Good Morning Coffee Question For You...
- Thread starter daybeforecommuter
- Start date
Well said Rico...
As for the question, if I were starting an airline tomorrow... I would offer jetBlue/America West wages (which I presume would be similar to Frontier and AirTran and ATA too)... + Productivity Bonuses.
Why? Because those appear to be the "market" wages.
Productivity bonuses would be set by department and depend on their area of influence. For example, pilots, FA's, dispatchers, etc, would get bonuses based on on time performance... Airport CSRs, rampers would be based on OTP + complaints. Res would be based on complaints + hold times. Internet folks would be based on % of internet sales. Senior management based on profitability + stock price... Mechanics would be based on completion factor and On Time Flights, ect.
As for the question, if I were starting an airline tomorrow... I would offer jetBlue/America West wages (which I presume would be similar to Frontier and AirTran and ATA too)... + Productivity Bonuses.
Why? Because those appear to be the "market" wages.
Productivity bonuses would be set by department and depend on their area of influence. For example, pilots, FA's, dispatchers, etc, would get bonuses based on on time performance... Airport CSRs, rampers would be based on OTP + complaints. Res would be based on complaints + hold times. Internet folks would be based on % of internet sales. Senior management based on profitability + stock price... Mechanics would be based on completion factor and On Time Flights, ect.
No, I am saying "please post some inane fluff to distract people from the point I am trying to make"
So thanks for getting that out of the way there Tiger, now lets get back to the discussion, shall we...?
700UW asked "Why can WN pay more".
I just pointed out the main reason is that they make do with fewer workers.
If you need me to further state the obvious, WN is far more successful than "any other airline" at generating profit.
Duh :huh:
High Iron
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 495
- 0
Wow, this sophistry needs dissection;
Well, flaw or otherwise, the simple matter is that it takes fewer employees at SWA to produce more or less the same product, hence they can pay a higher wage to those fewer employees and remain cost competitive.
"Flaw or otherwise"!!!??? You're then leaving open the possibility that that your original statement was flawed ( in this case, oversimplified...another word for distorting ) but then bring the argument back around into circular logic by simply stating the same original oversimplification. That oversimplification WAS flawed, for the reasons given by other posters. You nodded your head as to acknowledge it, but did not apply it.
Now, we can talk all day about the fact that SWA does this or does that, but it is just talk . All we can actaully do is adjust our own operation as much as possible to match their level of productivity
Well well. What a vague oversimplification. There's a h-lluva lot of differences in WN's business model that cannot be pushed aside as "does this or does that". "Adjust our own operation as much as possible to match their level of productivity" means exactly what?...beyond the broad spin. Slash employees, and employee compensation, morph mainline into express, to offset an inefficient plan?
Thing is, that you cannot have it both ways and expect to remain competitive. 700UW was defending some kind of "Paid Rest" crap the other night as a contractually sancitoned affair...
Paid Rest...?
Stuff like that has to go if we are to remain competitive. But I hear people slam management alone for not running a tight ship, while at the same time defending wasteful featherbedding like "paid rest" being a contractual right (God forbid they look at themselves to blame)
You're obviously unfamiliar with the actual meaning of the term and how and when it applies....or maybe not, and are using as a shock word to granstand for laymen.
It does not often get used, and it's only pro-rated for the amount of hours that an employee is on the clock beyond 2 consecutive shifts. It's not uncommon throughout the industry ( I wouldn't be surprised if WN has it ) and even an LCC in another ( Pre-US ) airline life had the proviso.
You have to make a choice, have a lot of low payed people doing the job, or a fewer amount of people making a higher wage doing the same work. Economic reality will no longer allow you to get away with anything else, face it.
...And the same ol' same ol' of focusing on "labor costs" in isolation will fail regardless. Inefficient and high compensation, and inefficient and low compensation will fail. Inefficient is inefficient.
Well, flaw or otherwise, the simple matter is that it takes fewer employees at SWA to produce more or less the same product, hence they can pay a higher wage to those fewer employees and remain cost competitive.
