I actually believe the pass privileges should be free for 6 one way flights, as it stands now it's unlimited and only the fly crews take full advantage of it because a lot of them commute to work. I don't understand why AA should have to pay for FA's and pilots fuel to get to work, not to mention the fact that pilots and FA's from other airlines ride on our planes for free.AA makes a big deal about taking ovens out of the planes to save weight, then you see a UAL pilot and SWA FA jump on a flight for free. I don't even want to talk about AA paying for their parking at the airport the commuter parks their car at.
Flight Attendants Analysis Of Aa'S Problems!
- Thread starter Hopeful
- Start date
6 one ways get a grip. I do agree with you on the whole commute thing.
Frank Szabo
Veteran
Re: pass "privileges" - most don't believe it is a "privilege" to try to go anywhere and not know if you'll have a prayer of getting there. The airplanes are nearly full. Far better to buy a ticket - ID20, I believe.
Getting stuck in an airport is no way to end what may have been a pleasant vacation or necessary trip and is hardly a "privilege" by any sane person's definition.
Getting stuck in an airport is no way to end what may have been a pleasant vacation or necessary trip and is hardly a "privilege" by any sane person's definition.
I agree.
I wasn't for going into bankruptcy but I do believe there was a certain level of bluff involved and our union stupidly went for the first offer on the table. It still irks me to see my friends at UA, who supposedly had it so bad after bankruptcy, bidding for 3 vacations a year and doing long layovers while I get one vacation and short layovers....amongst other things.
Have you gone back to check the 1113 abrogation sheet they threatened us with before the 2003 vote? Check out how much they got in 2003 without filing it and look at what they are trying to get from us in this next contract. Funny that we keep going down and not up.
SECTION 1113 PROPOSAL
PAY and CREDIT
Duty-NA; Trip 1:4; Avg.Day-NA (52 million)
Eliminate Underfly (20 million)
Reduce DH pay and credit from 100% to 50% (13 million)
GUARANTEE PAY
Schedule reserve before makeup hrs at company option (4 million)
Reduce reserve to 70 hrs (3 million)
Eliminate lineholder guarantee (4 million)
VACATION
Create vacation bank with 2:45 per day accrual (32 million)
Eliminate pre-vacation 48 (11 million)
Cap vacation at 5 weeks (8 million)
Eliminate all holiday premiums (3 days) (5 million)
CREW REST/SCHEDULING
Change layover rest to FAA minimums (19 million)
Eliminate duty aloft with 13/15 on duty and no time restrictions (8
million)
Eliminate Availability system (1 million)
SICK PAY
Change sick pay rate from trips missed to 4:00 regular/ 3:00
reserve (21 million)
Reduce sick accrual to 3hrs/ month and eliminate rapid reaccrual (10
million)
Eliminate salary continuance (7 million)
OTHER
Expand FA cabin cleaning (2 million)
Eliminate Incentive pay (18 million)
Eliminate International Pay scale (10 million)
Reduce premium pay (MOD Purser, pay language @ $1.75 (22 million)
Pay language premium to LOD (bid speaker only) (1 million)
Eliminate benefits (except travel) for Overage Leaves (6 million)
Institute minimum quarterly flying requirements (3 million)
Eliminate part-time program (3 million)
Reduce hourly per diem to $1.50 Dom/$1.75 INT (13 million)
Eliminate all crew meals (7 million)
Eliminate EPT training pay up to 12 hrs (1 million)
Eliminate article 6E vacation accrual (4 million)
Modify uniform allowance -18 to 12 pts- reduce Part Time points
and No carry over (2 million)
Reduce furlough pay by 50% (15 million)
Allow non-flying APFA Latin American FA's to fly out of DFW and JFK
(10 million)
Increase schedule max to 85 DOM/ 90 INT (24 million)
Work rules at 100% (363 million)
Salary and variable benefits (14% reductions) (141 million)
BENEFITS
Company standard medical, dental retiree medical and cash balance
pension plan proposal in consensual restructuring. (current defined
benefit pension plan is frozen)
(41 million)
work rules @ 100% (363 million)
Roll-up Adjustment --76 million--
TOTAL TARGET REDUCTION 470 MILLION
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
The basic premise is that yields have fallen dramatically - they fell nearly 40% after 9/11. As the network airlines cut capacity in order to deal with the decreased demand, they drove their unit costs up dramatically. In the meantime, the low cost carriers expanded their networks which further drove down yields. The network carriers have spent this entire past decade driving to get back ahead of the revenue curve.
