Flight Attendant Cleaning Station Update

[javaboy]

Good, now the gate agents can attend to boarding passengers instead of cleaning
the darn airplane!

Finally, something that makes sense.

Thanks Southwest and Jetblue.

[post="251184"][/post]​

gate agents clean at jetblue as well.

 

[mweiss]

If the pilot on his own violated the CBA of the IAM's utility then the company is responsible for the actions of the pilot and the company is or I should say was grievable.

[post="251440"][/post]​

But did he? Did he prevent utility from boarding the aircraft and doing the work as stipulated in the contract? The story isn't quite so cut and dry as I read it.

 

[700UW]

You seem to not understand, it does not matter why anyone else cleaned the plane, since he did it, it is a grievable offense.

There is no circumstances in the contract that allows another group to violate the scope language, who's ever contract owns the work has the exclusive right to perfrom that work. The company is responsible under the law to enforce the contract they signed with the union. And if a pilot of F/A cleans a plane where utility is staffed it is a contract violation which the company will payout to the low person on the Overtime List.

Plain and simple, if you perform work that is not in your CBA, it is a scope violation.

 

[mweiss]

You seem to not understand, it does not matter why anyone else cleaned the plane, since he did it, it is a grievable offense.

[post="251454"][/post]​

That may well be. I do find it rather distasteful that the goal of better serving the customer would result in punishment. It's really not that different from the other thread of late, discussing the punishment for not wearing a vest on the tarmac.

 

[700UW]

Well the company agreed to it and so has the union.

If a pilot or a FA on a late flight "ASKS" the utility person if they can help, then I don't see a problem with the issue, it is the total disregard for another groups CBA is where the problems start.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

That may well be. I do find it rather distasteful that the goal of better serving the customer would result in punishment. It's really not that different from the other thread of late, discussing the punishment for not wearing a vest on the tarmac.

[post="251459"][/post]​

You may find it distaseful but it a direct violation of a contract. Do you advocate that a contract isn't worth the paper it is written on as the company and 320 do?

Have you ever signed a contract and decided to break it and expect the other party to understand that you can do it cheaper another way and the other party shouldn't expect a monetary award? If so please let us know how you handled it.

 

[StraaightTaalk]

With all due respect, but not really. Where in your first post does it say anything about anyone but the FA's? So how about telling us how and when you will be like the SWA and JB pilots who pitch in and help clean and turn planes, in record time.

[post="251021"][/post]​

Never happen. USA320 is just interested in telling others what they should do. Typical self-proclaimed "expert."

 

[Winglet]

It takes innovative thinking, putting the good of the company before yourself, and LEADERSHIP . . . . . none of which are traits displayed by US Air's executives.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

[post="251506"][/post]​

Its not labor costs, unions and the lack of pilots picking up trash that is the difference between Jetblue and Southwest and the rest of industry making a profit. No matter how you twist it it just isn't that simple. It is managements lack of adapting the business model to whats works , fuel costs and the stupidity of the airlines to come up with a fairer and higher fare structure and stick with it, among other things.

I won't pretend to know anything about NuCor steel and what they did to turn around but just from what you said they had 1) creative management 2) they paid high wages then competitors. Two things USAirways seriously lacks.

I suspect folding competition had a role in it too. I also suspect the higher wages had an effect on morale. It is hard to compare a manufacturing business against a service business too.

After the cuts that been pushed on employees at USAirways and the lack of leadership at the helm and lack of USAirways to present a viable business plan I for the life of me can't understand how you can say its organized labors problem.

Even reading your post you first say its problems between organized labor and the company then you use NuCor as an example and say its leadership not higher wages that pulled them through. Then you go back blaming labor again.

The more I read the more you sound like 320's waffle house special.

 

[mweiss]

You may find it distaseful but it a direct violation of a contract.

[post="251488"][/post]​

It is. I apologize for getting my messages muddled by two separate thoughts intermingling. The two separate thoughts were:

1) The inflexibility of union contract language hampers a business's ability to adapt quickly to change, and,

2) I wasn't sure that the actions truly constituted a violation of the contract anyway.