"Flaw or otherwise"!!!??? You're then leaving open the possibility that that your original statement was flawed ( in this case, oversimplified...another word for distorting ) but then bring the argument back around into circular logic by simply stating the same original oversimplification. That oversimplification WAS flawed, for the reasons given by other posters. You nodded your head as to acknowledge it, but did not apply it.
Now, we can talk all day about the fact that SWA does this or does that, but it is just talk . All we can actaully do is adjust our own operation as much as possible to match their level of productivity
Well well. What a vague oversimplification. There's a h-lluva lot of differences in WN's business model that cannot be pushed aside as "does this or does that". "Adjust our own operation as much as possible to match their level of productivity" means exactly what?...beyond the broad spin. Slash employees, and employee compensation, morph mainline into express, to offset an inefficient plan?
Thing is, that you cannot have it both ways and expect to remain competitive. 700UW was defending some kind of "Paid Rest" crap the other night as a contractually sancitoned affair...
Paid Rest...?
Stuff like that has to go if we are to remain competitive. But I hear people slam management alone for not running a tight ship, while at the same time defending wasteful featherbedding like "paid rest" being a contractual right (God forbid they look at themselves to blame)
You're obviously unfamiliar with the actual meaning of the term and how and when it applies....or maybe not, and are using as a shock word to granstand for laymen.
It does not often get used, and it's only pro-rated for the amount of hours that an employee is on the clock beyond 2 consecutive shifts. It's not uncommon throughout the industry ( I wouldn't be surprised if WN has it ) and even an LCC in another ( Pre-US ) airline life had the proviso.
You have to make a choice, have a lot of low payed people doing the job, or a fewer amount of people making a higher wage doing the same work. Economic reality will no longer allow you to get away with anything else, face it.
...And the same ol' same ol' of focusing on "labor costs" in isolation will fail regardless. Inefficient and high compensation, and inefficient and low compensation will fail. Inefficient is inefficient.
Blah blah blah...
700UW asked why WN is able to pay higher wages, and I answered.
Your "dissection" does no such thing.
It is simple reality that WN needs, and thus has fewer people to produce more or less the same product.
It is simple economic principle that a more productive business can afford to pay the workers better.
Is there something wrong with the logic of either of the above statements...?
Like I said, lots of low payed people, or fewer high payed people. Only one of those will work...
Dissect that.
700UW asked why WN is able to pay higher wages, and I answered.
Your "dissection" does no such thing.
It is simple reality that WN needs, and thus has fewer people to produce more or less the same product.
It is simple economic principle that a more productive business can afford to pay the workers better.
Is there something wrong with the logic of either of the above statements...?
Like I said, lots of low payed people, or fewer high payed people. Only one of those will work...
Dissect that.
High Iron
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 495
- 0
Well Blah blah all you like ( you do it so well ) but even here you're spinning this...and yes, when someone spins....I dissect.
WN pays higher wages because of a successful business model and excellent corporate culture. This business model is inherently ( more ) efficient and thus wrings maximum productivity from it's employees.
Ignore the crux of the issue if you like ( need to ), but subsidizing a poor business plan with more labor cuts will only prolong the situation ( at best ).
I said, lots of low payed people, or fewer high payed people. Only one of those will work
No, they may all work, or not work depending on the external circumstances. In the case of WN, fewer high payed employees work. In the case of US, fewer lower payed ones won't.
WN pays higher wages because of a successful business model and excellent corporate culture. This business model is inherently ( more ) efficient and thus wrings maximum productivity from it's employees.
Ignore the crux of the issue if you like ( need to ), but subsidizing a poor business plan with more labor cuts will only prolong the situation ( at best ).
I said, lots of low payed people, or fewer high payed people. Only one of those will work
No, they may all work, or not work depending on the external circumstances. In the case of WN, fewer high payed employees work. In the case of US, fewer lower payed ones won't.