The reality is that AA has done a pretty good of maintaining revenue during this decade, but they have lagged behind in the past year as industry revenue has increased and other carriers have been able to harvest the benefits of their joint ventures over the Atlantic and their larger networks in Asia where much of the revenue growth has come from. AA will gain a benefit from their joint ventures but they have disadvantages in their key markets relative to the competitors - LHR has just recently opened up to new competition and other carriers have moved into the market with force. In Japan, AA/JL is the 3rd largest alliance. Spain has the best potential for generating revenue premiums.
Bottom line is that AA does have BOTH cost and revenue challenges - but to be fair they are doing more now to correct their situation than they have done in the past several years.
The reality is that AA has done a pretty good of maintaining revenue during this decade, but they have lagged behind in the past year as industry revenue has increased and other carriers have been able to harvest the benefits of their joint ventures over the Atlantic and their larger networks in Asia where much of the revenue growth has come from. AA will gain a benefit from their joint ventures but they have disadvantages in their key markets relative to the competitors - LHR has just recently opened up to new competition and other carriers have moved into the market with force. In Japan, AA/JL is the 3rd largest alliance. Spain has the best potential for generating revenue premiums.
Bottom line is that AA does have BOTH cost and revenue challenges - but to be fair they are doing more now to correct their situation than they have done in the past several years.
jersey777
Veteran
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 627
- Reaction score
- 73
SCARY STUFF!!!!!
I started shaking just reading this. And to think that Delta voted down union representation and "trusts" their company.
That's another thing, the pilots want sympathy for being fatigued, but they don't mention how they commuted from PHX to ORD then do a flight to LHR, then complain they're tired. You don't want to be tired don't travel before you to work. That's what the FAA needs to look at. One other thing AA will give the commuting FA or pilot a A1 pass if they will miss their work trip, but the crew member would have had to been bumped off of 2 flights in order to get the A1 pass. What gets me is that the flight crews complain the most how unfair AA is to them.
Yes I"m jealous that the ground workers don't get the same privileges.
Side note, talked to a laid off UAL pilot working for ANA, he says that a westerner flying 767 for ANA makes about $350K as capt, and FO makes about $150. And a regular ANA Japanese union member makes about $500k as capt. the company work rules are more liberal, they fly 16 hours 2 pilots in cockpit not the 4 we have and they work more hours. Just going by what he said. Of course Japanese executive compensation isn't so much more then the workers pay, compared to US executives pay.
You're a regular genius, it's people like you that ruin things for everybody. Go complain to management - next thing you know everybody is getting chumped because you're a whiner. I know plenty of commuting AMTs and FSCs that would take issue with your selfish idea as well. Commuting is a pain in the a$$, I have first hand experience as I was recently forced to relocate & I am married to a commuting F/A.
Your idea to make the job so miserable that nobody wants to work here is pathetic. I'll take working with expensive, disgruntled employees over a bunch brown nosing, back-stabbers like you seem to be. 😉
It's a shame you can't make an argument for your wife being a commuter without attacking someone for having a opinion other then yours.
Why should AA pay for commuters parking or let other flight crews fly on AA planes for free, then won't give the employees a raise because they can't make a profit? Why should only FA get to non-rev in the jump seats when Jetblue lets all employees ride in the jump seats? Why should only flight crews get to ride on other airlines for free and not other employees? The FA's, and pilots have made special deals for themselves and yet complain about AA.
Let me make myself clear, I'm more jealous then anything and just wish AA extended these privileges to all Employees not just flight crews. Except letting other airline crews (when commuting or traveling for leisure) ride on our planes for free, I don't see how that helps AA as a whole.
Duke787,
The pilot contract addresses employee parking fees. It's part of the contract, we paid for it. I don't know where you get the idea that commuters get an extra parking pass. AA pilots get their parking pass paid for at their base or the commuter city of their choice, only one, not both. AA probably saves money with paid parking at a small outlying city instead of paying for one at MIA/ORD/JFK/LAX.
As for the jumpseats, that is a professional courtesy and custom going back for most of the history of the airlines that was bought and paid for with pilot negotiating capital. I would personally like the option to carry FA's, Mechs and other airline personnel at our discretion when the seat is not used, and with total control regarding approval of the rider. There is also the perception that a very small minority of the FA group will use their cockpit privileges to rat out for the pilots for porcedure violations. There is one in particular who did this and set back any movement on FA cockpit jumpseat privileges back 20 years.