I have been set straight on point 2, or at least haven't had any additional information suggesting that there was a way (short of the utility employees' approval) for the captain and FAs to do the work without violating the contract.

Back to point 1, however...

And that's the problem with organized labor. Change in modern business today moves in months, weeks, days and even minutes.

Someone a couple of days ago (was it you, UVN?) pointed us to a report on union relations at airlines. It illustrated the vicious circle that results in exactly the sorts of restrictions that hamper a business's ability to rapidly adapt. What remains unexplored, due to lack of prior experience, is a means by which the restrictions can be loosened, short of the unique story of CO.

Its not labor costs, unions and the lack of pilots picking up trash that is the difference between Jetblue and Southwest and the rest of industry making a profit.

It's not, yet at the same time it is. The points you list are as much symptoms of the problems as the problems themselves. The difference between US and WN isn't one big thing. It's several hundred little things.

It is managements lack of adapting the business model to whats works...

Which is a double-edged sword. It's also the front-line employees' lack of willingness to make the same adaptations. Fundamentally, right or wrong, WN's union employees generally trust management to do the right thing. Conversely, management generally trusts the union employees to do the right thing, too. Without the trust, you have a disfunctional business that simply cannot compete directly against the organization with the mutual trust.

...fuel costs...

Fuel costs are a significant issue, but a short-term issue. The issue is short-term because WN's advantage due to hedging is not a sustainable advantage in the long run. Even without the hedging, WN would still beat the pants off of the legacies. In other words, focusing on fuel costs is the easy way out (by blaming something beyond control), but it's not the real issue.

the stupidity of the airlines to come up with a fairer and higher fare structure and stick with it, among other things.

It's harder to do than you might think. Nobody to date has had "rational fares" and kept RASM above 11 cents, so nobody really knows how to do it yet. The WN model works, provided your CASM is low enough to support the fare structure.

After the cuts that been pushed on employees at USAirways and the lack of leadership at the helm and lack of USAirways to present a viable business plan I for the life of me can't understand how you can say its organized labors problem.

To be fair, I don't think anyone here would say "it's organized labor's problem," as if unions are 100% to blame. But neither is it 100% management's fault (though a substantial proportion certainly falls on their laps, particularly with the current pay rates).

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

[post="251529"][/post]​

Again it is hard to compare a service industry to a manufacturing industry that being said look at all you used as an example what part of that falls upon the labors unions shoulders to implement? The 3 or 4 day day work weeks? Yes but obviously it would have to be implemented on a rotating basis as you can't shut down the airline for 3 or 4 days. But if the unions had a choice of taking all the layoffs and paycuts or going on a reduced work week what do you think would have won hand down?

You said: And that's the problem with organized labor. Change in modern business today moves in months, weeks, days and even minutes. This board if living, breathing proof of the modern day speed of business.

I say: Yes change is faster then it ever was but with big old companies they still don't move with lighting speed they still move more slowly then modern companies

As far as me mentioning fare changes that is something that takes the cooperation of all airlines and obviously isn't totally in USAirways hands at least not in the structure they have. Please don't mention collusion or antitrust and why is it only called collusion or antitrust violations when when all airlines raise fares but not when they lower them? To bad the airline employees or the shareholders don't sue the airlines for the same when the airlines lower fares like the airlines were sued for raising them.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

Its not labor costs, unions and the lack of pilots picking up trash that is the difference between Jetblue and Southwest and the rest of industry making a profit.

[post="251519"][/post]​

It's not, yet at the same time it is. The points you list are as much symptoms of the problems as the problems themselves. The difference between US and WN isn't one big thing. It's several hundred little things.

[post="251535"][/post]​

Yes it is several little things but there is also one big thing. Structure. If you want to be a low cost low cost carrier then become one. This band-aid approach as opposed to a complete overhaul is what is needed. You know the modern quick turn you talk about. The hybrid approach is going to be the downfall of this airline

It is managements lack of adapting the business model to whats works...