How am I spinning anything? I am just getting back to my point.
I am not wrong. SWA HAS fewer workers per plane, WN DOES produce the same product (more or less) as we do.
Thus WN can afford to pay better. What is so hard to understand about that...?
700UW was the one that brought up WN as an example of an LCC paying well. Fine, but you have to realize that when you talk about the SWA model, it involves having fewer people around.
You cannot have it both ways. If you want to work at a more lean and competitive company, then that will mean this company will need a lot fewer workers. But to expect to have your "Cake" (expensive pay/rules), and still be able to eat it (excessive employees) too is unrealistic.
I do hope that some day that we can sustain profits enough to match or exceed WN's pay scale.
But today is not that day. Is it...?
Just curious High Iron, are you willing to accept new work rules that would allow a leaner operation to exist, at the cost of further layoffs...?
Or are you all talk...?
Oops, you got some cake frosting on the side of your cheek you might want to wipe off.
I am not wrong. SWA HAS fewer workers per plane, WN DOES produce the same product (more or less) as we do.
Thus WN can afford to pay better. What is so hard to understand about that...?
700UW was the one that brought up WN as an example of an LCC paying well. Fine, but you have to realize that when you talk about the SWA model, it involves having fewer people around.
You cannot have it both ways. If you want to work at a more lean and competitive company, then that will mean this company will need a lot fewer workers. But to expect to have your "Cake" (expensive pay/rules), and still be able to eat it (excessive employees) too is unrealistic.
I do hope that some day that we can sustain profits enough to match or exceed WN's pay scale.
But today is not that day. Is it...?
Just curious High Iron, are you willing to accept new work rules that would allow a leaner operation to exist, at the cost of further layoffs...?
Or are you all talk...?
Oops, you got some cake frosting on the side of your cheek you might want to wipe off.
Light Years
Veteran
- Aug 27, 2002
- 2,878
- 0
Southwest and US Airways are two completely different things- the light rail and the steam locomotive.
If US Airways parked every aircraft but the 737, stopped hubbing, discontinued service to all international points and all of the smaller cities (so the whole network really), and only flew point to point between the top few cities, then you can compare.
If you want 80 people an aircraft, you cant have widebodies. If you want 20 minute turns, you cant have first class. If you want lower costs, you cant have Clubs, interline agreements, alliances, or such a complex and comprehensive FF program.
US Airways is A NETWORK carrier, with a redundant network, at least two fleet types for every mission, short haul routes, a million non-interchangeable express carriers, poor product due to understaffing, a beaten down and unappreciated workforce, overpaid management, and an overcomplicated, ridiculous pricing system.
Those are what makes US Airways not a low cost carrier. Fundamentally, network carriers are different than LCCs, and US still is one and plans to be- whether or not they use buzzwords like "hybrid" or not. They can be a smarter one like America West, but they will never have the inherent low costs of a Southwest or JetBlue no matter the labor contracts are, if they stick to thier current model. You simply cannot compare the two.
Could they radically transform it into a real, full blown LCC? Yeah, but who needs another one? Whats needed is a good network on the east coast, a good Carribbean/LatAm/Europe network connecting smaller cities to the larger Star Alliance, and offering a slighly premium product. Does the whole airline need to be more efficient? Absololutely! From the top down! I want to hear about streamlining and resloving the basic operational and fleet stupidities of the airline, and where the whole thing is going. I want to hear about a fair pricing structure that doesnt punish or alienate the customers. I want to hear about a reasonable product, provided by US Airways employees on US Airways equiptment. The contracts can be made more efficient along with the airline, but you wont convince me that Wal-Mart wages are OK for anyone.
As for the original question, well, if you started an airline, it would likely be an LCC and thats how you would operate. But we're talking about a 75 year old network carrier and a management that wants to look like and cost the same as American but have its employees think of themselves as low-cost. The airline already has built in costs associated with its basic product- network carrier, and then add on all of the US Airways stupidity on top of it, and you've got a terrible set-up even if everyone worked for free.
