Is it POSSIBLE........

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

All of us(from time to time) have sought answers to questions, only to realize that the answer was "right under our nose's", all the time.

Case in point.

Just a short while ago(today), I responded to a question on the US board, posed by Travelpro72. (In so many words)..TP72 said.."I dont get it. If an approved US/DL means having to give up flights/gates(overlap) to satisfy the FEDS(anticompetativeness), then when we give up gates in places like PHL/DCA, and a low cost carrier moves right in, than what is accomplished" ???

NOW to my question to you all.

Is it possible, that people in "REAL" power WANT USA domestic travel TO BE Low CosT, AND, channel the very few legacy's to(almost exclusive) International service ??

Consider the following, before making up your minds;

(HIGHLY UNUSUAL) Southwest makes known, it would be INTERESTED in acquiring assets, followed by Air Tran.

From American Eagle, to TED, to SONG, and RJ's by EVERYONE(AA/UA/DL/CO/NW and US...the legacy's have gone down this path(a path that they did NOT want to go, but had to)

CRANDALL told us AAers, AND the whole airline world 15 years ago, that AA would fly INTERNATIONAL/Transcons ONLY, than to "chase nickles"(A view that UA/CO/DL/NW NOW seemed to have adopted)

Besides WN and Air Tran, I could EASILY see Jet Blue and Frontier "jumping up" to snag available routes/gates as well.

"Is it POSSIBLE" ????????


NH/BB's

 

[eolesen]

One just has to look at what happened to Pan Am and TWA to see that the notion of flying only domestic or only international is a farce.

Once the "domestic" carriers got international rights, PA and TW lost all the feed traffic they were reliant on. TW survived ten years longer by buying up Ozark, but the mortal damage was already done.

While WN is unlikely to launch widebody service, that's not to say that someone like Jetblue or Airtran won't try. British Midland proved that in the UK market, and there are other examples as well in Asia where the so-called domestic carrier eventually grew into international routes.

 

[Bob Owens]

All of us(from time to time) have sought answers to questions, only to realize that the answer was "right under our nose's", all the time.


NOW to my question to you all.

Is it possible, that people in "REAL" power WANT USA domestic travel TO BE Low CosT, AND, channel the very few legacy's to(almost exclusive) International service ??



"Is it POSSIBLE" ????????
NH/BB's

Back in the Spring of 2001 I attended an IRRA(Industrial Relations Researce Association) Conference in Washington DC. The theme of the conference was airline labor relations. There were many speakers from industry, government, acadamia and labor. The speakers from industry centered around a theme of the "unrealistic expectations" of airline workers. Sue Oliver from AA complained about how they would come to agreements with union leadership(who typically did not have to live under the terms they were agreeing to) only to see the members reject the terms and in some cases replacing the unions that negotiated those terms(IAM @NWA). She went on and on about how the expectations of airline workers, that they could earn a fair wage in exchange for the huge sacrifices that working in the airline industry demanded, were "unrealistic". Her act, in an obviously choreographed manner was followed up by a Bush cabinet member who went on to say how the governments plans were to turn the air transportation industry into basically a private mass transit industry. He repeatedly stated that the industry must provide cheap transportation that provided its owners with profits and that airline workers high wages were an obstruction to those goals and that the government would work to overcome that obstruction by helping to "adjust" wages lower.


I have no doubts that our demise was not accidental or the result of 9-11. Rather 9-11 presented those in power the opportunity to do what they wanted to do in a much more expediant manner.

Who is to balme for this fiasco, this totrally one sided victory for management? Our union leaders are the ones to blame.