[post="251519"][/post]​

Which is a double-edged sword. It's also the front-line employees' lack of willingness to make the same adaptations. Fundamentally, right or wrong, WN's union employees generally trust management to do the right thing. Conversely, management generally trusts the union employees to do the right thing, too. Without the trust, you have a disfunctional business that simply cannot compete directly against the organization with the mutual trust.

[post="251535"][/post]​

Trust you hit it on the head right there. Why does Southwest's employees have the trust of management and USAirway's doesn't? Because Southwest management delivers and USAirway's doesn't. Not only that USAirways management has bred employee distrust by not being upfront, beating them and stealing from them everytime they turnaround. Then they grab their chute and another jumps onboard. If someone beats and lies to their kids what do they breed trust? No distrust and fear.

...fuel costs...

[post="251519"][/post]​

Fuel costs are a significant issue, but a short-term issue. The issue is short-term because WN's advantage due to hedging is not a sustainable advantage in the long run. Even without the hedging, WN would still beat the pants off of the legacies. In other words, focusing on fuel costs is the easy way out (by blaming something beyond control), but it's not the real issue.

[post="251535"][/post]​

Fuel costs are a long term issue to USAirway's as long as they keep rising. If you can't raise fares, irregardless of Southwest's hedging, to reflect raising fuel costs then you will lose money and look out here comes round 4.

the stupidity of the airlines to come up with a fairer and higher fare structure and stick with it, among other things.

[post="251519"][/post]​

It's harder to do than you might think. Nobody to date has had "rational fares" and kept RASM above 11 cents, so nobody really knows how to do it yet. The WN model works, provided your CASM is low enough to support the fare structure.

[post="251535"][/post]​

See previous post to piney

After the cuts that been pushed on employees at USAirways and the lack of leadership at the helm and lack of USAirways to present a viable business plan I for the life of me can't understand how you can say its organized labors problem.

[post="251519"][/post]​

To be fair, I don't think anyone here would say "it's organized labor's problem," as if unions are 100% to blame. But neither is it 100% management's fault (though a substantial proportion certainly falls on their laps, particularly with the current pay rates).

[post="251535"][/post]​

Agreed

 

[mweiss]

Please don't mention collusion or antitrust and why is it only called collusion or antitrust violations when when all airlines raise fares but not when they lower them?

I will most certainly mention collusion. It's not called collusion when they lower fares because there is no incentive to collude to lower fares. Collusion occurs in raising fares because it benefits all parties...but only if all parties participate. When it comes to lowering fares, the parties actually have disincentive to hold out. Do you see the difference?

Why does Southwest's employees have the trust of management and USAirway's doesn't? Because Southwest management delivers and USAirway's doesn't.

Using solely that element, which is probably the most important element, WN will have some serious labor troubles when (and I'm virtually certain it's "when" and not "if") they come on hard times due to competitive forces. Management and labor tend to get along just fine when nobody has to make serious sacrifices. Once serious sacrifices had to be made, the relationship has always deteriorated to an irreparable level...with one exception (CO).

Not only that USAirways management has bred employee distrust by not being upfront, beating them and stealing from them everytime they turnaround.

Which really does nothing but add fuel to that fire. Again, no arguments there.

Fuel costs are a long term issue to USAirway's as long as they keep rising. If you can't raise fares, irregardless of Southwest's hedging, to reflect raising fuel costs then you will lose money and look out here comes round 4.

[post="251557"][/post]​

OK, let me clarify what I meant about short term. WN has the upper hand on pricing in all markets in which they compete right now, simply because they're paying about half as much as anyone else for a gallon of JetA. Given the percentage of industry costs attributable to fuel, this is a huge competitive advantage. WN sets the prices in all of their markets, period. This will not change until their hedges run out (2007?). That's the end of what I'm calling "short term," in this case.

I'll grant that, by US standards, 2007 is extremely long term. Short term to US, right now, is next month.

