How Could The Ramp Be Changed For The Better?
- Thread starter Ramp Rogue
- Start date
Yeah ok, <_<
I never realized how much Utility saves us. We need to hire more and just watch the savings roll in
You all seem pretty witty, or ready to toss stupid examples at me in haste. But you seem to be missing the overall point.
Like I said, I would rather keep Utility fuctions in house.
But I also said that I would only desire that if it could be done as cheaply as outside vendors could accomplish the same task.
Which brings up the point of outsourcing. It is NOT meant to just send your production (lack of a better term) out of house. It is meant to cap wage increases to what can be accomplished cost-wise by an outside vendor.
If you are Sooooooooo sure that it is sooooooo cost effective to keep things the way they are now, and that it is so much more expensive for an outsider to do the same work, then why would you care if the company had the option to outsource. If you are so much cheaper, then it is a non-issue, right?
Or is that not the case, is it possible that it could be done cheaper, hmmmm. :huh:
You can feel free to make fun of me and my jet, laughing about how my wages are so low. But ever think why that is the case...? Because unlike your current situation, my work (flying) CAN be outsourced (if my work group cannot do it for less than outsiders are capable of).
Why..?
Well, so guys like Jim can maintain a little more of their salary. Scope was lessened to remain competitive (internally and externally) at our level of the industry (regional competitiors), and our low wages and rules help subsidize that little bit more of "what was" to remain at Jim's level. That scope reduction allows outsourcing, which caps whatever pay we could demand.
If MDA were to negotiated to make more, then it would mean spending negotiating capital that was used for retain something else for the mainline pilots. That is just the cold hard truth.
Such is the reality Utility now faces, where the Mechanic group IMO no longer feels the need to maintain your salaries at the expense of their own. What they "give" to allow Utility to "keep", draws further away from their own wallets.
So it is up to your union to work it's own issues out, but with only 1000 Utility votes I would not be surprised to see outsourcing come Utility's way. Not because the company wants to outsource, but because that would cap utility down to the price at which they could.
Get it...?
I said it a while back. Welcome to MidAtlantic B)
I never realized how much Utility saves us. We need to hire more and just watch the savings roll in
You all seem pretty witty, or ready to toss stupid examples at me in haste. But you seem to be missing the overall point.
Like I said, I would rather keep Utility fuctions in house.
But I also said that I would only desire that if it could be done as cheaply as outside vendors could accomplish the same task.
Which brings up the point of outsourcing. It is NOT meant to just send your production (lack of a better term) out of house. It is meant to cap wage increases to what can be accomplished cost-wise by an outside vendor.
If you are Sooooooooo sure that it is sooooooo cost effective to keep things the way they are now, and that it is so much more expensive for an outsider to do the same work, then why would you care if the company had the option to outsource. If you are so much cheaper, then it is a non-issue, right?
Or is that not the case, is it possible that it could be done cheaper, hmmmm. :huh:
You can feel free to make fun of me and my jet, laughing about how my wages are so low. But ever think why that is the case...? Because unlike your current situation, my work (flying) CAN be outsourced (if my work group cannot do it for less than outsiders are capable of).
Why..?
Well, so guys like Jim can maintain a little more of their salary. Scope was lessened to remain competitive (internally and externally) at our level of the industry (regional competitiors), and our low wages and rules help subsidize that little bit more of "what was" to remain at Jim's level. That scope reduction allows outsourcing, which caps whatever pay we could demand.
If MDA were to negotiated to make more, then it would mean spending negotiating capital that was used for retain something else for the mainline pilots. That is just the cold hard truth.
Such is the reality Utility now faces, where the Mechanic group IMO no longer feels the need to maintain your salaries at the expense of their own. What they "give" to allow Utility to "keep", draws further away from their own wallets.
So it is up to your union to work it's own issues out, but with only 1000 Utility votes I would not be surprised to see outsourcing come Utility's way. Not because the company wants to outsource, but because that would cap utility down to the price at which they could.
Get it...?
