyway, or don't mind watching US Airways corporate brains all over the wall, they're going to say "Shoot, you mother-%$#%*&."

[post="230112"][/post]​

LOL....this gave me a great laugh...thanks 😉

 

[BoeingBoy]

Really? A friend of mine, an executive at another major airline, says that RJ70s, if anything, have lower CASM than 737s.

[post="230080"][/post]​

I guess it depends on the accounting. For example, Mesa probably has a lower CASM for their CRJ700's than U has on their 737's. But Mesa has fuel cost reimbursed, as well as hull insurance, landing fees, gates, ground handling, ticket sales/passenger handling, etc paid for by the contracting carrier. Those costs are included in the 737.

However, using the Form 41 Schedule P52 data (aircraft operating costs), the Emb-170 has higher "ownership" cost, higher pilot cost, higher fuel cost, and higher insurance cost than the our 737's on a per hour per seat basis (P52 does not include seat miles so a seat mile calculation is impossible from that data). In fact, the only area where the Emb-170 has an advantage is maintenance - a new airplane under warranty vs an older airplane.

There's just no getting around the fact that, absent some technological innovation, a bigger airplane has better unit costs than a smaller airplane.

Jim

 

[Phantom Fixer]

I guess it depends on the accounting. For example, Mesa probably has a lower CASM for their CRJ700's than U has on their 737's. But Mesa has fuel cost reimbursed, as well as hull insurance, landing fees, gates, ground handling, ticket sales/passenger handling, etc paid for by the contracting carrier. Those costs are included in the 737.

However, using the Form 41 Schedule P52 data (aircraft operating costs), the Emb-170 has higher "ownership" cost, higher pilot cost, higher fuel cost, and higher insurance cost than the our 737's on a per hour per seat basis (P52 does not include seat miles so a seat mile calculation is impossible from that data). In fact, the only area where the Emb-170 has an advantage is maintenance - a new airplane under warranty vs an older airplane.

There's just no getting around the fact that, absent some technological innovation, a bigger airplane has better unit costs than a smaller airplane.

Jim

[post="230123"][/post]​

Jim ,

Your words ring true in both the short and long term....in short term , fewer seats do add to the cost of a seat mile. PAWOBS add to our costs too.

Lastly , a given Acft under warranty does provide a short term advanatge...Only if the wait for repairs does not cause issues that impact the passengers at the given time.

Warranty only off-sets the actual cost of the repair...when proof of it being a warranty issue is made abundantly clear...no small task in terms of time and research either.

Warranty off-sets also do not insure timely logistical support to get an Aircraft back into revenued service either. Only a fool or a beancounter with his eye on the cost of purchase Vs. the long term cost of ownership would favor an RJ over a Boeing 737 regardless of the production series.

Basically..you are wasting your valueable time trying inform the people of what works at a bargain instead of what works on a one-time accounting issue. Time will prove us both right....and the remainder of these Lock-steppers grieviously wrong.

Too bad our right Vs, thier wrong will only reach critical mass after thousands of lay-offs and the eventual fall of U as a going concern. 🙁

 

[SpinDoc]

There's just no getting around the fact that, absent some technological innovation, a bigger airplane has better unit costs than a smaller airplane.

Jim

[post="230123"][/post]​

SpinDoc replies:

You're correct Jim. And that is why US Airways
made a huge mistake by not purchasing 757-300
aircraft several years ago when they were
deciding on the Airbus 330 purchase. The 757-200
is nothing more than stretched version of the
737-400 and the economics with 142 seats sold
are the same as the 734. Which means that each
seat sold on the B757 over and above 142 are all
profit. The 757-300 is a stretched version of the
757-200 and holds approximately 220 pax in mixed
class configuration. It has better economics than
the A330-200 and costs less to maintain. The
fleet planners at US realy screwed the pooch
by going for the Airbus versus the Boeing which
was available for a slightly higher price tag.
They are doing the same thing with the E-170
when they could be ordering the B717 which is
available at fire sale prices and is cheaper to
operate on a per seat mile basis. I think the plan
all along was to eliminate Boeing aircraft from the
fleet so they could also get rid of senior MTC
personnel, mainly in PIT, who are trained to repair
and maintain the Boeings.

 

[700UW]

A 757 cannot fly PHL-FCO

 

[BoeingBoy]

SpinDoc,

I would have thought the 767-300 would have been a better option for the 330's.

Of course, I also thought that the 737NG would have been better than the A320 series.

As Phantom Fixer implied, purchase cost may have been higher but long term cost would have been less. These two changes would have resulted in 2 fleet types now vs 4 and produced a significant savings in just pilot training/productivity, not to mention maintenance spares/support.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

And to add.....

There's nothing wrong with getting the Emb-170's - they have a lower CASM than the smaller 50-seat RJ's with only a small "block to block cost" penalty. I just think that at this point, where we already have the highest percentage of total ASM's provided by Express in the industry, we should be replacing some of the smaller RJ's (particularly affiliate flying) instead of replacing mainline.

Jim

 

[vc10]

You're looking at historical data? Given the recent entry into service of the E170 and the delay in production of Form 41, I suspect you're seeing data that reflects ramp up costs. Which isn't to say that you're wrong, just that you may be wrong to rely on the Form 41 data released thus far.

However, using the Form 41 Schedule P52 data (aircraft operating costs), the Emb-170 has higher "ownership" cost, higher pilot cost, higher fuel cost, and higher insurance cost than the our 737's on a per hour per seat basis (P52 does not include seat miles so a seat mile calculation is impossible from that data). In fact, the only area where the Emb-170 has an advantage is maintenance - a new airplane under warranty vs an older airplane.

There's just no getting around the fact that, absent some technological innovation, a bigger airplane has better unit costs than a smaller airplane.

[post="230123"][/post]​

 

[Phantom Fixer]

And to add.....

There's nothing wrong with getting the Emb-170's - they have a lower CASM than the smaller 50-seat RJ's with only a small "block to block cost" penalty. I just think that at this point, where we already have the highest percentage of total ASM's provided by Express in the industry, we should be replacing some of the smaller RJ's (particularly affiliate flying) instead of replacing mainline.

Jim

[post="230169"][/post]​

Jim,

I have to agree with you once again Sir, A larger RJ is the way to go..if RJ's is your only vision in life? That is ever so obvious here at Miopic Airways.

We all know the issues and the driving forces behind our fleet choices have been motivated by two major factors...what does it do for the execs signing the dotted line?...and how can they manipulate things to shed themselves of these pesky unionized workers? I feel that this was the only degree of long range planning that has ever taken place at U.

Sadly...as we try to draw comparisons between ourselves and the other LCC's...we still keep getting the drumbeat of Negative Mainline Growth...yet the leader of all the LCC's operates as thier slogan emplies "You are now free to move about the country" Try doing that on U and you will easily miss about 1/3rd of the country on any given day...regardless of what fleet type is being employed?

Frankly...if we are gong to compete with the LCC's whom are growing , we need to be expanding our horizons in terms of taking away thier money west of the Mississippi. We have retreated back to the point that we are only a shadow of what Piedmont and old USair were...and that's not to mention how we gave away all of what PSA spent decades building in the west. The only way to compete is thru actual competition...and that is exactly what WN is doing..and B6 is attempting to do in a way that will eventually strangle us..if we don't die from within anyway? Then lets not forget that DL is doing thier damndest to prey on us as well.