However, there's another point that I was trying to make there. WN has the power to set fares because of hedging. Without it, there may well be a price level at which the legacies could be profitable, simply because WN, who currently sets the price, would necessarily set the prices higher.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

Pay for preformance - All employess have several incentives based on performance. There are attendence incentives that are Weekly, Monthly & Yearly. In addition there are group attendence incentives. Let's take the recent scapegoats for the Christmas Meltdown. Imagine if YOU worked in that workgroup and by taking off, your co-worker(s) cost you your attendence bonus for the week & month? Which would personally cost you a few hundred dollars that month. How would that change your behavior?

The profit sharing is very generous. Hourly employees working in the mill have topped $100K with a combination of hourly wage, performance incentives & profit sharing

[post="251529"][/post]​

Quiz time who is this?

His approach to kick-starting a whole new era at XXXXXX was a system of regular, monthly, bonus incentives and praise where it was due. During the last six years, the company has handed over a total of $465 million, or 15 per cent of its pre-tax income, in profit-sharing payments to staff. "We are successful because we share the rewards. Good management is about how you treat people, how you appreciate them and how you measure success. You tell them how much you appreciate what they're doing and then they will want to do it. What does it cost you to tell someone, 'Hey, I think what you're doing is great'?" His attitude appears to have been reciprocated - grateful XXXXXX staff clubbed together to buy their boss a 1996 Harley Low Rider motorbike.

Answer Gordon B

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

I will most certainly mention collusion. It's not called collusion when they lower fares because there is no incentive to collude to lower fares. Collusion occurs in raising fares because it benefits all parties...but only if all parties participate. When it comes to lowering fares, the parties actually have disincentive to hold out. Do you see the difference?

[post="251570"][/post]​

First off you need to know the legal definition of collusion. All airlines (parties) raising fares in itself doesn't constitute collusion any more then all airlines lowing fares. Also it can apply to two parties all parties do not have to participate for collusion to occur. Collusion can also apply to lowering fares if it involves lowering fares to get rid of competition by selling under cost of doing business. Do you see the difference??

Collusion :legal

n. Deceitful agreement between two people (or business entities through their officers or other employees) to defraud and/or gain an unfair advantage over the competition, a third, party, consumers or a negotiating party. Collusion can include such practices as wage fixing, secret rebates, or two parties conspiring who pretend to be independent. Collusion may range from small-town shopkeepers to gigantic electronics companies or big league baseball team owners

Using solely that element, which is probably the most important element, WN will have some serious labor troubles when (and I'm virtually certain it's "when" and not "if") they come on hard times due to competitive forces. Management and labor tend to get along just fine when nobody has to make serious sacrifices. Once serious sacrifices had to be made, the relationship has always deteriorated to an irreparable level...with one exception (CO).

OK, let me clarify what I meant about short term. WN has the upper hand on pricing in all markets in which they compete right now, simply because they're paying about half as much as anyone else for a gallon of JetA. Given the percentage of industry costs attributable to fuel, this is a huge competitive advantage. WN sets the prices in all of their markets, period. This will not change until their hedges run out (2007?). That's the end of what I'm calling "short term," in this case.

I'll grant that, by US standards, 2007 is extremely long term. Short term to US, right now, is next month.

However, there's another point that I was trying to make there. WN has the power to set fares because of hedging. Without it, there may well be a price level at which the legacies could be profitable, simply because WN, who currently sets the price, would necessarily set the prices higher.

[post="251570"][/post]​

I meant to add that in my argument. When everything is goin good there is no need for problems to bubble to the surface it is when the trouble arises that things start getting ugly. Southwest's advantage in the market is not only their fuel hedging as you seem to be implying. It also is their business model as well as the way they are run by management and their ability to create the low fare environment that we have in the industry today. The only reason they have a fuel hedging advantage now is because they already had other advantages over the other airlines not because of the hedging in itself. When all is said and done taking out all costs for fuel Southwest will still beat the legacys hands down.