I said it a while back. Welcome to MidAtlantic B)
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #33
Rico,
"I never realized how much Utility saves us. We need to hire more and just watch the savings roll in "
Sarcasm is a poor substitute for just saying you may have been wrong....
I certainly never said that we should be overstaffed anywhere. But by the same token, chasing false savings by outsourcing just to get the "headcount" down isn't the thing to do either.
"You can feel free to make fun of me and my jet, laughing about how my wages are so low."
"Well, so guys like Jim can maintain a little more of their salary."
"our low wages and rules help subsidize that little bit more of "what was" to remain at Jim's level"
Now that's something you can't lay at my feet. Blame the pre-RC4 MEC members that you support so fervently for that, not me. If you've been paying attention, you know that I favor a single senority list approach with all flying done by a single pilot group. I also think what happened to the promised "soft landing" at MDA verges on criminal.
By the way, those last two quotes are exactly what the company wants to achieve - a feeling that this is a zero-sum game. That for one group to gain, another has to lose. It lets them pit us against each other while they sit back and watch each side lose.
Jim
"I never realized how much Utility saves us. We need to hire more and just watch the savings roll in "
Sarcasm is a poor substitute for just saying you may have been wrong....
I certainly never said that we should be overstaffed anywhere. But by the same token, chasing false savings by outsourcing just to get the "headcount" down isn't the thing to do either.
"You can feel free to make fun of me and my jet, laughing about how my wages are so low."
"Well, so guys like Jim can maintain a little more of their salary."
"our low wages and rules help subsidize that little bit more of "what was" to remain at Jim's level"
Now that's something you can't lay at my feet. Blame the pre-RC4 MEC members that you support so fervently for that, not me. If you've been paying attention, you know that I favor a single senority list approach with all flying done by a single pilot group. I also think what happened to the promised "soft landing" at MDA verges on criminal.
By the way, those last two quotes are exactly what the company wants to achieve - a feeling that this is a zero-sum game. That for one group to gain, another has to lose. It lets them pit us against each other while they sit back and watch each side lose.
Jim
UNC HUSKER
Member
- Aug 20, 2002
- 57
- 0
Hire date would be nice but that will not change the way the ramp operates. If and I do say if this company survies this BS. We will be molded in the same way LUV does business. The same way some of us did it prior to USAir.Ramp Rogue said:
We cleaned we deiced, we did everything but work on aircraft. Which the mech group should be payed to do. That in itselef would save the company millions.
But we should also have the engine ,brake , and all the other shops fpr mechs so we could make money contracting this work for other airlines.
We have the best employees in the business that have had no managment for so long that we have all become complaciant in our jobs.
If it ends in two weeks oh well, I will miss it but I have made great freinds meet numerous people and will look back on this time even if it has been hard at times with respect for all my fellow co-workers AS A GREAT TIME!
IF WE DID NOT ENJOY IT WE WOULD NOT BE HERE> GOOD LUCK TO US ALL!
Attachments
real world
Advanced
- Dec 14, 2002
- 103
- 0
There is no war you need to, relax!!!!unit4clt said:
real world
Advanced
- Dec 14, 2002
- 103
- 0
$30 is not is not the rate across the system, we pay significantly less in many other markets and a regular service rate can be negotiated 30 - 40% below our current cost in most markets. Plus the $13 / hour is not a fully loaded hourly rate of a utility employee add another 40% to that for benefits $18.20. Additionally the $30 includes all the ground equipment expense and materials needed to support the function. Therefore your comparison while convenient for your point is not quite apples to apples.700UW said:
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #38
real world said:
And we don't have utility in many of our markets - your point?
If that "30 - 40% below our current cost in most markets" is so easy to negotiate, why hasn't it been done long before now? Didn't someone tell the judge that every corner had been searched for cost savings? Were they fibbing or are you?