If they are going to compare, at least America West comes close to what US Airways looks like. None of the others are like US at all. We dont hear Southwest much now because they pay much better than thier US counterparts now.
Since they are so obsessed with these "not like us" airlines, it amazes me that they dont take the number one reason for success from them- TREAT YOUR PEOPLE WELL. That is a huge part of WN's success. Most network carriers treat thier employees as liabilities, and blame them for problems. At US Airways, they had one of the most experienced and passionate workforces in the industry, that a parade of different "leaders" came in and blamed, threatened, lied to, and smeared thier reputations PUBLICALLY. They have demoralized thier people so much that people are ready for the plug to be pulled on thier once-beloved airline.
Thats what will bring down US Airways, not that they dont turn an A330 around in twenty minutes with three people.
If US Airways parked every aircraft but the 737, stopped hubbing, discontinued service to all international points and all of the smaller cities (so the whole network really), and only flew point to point between the top few cities, then you can compare.
If you want 80 people an aircraft, you cant have widebodies. If you want 20 minute turns, you cant have first class. If you want lower costs, you cant have Clubs, interline agreements, alliances, or such a complex and comprehensive FF program.
US Airways is A NETWORK carrier, with a redundant network, at least two fleet types for every mission, short haul routes, a million non-interchangeable express carriers, poor product due to understaffing, a beaten down and unappreciated workforce, overpaid management, and an overcomplicated, ridiculous pricing system.
Those are what makes US Airways not a low cost carrier. Fundamentally, network carriers are different than LCCs, and US still is one and plans to be- whether or not they use buzzwords like "hybrid" or not. They can be a smarter one like America West, but they will never have the inherent low costs of a Southwest or JetBlue no matter the labor contracts are, if they stick to thier current model. You simply cannot compare the two.
Could they radically transform it into a real, full blown LCC? Yeah, but who needs another one? Whats needed is a good network on the east coast, a good Carribbean/LatAm/Europe network connecting smaller cities to the larger Star Alliance, and offering a slighly premium product. Does the whole airline need to be more efficient? Absololutely! From the top down! I want to hear about streamlining and resloving the basic operational and fleet stupidities of the airline, and where the whole thing is going. I want to hear about a fair pricing structure that doesnt punish or alienate the customers. I want to hear about a reasonable product, provided by US Airways employees on US Airways equiptment. The contracts can be made more efficient along with the airline, but you wont convince me that Wal-Mart wages are OK for anyone.
As for the original question, well, if you started an airline, it would likely be an LCC and thats how you would operate. But we're talking about a 75 year old network carrier and a management that wants to look like and cost the same as American but have its employees think of themselves as low-cost. The airline already has built in costs associated with its basic product- network carrier, and then add on all of the US Airways stupidity on top of it, and you've got a terrible set-up even if everyone worked for free.
If they are going to compare, at least America West comes close to what US Airways looks like. None of the others are like US at all. We dont hear Southwest much now because they pay much better than thier US counterparts now.
Since they are so obsessed with these "not like us" airlines, it amazes me that they dont take the number one reason for success from them- TREAT YOUR PEOPLE WELL. That is a huge part of WN's success. Most network carriers treat thier employees as liabilities, and blame them for problems. At US Airways, they had one of the most experienced and passionate workforces in the industry, that a parade of different "leaders" came in and blamed, threatened, lied to, and smeared thier reputations PUBLICALLY. They have demoralized thier people so much that people are ready for the plug to be pulled on thier once-beloved airline.
Thats what will bring down US Airways, not that they dont turn an A330 around in twenty minutes with three people.
High Iron
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 495
- 0
Here we go ( again )
How am I spinning anything? I am just getting back to my point.
You are spinning the point because you're oversimplifying ( distorting by presenting in too broad a form ) the fact that WN has fewer employees per A/C that this is the reason they are successful...while studiously ignoring they're a different airline with a different business model: Routes, fares, fleet, corporate culture........................................................