It comes as no suprise to any one with half a brain that the industry would want to deprive us of a fair wage, nor should it come as a suprise that the Bush administration would also support those objectives, however we have unions to give us a voice, but, perhaps to nobodys suprise, they failed to do that. Instead they simply rolled over and allowed the employers to rape their members with no resistance whatsoever. Thousands of jobs were eliminated and pay was slashed yet service went on without missing a beat. Management and the enemies of labor couldnt have hoped for a better outcome. They got EVERYTHING they wanted and it cost them nothing. If one wants to find out why this happened, why labor did nothing, all they have to do is go to the DOL website and check the LM-2s of our unions. From there we can see that as most workers lost 25% or more of their compensation, or their job, union leaders generally didnt see any cut in compensation, in fact some saw increases!! Jim Little saw an 8% increase in 2003, the year he signed in AA workers 25% decrease without membership ratification. In fact its obvious that our union leaders were not on the losing side with their members but on the winning side of management. Instead of threatening to resist, unions gave up jobs AND pay and they accepted funding from the companies to thwart any grassroots attempts at resistance.Union leaders picked up the anti-unionist arguement of better a crappy job than no job, resistance is futile, we have no power etc. Basically airline unions became an extension of management that was funded through corporate funds and compulsory dues, a near exact re-emergence of the "company Union". In fact the TWU is now run by a former member of AA management.


The treachery of the TWU continues unabated. In their efforts to swing more support towards their program of increased concessions on top of our continued paycuts through their PLI program they have been sending elected local officers to brainwashing sessions conducted with Boeing and their union. The message they are preaching is that Boeing and their employees were in the same place as AA and their employees are today and that through cooperative efforts they turned Boeing around and all prospered as a result.

The problem with these sessions is that they are built on misrepresentaions and lies. And, like anything built on such a foundation the message collapses when scrutinized and exposed to the factual light of day.

The people running these sessions claimed that Boeing saved jobs and didnt lay anyone off, that was a lie, thousands of jobs were eliminated and many hit the streets.

They also claimed that the workers gave big concessions prior to entering the cooperative "partnership". That was a lie, they were on a pay freeze that had a Cola built in. As it turns out they had a true "pay freeze", it actually froze their buying power, not their pay, the increases that recieved while working under a pay freeze exceeded most TWU increases. For instance during the "pay Freeze" they recieved at least 3% a year increase through the Cola but the Jim Littles "snapback" only gives us 1.5% a year, in other words less than half the COLA.

What they called a pay freeze the TWU markets as "Industry Leading raises". For instance the TWU called the 6% adjustmest that were negotiated over a six year period in 1995 increases when in fact we saw a 12% paycut in real terms. Their 1.5% snapback in the current imposed agreement is less than half the 30year average inflation rate.

So on top of the 25% cut we gave in 2003 we are taking an additional paycut every year that our pay adjustments lag inflation. So our total cut in real pay grows with each year, by the time we get to vote on a new contract it will sit at around anywhere from 30 to 40%. This did not happen to the workers at Boeing.

When this and other facts were brought forth the Boeing reprsentatives admitted "Well in order for this to work the company has to do right by you first". Imagine that, even company representaives have more insight into the AA workers plight and psyche that the TWU.

What AA and the TWU leave out is that Boeing did not seek to humilate and decimate the expectations of their workers. Boeing sought cooperation. They did not rob them of all their disposable income, they did not take away their vacation time, sick time, holiday pay, shift pay, health benifits, pensions and even the cloths off their backs just to show their workers who is the boss. Thy did right by their employees and expected the same in return, together it worked.

AA on the other hand screwed over its workers yet they want the same level of committment that the workers of Boeing gave to their employer. An employer that has been fair to them.

Why shouldnt the workers of AA do the same to AA as AA did to them?

AA is banking on the fact that instead of dumping money into the workforce they can get off cheaper by dumping a comparatively smaller amount of money into the unions, in other words bribing the unions into selling their programs.

 

[eolesen]

Bob, I don't quite see how AA continuing to lose market share and revenue to lower cost providers is a one sided victory for management... It threatens their very reason for existance.

In -every- line of business, there is going to be a competitor who finds a way to win over your customers thru either service or lower price. More often than not, it's price that wins.

This has happened in retail (entirely non-union, by the way), auto manufacturing (heavily union), electronics, and manufacturing (moderately unionized), and airlines (moderately unionized when you consider that 25% of AA, 85% of DL, and most of the LCC's are non-union).

It's also not a new phenomena in the airlines... In the 1980's, you had People Express, Midway, Air Florida, Jet America, and a couple dozen other carriers all expecting to beat the legacies at their own game. Most failed, but two of those carriers still exist today -- PE is largely intact as CO's EWR hub, and Jet America is what put Alaska Airlines firmly into southern California.