You also mentioned ANA 2 pilot crews flying 16 hours vs 4 needed at AA. That is beyond unsafe and criminally negligent. If true, they shouldn't even fly in US airspace like that.
The pilot contract addresses employee parking fees. It's part of the contract, we paid for it. I don't know where you get the idea that commuters get an extra parking pass. AA pilots get their parking pass paid for at their base or the commuter city of their choice, only one, not both. AA probably saves money with paid parking at a small outlying city instead of paying for one at MIA/ORD/JFK/LAX.
As for the jumpseats, that is a professional courtesy and custom going back for most of the history of the airlines that was bought and paid for with pilot negotiating capital. I would personally like the option to carry FA's, Mechs and other airline personnel at our discretion when the seat is not used, and with total control regarding approval of the rider. There is also the perception that a very small minority of the FA group will use their cockpit privileges to rat out for the pilots for porcedure violations. There is one in particular who did this and set back any movement on FA cockpit jumpseat privileges back 20 years.
You also mentioned ANA 2 pilot crews flying 16 hours vs 4 needed at AA. That is beyond unsafe and criminally negligent. If true, they shouldn't even fly in US airspace like that.
Duke,
Where do you get your information on parking passes for commuters? Or, you assume that all commuters get extra parking privileges. They get one company paid parking pass. As far as jump seat authority goes, well it would be nice. Our union was working on that issue 10 years ago - headed up by Don V. Then 911 happened. As far as the reciprocal jump seat agreements go, it is what it is.
The notion of restricting non rev travel to a limited number of passes - bad idea. Crap like that snow balls - next thing you know the company imposes restrictions. Whats next? Pick any privilege you currently enjoy - how about putting even more resrictions on C/Sing, or no more 4 10s, or whatever - you get the point.
What comes around goes around.
Where do you get your information on parking passes for commuters? Or, you assume that all commuters get extra parking privileges. They get one company paid parking pass. As far as jump seat authority goes, well it would be nice. Our union was working on that issue 10 years ago - headed up by Don V. Then 911 happened. As far as the reciprocal jump seat agreements go, it is what it is.
The notion of restricting non rev travel to a limited number of passes - bad idea. Crap like that snow balls - next thing you know the company imposes restrictions. Whats next? Pick any privilege you currently enjoy - how about putting even more resrictions on C/Sing, or no more 4 10s, or whatever - you get the point.
What comes around goes around.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
- Messages
- 7,550
- Reaction score
- 3,731
Maybe the arguement here should be about commuters but not commuters as in people!
Maybe someone in one the unions should split the revenue from American Eagle and American Airlines?
Here is the main quote from the Article that started this thread:
What if revenue from American Eagle RASM is the real problem? What if the commuter Airline is the real problem when calculating RASM percentages? What if American Eagle were sold off and AA only to had to have code sharing agreements to get commuters to the mainline flights instead having to manage and deal with the cost of operating the regional? Dont you think revenue of AMR would look mcuh different then?
Think about it! Most other Legacy Carriers have already sold off their regional airlines. Southwest never has even had to pay or manage one to begin with.
It would appear to me that it is possible that RASM percentages would be much lower when including in such a large percentage of regional airline RASM's. And if we were looking at AA RASM's alone and AA CASM's alone that the picture would be painted with a mcuh different brush.
Is it even possible to break down and split AA/AE cost and revenue ledgers? I doubt that this could be done accurately. American Eagle enjoyes the luxury of AA Marketing, AA Legal, and AA Comupter Systems, and AA HR services. Yet I bet if AE revenue were split out we would find that regional revenue not only lowers the overall bottom line, but the cost is even a negative on the AA side of the bottom line.
Arguements about commuters might be the right target for debate, but I don't think it has anything do with people or employees. Someone sent this thread in a tailspin of a wrong direction.
I am sure the TWU negotiators are right on top of this one but they are just waiting for right chance to spring it....ROFL
Just Sayin....
Maybe someone in one the unions should split the revenue from American Eagle and American Airlines?
Here is the main quote from the Article that started this thread:
What if revenue from American Eagle RASM is the real problem? What if the commuter Airline is the real problem when calculating RASM percentages? What if American Eagle were sold off and AA only to had to have code sharing agreements to get commuters to the mainline flights instead having to manage and deal with the cost of operating the regional? Dont you think revenue of AMR would look mcuh different then?
Think about it! Most other Legacy Carriers have already sold off their regional airlines. Southwest never has even had to pay or manage one to begin with.