I am not wrong. SWA HAS fewer workers per plane, WN DOES produce the same product (more or less) as we do.
Yes you are. WN is NOT the same product as US' ( though the inexorable cheapening of the product via nickle and dime measures doesn't help )
Thus WN can afford to pay better. What is so hard to understand about that...?
It's not hard to understand, but your reasons are specious. They're a different animal.
700UW was the one that brought up WN as an example of an LCC paying well. Fine, but you have to realize that when you talk about the SWA model, it involves having fewer people around
It may, but not fewer in isolation... not as a matter of course, that is. Their business model was created and grew from there...and they ARE growing...while US shrinks. So If US shrinking/furloughs ( as a matter of course ) and yet stays with their etched in granite plan, that's a different story. Still haven't heard much lately about the vaunted 700M in non-labor costs US is going to get around to........
You cannot have it both ways. If you want to work at a more lean and competitive company, then that will mean this company will need a lot fewer workers. But to expect to have your "Cake" (expensive pay/rules), and still be able to eat it (excessive employees) too is unrealistic
Nor can the management at US have it both ways; Legacy/LCC "hybrid"; Yet that's what they're bound and detirmined to do. At least if they knew how to run an airline the lower employee-to-A/C ratio could be offset by growth. Aint gonna happen here with the sultans of squander at the helm. BTW, what expensive pay, and what expensive rules?
I do hope that some day that we can sustain profits enough to match or exceed WN's pay scale
You know that's not going to happen. They're going to milk this cow and come fund ops on perpetual employee concessions till they shoot it or sell it. Their present plan has produced negative results despite two previous money grabs along with thousands of employees kicked through the unemployment goalposts.
But today is not that day. Is it...?
Clearly. ( nor is tomorrow as long as fort fumble runs with the ball )
Just curious High Iron, are you willing to accept new work rules that would allow a leaner operation to exist, at the cost of further layoffs...?
What work rules? And why are you so sure it would result in lay-offs? Does WN get their outsourced work done gratis? How much do they pay? What are the relative trends?...especially given fleet size. At the rate things are going WN will do more heavy maint then US.
Or are you all talk...?
So, I would be hyppocritical not to throw myself under a bus to save your hide, but you would not be. Right. ( heaven knows, there's no need for you to change ) Being as decimated as the maint dept is, I'd take my chances with competent and management and a positive corporate culture. The future looks brighter then. So, no.
Oops, you got some cake frosting on the side of your cheek you might want to wipe off
Pffft! The faux bravado/swagger is quite transparent I can tell you. I've got a good memeory and reading your posts over the last few months or so display a fear and panic...desperation even. You are certainly not above distorting truths, if not outright falsehoods ( even exclaiming some are demanding raises through all of this ) and you have been debunked plenty of times. A certain poster highly regarded by everyone ( except the black-hatters ) whose handle has an A/C mfgr, and who you seem to hold in high regard has offered great counter arguments to your basic give-away stance. Many others have as well. Maybe it's a pilot thing?
I cannot fault you for being fearful or resentful of an impending end to your livelyhood ( and who isn't at least one of the two? ) but many have been around the block and have seen the same ol' same ol'. You would do better to blame the hidebound corporate culture for upsetting your suburban Atlanta idyll, then those who have suffered the effects of same.
How am I spinning anything? I am just getting back to my point.
You are spinning the point because you're oversimplifying ( distorting by presenting in too broad a form ) the fact that WN has fewer employees per A/C that this is the reason they are successful...while studiously ignoring they're a different airline with a different business model: Routes, fares, fleet, corporate culture........................................................
I am not wrong. SWA HAS fewer workers per plane, WN DOES produce the same product (more or less) as we do.
Yes you are. WN is NOT the same product as US' ( though the inexorable cheapening of the product via nickle and dime measures doesn't help )
Thus WN can afford to pay better. What is so hard to understand about that...?