The "new" upstarts - Airtran, Jetblue, Spirit, Allegiant, and Frontier - aren't as doe-eyed as their predecessors from 20 years ago. In fact, most of the strategy and planning folks at those carriers came from legacies and know their weaknesses better than you'd think.

So... while you may have valid grievances about the TWU, complaining about them in the context of a grander plan to provide cheap air transport is about as worthwhile of an effort as it was to polish the deck rails on the Titanic as it was sinking further and further into the ocean...

It's a fact that AA is again one of the higher priced producers in the US airline industry. People like me are willing to pay a little more for quality. My company will pay more for it as well, however we, too, have a profit/loss to be concerned about, so if AA continues to be uncompetitive on cost, my business will head elsewhere, and AA will go the way of Pan Am and TWA.

It's also a fact that how AA stays competitive on a profit/loss basis is a matter of keeping income greater than expenses.

You can say the workers aren't responsible for the situation, but quite frankly, YOU are responsible for AA's long term health as much as Gerard Arpey is. Until YOU and other employees start taking ownership of the situation (instead of holding onto decades old grudges against your union leaders and pointing middle fingers at anyone with a management pay grade), you're essentially f***ed.

 

[Oneflyer]

I was going to post a long response, but I know it won't do any good.

The answers to the unionized airline workers plight are staring them in the face, but most seem to look everywhere else for answers. You guys are like Kennedy assasination consperacy theorist, looking for an overly complicated answer when a very direct, simple answer is readily available.

 

[Wretched Wrench]

AA is banking on the fact that instead of dumping money into the workforce they can get off cheaper by dumping a comparatively smaller amount of money into the unions, in other words bribing the unions into selling their programs.

Sweetheart Contracts are an old and venerable labor tradition. They have been around as long as there have been unions. They benefit both company and union.

 

[AMFAMAN]

The answers to the unionized airline workers plight are staring them in the face, but most seem to look everywhere else for answers. You guys are like Kennedy assasination consperacy theorist, looking for an overly complicated answer when a very direct, simple answer is readily available.

Are you implying a complete shutdown of the airline system countrywide, or worldwide for say 48 hours?

 

[Oneflyer]

Are you implying a complete shutdown of the airline system countrywide, or worldwide for say 48 hours?

That would completely blow up in your face.

I was thinking more along the lines of stop acting like a 6 year old that has had their toys taken away.

 

[Hackman]

I was going to post a long response, but I know it won't do any good.

The answers to the unionized airline workers plight are staring them in the face, but most seem to look everywhere else for answers. You guys are like Kennedy assasination consperacy theorist, looking for an overly complicated answer when a very direct, simple answer is readily available.

Your right it wouldn't do any good.

Maybe you could write a response to the upper manAAgement that continues to take huge bonuses and stock options while preaching the very hollow; ""Our labor costs are still too high"

One has to just read any given newspaper one day a week, and on that one day there is guaranteed to be an article on; corporate greed, jail terms for some greedy executive now convict, how the middle class has been eliminated, the huge disparity in the division of wealth, and so on.

Recently I read how the worlds yacht manufacturers are having a hugely profitable, "banner year". Never had more large vessel sales than in 2006 it was said. Most of the orders were from the USA. Now if our economy is in a slump, and corporations are now demanding new low wages, complaints of high health care costs, elimination of defined benefit pensions, or the inability to fully fund them, union busting, and more than enough corporations "crying poor mouth".

Why all the YACHT sales??? :down: :down: :down:

 

[Oneflyer]

Now if our economy is in a slump, and corporations are now demanding new low wages, complaints of high health care costs, elimination of defined benefit pensions, or the inability to fully fund them, union busting, and more than enough corporations "crying poor mouth".

Let's not confuse the airline economy with the economy as a whole. The economy is doing just fine.

Why do always bring up the "rich and greedy" complaint? Why do you even care what options Arpey gets, he's not getting it from you, he's taking from the shareholders. He's certainly not buying a boat with his bonus.

Why don't you address the issue at hand, airline unions? That is your biggest problem, is you try to ignore the real issues unions face, instead you focus on how many yachts are being bought.