It would appear to me that it is possible that RASM percentages would be much lower when including in such a large percentage of regional airline RASM's. And if we were looking at AA RASM's alone and AA CASM's alone that the picture would be painted with a mcuh different brush.
Is it even possible to break down and split AA/AE cost and revenue ledgers? I doubt that this could be done accurately. American Eagle enjoyes the luxury of AA Marketing, AA Legal, and AA Comupter Systems, and AA HR services. Yet I bet if AE revenue were split out we would find that regional revenue not only lowers the overall bottom line, but the cost is even a negative on the AA side of the bottom line.
Arguements about commuters might be the right target for debate, but I don't think it has anything do with people or employees. Someone sent this thread in a tailspin of a wrong direction.
I am sure the TWU negotiators are right on top of this one but they are just waiting for right chance to spring it....ROFL
Just Sayin....
AMR consolidated RASM percentage increases for the third quarter were the same as mainline AA RASM percentage increases. Doesn't matter whether Eagle is included or not: AA lagged the industry in unit revenue percentage increases. "Unit revenue" is the same as RASM.
Here's a quote from September's Eagle Eye to investors:
The management explanation for the past several quarters has been that AA's unit revenue did not decrease as much as other airlines when the recession began, meaning that as other airlines catch up to AA's RASM, their percentage gains will of course be larger than AA's RASM increases. Perfectly reasonable explanation as long as it's true. I haven't got the time nor inclination to pour over the numbers to see if it's true - I'll leave that to the Wall Street analysts who are paid to do that. If Arpey and Co are lying about it, I expect Jamie Baker to call them on it. He's usually pretty good about questioning AA's management.
US Air east is still made up of plenty of wholly-owned regionals and Delta still owns plenty of regional capacity in Comair and perhaps PMNW-owned regionals. United has never owned a regional (AFAIK) and Continental spun off its regional, ExpressJet.
Regionals generally have a much higher RASM as short-haul flights are generally priced much higher per mile than long-haul (generally mainline) flights. Likewise, regional CASM is usually much higher because of the the small number of seats across which to spread the fixed costs. Eagle's RASM is about the highest in the industry according to Bob Herbst of www.airlinefinancials.com and of course so is its CASM, as Eagle pays better than the Mesas or Republics or Skywests.
Yes, it's possible to separate out the costs of Eagle and charge Eagle for its share of overhead, and since AA started paying Eagle a fee-per-departure a few years ago, it's attempted to do that internally with some generalities shared in the SEC filings. AA footnotes the 10-K that Eagle's expenses might be different if it were actually a standalone independent business. But regional revenue is whatever the mainline says it is, whether regionals are wholly-owned or outsourced, since none of the regionals makes pricing decisions when it flies for a mainline legacy.
I've said it before: Owning Eagle looks to me like a winner in that it entitles AA to any profits Eagle generates. When all regional feed is outsourced, the outsourced regional charges the mainline all of its costs (including fuel) and adds to it a negotiable percentage for profit. That's why Republic continues to be profitable - its profits are guaranteed by its mainline partners. By owning Eagle, AA gets total control (never a bad thing) and gets to keep any profits instead of paying a profit percentage to Republic or Mesa or Skywest.
Sure, if Eagle is spun off, maybe its new owners could squeeze down its costs (concessions for Eagle employees) and maybe that cost-savings would make it cheaper for AA even when AA has to guarantee a profit to the new owners. But the price for that would be really disgruntled Eagle employees, leading to higher AA mainline customer dissatisfaction when they fly Eagle plus the loss of control over Eagle.
I'm certain that WT will be along later today to remind us that Delta is #1 (yet again) and that all of the above is nonsense.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,374
Something else to consider with regard to regional flying... it's done on a capacity purchase agreement, and not as a codeshare. Under a capacity purchase agreement, the regional is flying on fee per departure. Certain expense items like fuel and landing fees may also be directly covered by the major as part of the agreement. Each one is a little different. Bottom line is that being wholly owned or independent isn't going to result in a whole lot of cost difference.
If you want to shift this to a true codeshare, then you have to be willing to lose the local revenue that the regional would then have to sell on their own. There are regionals who operate on that model in other countries, and it's not uncommon for them to undercut the major that they codeshare with.
If you want to shift this to a true codeshare, then you have to be willing to lose the local revenue that the regional would then have to sell on their own. There are regionals who operate on that model in other countries, and it's not uncommon for them to undercut the major that they codeshare with.