It's not hard to understand, but your reasons are specious. They're a different animal.
700UW was the one that brought up WN as an example of an LCC paying well. Fine, but you have to realize that when you talk about the SWA model, it involves having fewer people around
It may, but not fewer in isolation... not as a matter of course, that is. Their business model was created and grew from there...and they ARE growing...while US shrinks. So If US shrinking/furloughs ( as a matter of course ) and yet stays with their etched in granite plan, that's a different story. Still haven't heard much lately about the vaunted 700M in non-labor costs US is going to get around to........
You cannot have it both ways. If you want to work at a more lean and competitive company, then that will mean this company will need a lot fewer workers. But to expect to have your "Cake" (expensive pay/rules), and still be able to eat it (excessive employees) too is unrealistic
Nor can the management at US have it both ways; Legacy/LCC "hybrid"; Yet that's what they're bound and detirmined to do. At least if they knew how to run an airline the lower employee-to-A/C ratio could be offset by growth. Aint gonna happen here with the sultans of squander at the helm. BTW, what expensive pay, and what expensive rules?
I do hope that some day that we can sustain profits enough to match or exceed WN's pay scale
You know that's not going to happen. They're going to milk this cow and come fund ops on perpetual employee concessions till they shoot it or sell it. Their present plan has produced negative results despite two previous money grabs along with thousands of employees kicked through the unemployment goalposts.
But today is not that day. Is it...?
Clearly. ( nor is tomorrow as long as fort fumble runs with the ball )
Just curious High Iron, are you willing to accept new work rules that would allow a leaner operation to exist, at the cost of further layoffs...?
What work rules? And why are you so sure it would result in lay-offs? Does WN get their outsourced work done gratis? How much do they pay? What are the relative trends?...especially given fleet size. At the rate things are going WN will do more heavy maint then US.
Or are you all talk...?
So, I would be hyppocritical not to throw myself under a bus to save your hide, but you would not be. Right. ( heaven knows, there's no need for you to change ) Being as decimated as the maint dept is, I'd take my chances with competent and management and a positive corporate culture. The future looks brighter then. So, no.
Oops, you got some cake frosting on the side of your cheek you might want to wipe off
Pffft! The faux bravado/swagger is quite transparent I can tell you. I've got a good memeory and reading your posts over the last few months or so display a fear and panic...desperation even. You are certainly not above distorting truths, if not outright falsehoods ( even exclaiming some are demanding raises through all of this ) and you have been debunked plenty of times. A certain poster highly regarded by everyone ( except the black-hatters ) whose handle has an A/C mfgr, and who you seem to hold in high regard has offered great counter arguments to your basic give-away stance. Many others have as well. Maybe it's a pilot thing?
I cannot fault you for being fearful or resentful of an impending end to your livelyhood ( and who isn't at least one of the two? ) but many have been around the block and have seen the same ol' same ol'. You would do better to blame the hidebound corporate culture for upsetting your suburban Atlanta idyll, then those who have suffered the effects of same.
If the company's best solution to the problem is to lower our pay and benefits to that of a new hire at an LCC and to also negatively adjust our seniority and to implement massive layoffs then why should we(I) not be happier and better off starting over at a proven and successful competitor who will fill at least the local void?
Obviously WN is not the same company, so for 700UW to spout off about them having high wages, implying that Airways can still afford to pay the same and become a lower cost carrier is bunk.
700UW's simplistic sound bite-ish rhetorical question was only meant to confuse people into thinking that they too can still expect high wages within a low cost structure.
And that is what my argument was about.
WN has a very efficent business model, that requires fewer employees, yet produces ample revenue ---> thus the ability to pay high wages.
Airways does not. End of argument.
It was a dumb example for 700UW to bring up, and that is that.
Product wise, sorry to say it. There is not much of a difference to the average consumer anymore. Certainly not enough to charge an ample premium over what SWA charges, is there...? And product wise, there is not enough of a revenue premium to pay you your high wages and benefits right now.