 

[Ken MacTiernan]

You can say the workers aren't responsible for the situation, but quite frankly, YOU are responsible for AA's long term health as much as Gerard Arpey is. Until YOU and other employees start taking ownership of the situation (instead of holding onto decades old grudges against your union leaders and pointing middle fingers at anyone with a management pay grade), you're essentially f***ed.


FM,

I would like to disect your "YOU" comment.

I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING SAFE, AIRWORTHY AIRCRAFT. That is what I am to be paid for. It is up to the UNION to FIGHT for that pay. But as Bob factually points out the UNION does NOT fight for that pay to MY benefit.

I would like to take "ownership" of my future but I was foiled by a list of dead people and those NOT in my craft & class. You seem to think I, and others, are "holding" onto decades old grudges. You are wrong. I AM SIMPLY REMEMBERING WHO F***ED ME. There is no middle fingers being pointed at management or the union... only the beam of truth as presented by the facts.

Management pay grade? I could care less how much management pay scales are... except when it comes at MY expense.

Shared sacrifice? Who is sharing? I am providing for AA's long term health by ensuring that I provide the safest aircraft possible. But you see that is kinda hard to do when I am not compensated fairly for that responsibility.

Having a difference of opinion is one thing, but your pro-management style grows tiresome from someone willing to spew a belief NOT founded on facts as they happen while wrapped behind an alias.

 

[ThirdSeatHero]

You can say the workers aren't responsible for the situation, but quite frankly, YOU are responsible for AA's long term health as much as Gerard Arpey is. Until YOU and other employees start taking ownership of the situation (instead of holding onto decades old grudges against your union leaders and pointing middle fingers at anyone with a management pay grade), you're essentially f***ed.
FM,

I would like to disect your "YOU" comment.

I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING SAFE, AIRWORTHY AIRCRAFT. That is what I am to be paid for. It is up to the UNION to FIGHT for that pay. But as Bob factually points out the UNION does NOT fight for that pay to MY benefit.

I would like to take "ownership" of my future but I was foiled by a list of dead people and those NOT in my craft & class. You seem to think I, and others, are "holding" onto decades old grudges. You are wrong. I AM SIMPLY REMEMBERING WHO F***ED ME. There is no middle fingers being pointed at management or the union... only the beam of truth as presented by the facts.

Management pay grade? I could care less how much management pay scales are... except when it comes at MY expense.

Shared sacrifice? Who is sharing? I am providing for AA's long term health by ensuring that I provide the safest aircraft possible. But you see that is kinda hard to do when I am not compensated fairly for that responsibility.

Having a difference of opinion is one thing, but your pro-management style grows tiresome from someone willing to spew a belief NOT founded on facts as they happen while wrapped behind an alias.

Yea, I'd have to say that just about covers it.

Good post Ken.

 

[Oneflyer]

Yea, I'd have to say that just about covers it.

Good post Ken.

Good old Ken, always willing to yell and scream that he's getting screwed, but never willing to change his ways to get his pay back.

 

[Wretched Wrench]

Why do you even care what options Arpey gets, he's not getting it from you.

If I had not had my pay and benefits cut, that might be a reasonable question.

He's certainly not buying a boat with his bonus.

Now what on earth does that have to do with anything?

 

[eolesen]

Uh, Arpey is taking his money from customers.

Pro-management view? Try the view of someone who lives on a real profit/loss basis.

If you union guys spent just a tenth of the time you do circle jerking about corporate greed and how your union sold you out, AMR's troubles would be solved.

Instead of worrying about having a viable employer, you'd rather wind up like those guys I saw on the Eastern picket lines: they had their pride and sent the company a message, but it didn't stop them from having to hover over a burning trash barrel to keep warm as everyone else drove by them on the way to work.

Call it koolaid if it makes you feel better, but if you're not worried about having a job five or ten years from now, you should be. There is no such thing as job security if you aren't making money as a company. Start remembering that once in a while, instead of wrapping yourself in the false security of a union contract.

The economy -is- good, and succesful companies are going to survive. Working together was a catch phrase at UA, but it's also a truth -- if you don't work together with your management, you will die. It's just a matter of when.