Jim
real world
Advanced
- Dec 14, 2002
- 103
- 0
You justed busted Rico for sarcasim, however it is ok for you, why the double standard??BoeingBoy said:
real world
Advanced
- Dec 14, 2002
- 103
- 0
My point is the rate is not $30 across the system it is lower, however EWR the high cost market works well for shock value.BoeingBoy said:
It has been done. They did tell the judge that and it was true, however again EWR is a high cost market.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #41
I'll save space and just use one post....
Not sarcasm, just a look from a different perspective - looking up from the trenches instead of down from the "Crystal Tower".
You're the one who said "a regular service rate can be negotiated 30 - 40% below our current cost in most markets". If that's true, our current rates are too high and all non-labor cost savings haven't been realized (fibbing to the judge). If that's not true, then you're fibbing. Has to be one or the other....
Jim
Not sarcasm, just a look from a different perspective - looking up from the trenches instead of down from the "Crystal Tower".
You're the one who said "a regular service rate can be negotiated 30 - 40% below our current cost in most markets". If that's true, our current rates are too high and all non-labor cost savings haven't been realized (fibbing to the judge). If that's not true, then you're fibbing. Has to be one or the other....
Jim
Justaramper
Advanced
- Dec 15, 2002
- 218
- 0
johnnyfleet..
Assume that U was "going " to offer FS a different senority system, as you have no proof that an offer was ever going to be made.
Senority system was established in 1979, that was 25 years ago...Get over it..
Assume that U was "going " to offer FS a different senority system, as you have no proof that an offer was ever going to be made.
Senority system was established in 1979, that was 25 years ago...Get over it..
real world
Advanced
- Dec 14, 2002
- 103
- 0
I look everyday why do you I think I come on here and try and discuss the issues.BoeingBoy said:
You are obviously not understanding what I am saying. We have options that vary across the system some are very cost effective and others that are less economical. But that is the result of the market and available suppliers and not US Airways failure to negotiate a lower rate. The rates we have are the lowest possible rates available. However also recognize the $13 is not fully loaded and misses a number of elements for comparison that need to be added in to make the comparison fair.
Additionally in small operations with limited flight operations it is cheaper to pay $30 than hiring two shifts 7 days a week of staff plus the ground equipment, maintenance, fuel and supplies even to support a few flights. The economies of scale are just not there.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #45
Yup, you got your post finished before I could say good nite...
Ok, I see what you meant (as opposed to what you said).
Those small stations don't have utility now, at least very few, so that's a strawman.
And I realize that whatever the pay rate is, it's not fully loaded (assuming that means it doesn't include all the other costs of having an employee on the property). That's why I figured in 100% of pay rate for bennies when discussing this with Rico.
What I'm saying is that you don't have to pay an employee that much less than the LCC competition to be competitive - unless you just want your employees to subsidize an inefficient structure that you're either unwilling or unable to change.
Unless the goal is for the employees to subsidize a competitive cost structure so that when the structural changes are made there is a super-competitive cost structure. Then the bonus' can roll in for those at the top while those employees are stuck with long term contracts. Fortunately, it's great how those bonus' and something like dividends on preferred shares (now who owns those?) can be used to minimize profits to keep that profit sharing down.....
Now I am off to bed.
Jim
Ok, I see what you meant (as opposed to what you said).
Those small stations don't have utility now, at least very few, so that's a strawman.
And I realize that whatever the pay rate is, it's not fully loaded (assuming that means it doesn't include all the other costs of having an employee on the property). That's why I figured in 100% of pay rate for bennies when discussing this with Rico.
What I'm saying is that you don't have to pay an employee that much less than the LCC competition to be competitive - unless you just want your employees to subsidize an inefficient structure that you're either unwilling or unable to change.
Unless the goal is for the employees to subsidize a competitive cost structure so that when the structural changes are made there is a super-competitive cost structure. Then the bonus' can roll in for those at the top while those employees are stuck with long term contracts. Fortunately, it's great how those bonus' and something like dividends on preferred shares (now who owns those?) can be used to minimize profits to keep that profit sharing down.....
Now I am off to bed.
Jim