Not if we wish to remain alive.
Someday we might exploit our position to return to a steady revenue stream, but we are far from that right now. Until we make some changes to get there, and cuts to survive,
No Duh we are the ones coming up with the money to save the company, where else is it supposed to come from this late in the game? If you are unwilling to invest in saving your own job, why would any businessman want to do the same?
Thus we make the cuts to survive, or we die. Where is the wiggle room in that equation..?
Cuts = less pay, cuts = softer work rules, cuts = more layoffs. Cuts = Survival.
The problem is the large number of people unwilling to allow that to happen yet. They see no reason to personally give if there is still a possibility that another work group might give for em... <_<
They claim it is for "lack of a decent business plan". They point the fingers at management.. Yeah, right.
I just get tired of listening to people spout off from the supposed moral "high ground" about how unjust, or corrupt, or whatever reason they do not "deserve" any cuts...
Like any of this has anything to do with "deserve". This is business, we (as labor and as a company) got pushed into this position ,and now we (as labor) must pay to get out of it, Period.
We are where we are, Airways is Airways, not SWA. We deal with our situation or we die. Just Cold Hard Reality.
Remember, you are free, even encouraged to leave if that reality is too much for you to handle. It is a job, not jail.
700UW's simplistic sound bite-ish rhetorical question was only meant to confuse people into thinking that they too can still expect high wages within a low cost structure.
And that is what my argument was about.
WN has a very efficent business model, that requires fewer employees, yet produces ample revenue ---> thus the ability to pay high wages.
Airways does not. End of argument.
It was a dumb example for 700UW to bring up, and that is that.
Product wise, sorry to say it. There is not much of a difference to the average consumer anymore. Certainly not enough to charge an ample premium over what SWA charges, is there...? And product wise, there is not enough of a revenue premium to pay you your high wages and benefits right now.
Not if we wish to remain alive.
Someday we might exploit our position to return to a steady revenue stream, but we are far from that right now. Until we make some changes to get there, and cuts to survive,
No Duh we are the ones coming up with the money to save the company, where else is it supposed to come from this late in the game? If you are unwilling to invest in saving your own job, why would any businessman want to do the same?
Thus we make the cuts to survive, or we die. Where is the wiggle room in that equation..?
Cuts = less pay, cuts = softer work rules, cuts = more layoffs. Cuts = Survival.
The problem is the large number of people unwilling to allow that to happen yet. They see no reason to personally give if there is still a possibility that another work group might give for em... <_<
They claim it is for "lack of a decent business plan". They point the fingers at management.. Yeah, right.
I just get tired of listening to people spout off from the supposed moral "high ground" about how unjust, or corrupt, or whatever reason they do not "deserve" any cuts...
Like any of this has anything to do with "deserve". This is business, we (as labor and as a company) got pushed into this position ,and now we (as labor) must pay to get out of it, Period.
We are where we are, Airways is Airways, not SWA. We deal with our situation or we die. Just Cold Hard Reality.
Remember, you are free, even encouraged to leave if that reality is too much for you to handle. It is a job, not jail.
High Iron
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 495
- 0
There's no getting through the dellusion then.
Thesis statement:
You believe the present management can turn it around with just one more round of concessions and furloughs ( and even have the temerity to fault said employees for their scepticism ) and most don't.
This goose is cooked, concessions or no. It's over. Pick up and move on. Anybody in their right mind has had a "plan B" at least on the back burner. You would do well to do the same. They've put their time in and have every right to retain what they have till the end.
Harder, colder reality yet.
Thesis statement:
You believe the present management can turn it around with just one more round of concessions and furloughs ( and even have the temerity to fault said employees for their scepticism ) and most don't.
This goose is cooked, concessions or no. It's over. Pick up and move on. Anybody in their right mind has had a "plan B" at least on the back burner. You would do well to do the same. They've put their time in and have every right to retain what they have till the end.
Harder, colder reality yet.
