I would never suggest our pilots fly over 100 hours just as I would never fly that! (Hard hours as you say). But scheduling our pilots at 80-83 hours instead of 67-75 as alot of lines are, would be beneficial to everyone , I think. I see how you guys bid for fly-throughs, those lines go senior! During Hisep bidding those fly-throughs go first! So I am thinking there are quite a few of you who would not mind the few extra hours.
🌟 Exclusive Amazon Black Friday Deals 2024 🌟
Don’t miss out on the best deals of the season! Shop now 🎁
Jetwire Setting Us Up For Concessions?
- Thread starter Skymess
- Start date
Mach85ER said:
Why?
As long as you dont live near an airport where they land and take off whats the risk? At altitude its usually on autopilot, all the cockpit crew does is monitor and unless there is traffic there isnt much going on up there, if anything the FAs work much harder serving the passengers during the flight.
That said, I still want a well rested, well paid guy landing the plane. Maybe you guys need to change your pay to hours on the job and not just flying. To everyone outside the industry when they hear pilots complain about having to work 85hrs/month and they top out well into the six figures it does not win them much sympathy. Same goes for the FAs. Especially since a lot of mechanics and other workers work that in a week between their two or more jobs.
If you lowered the hourly rate-thus looking like a concession, but demanded to be paid for all hours on the job, from when you check into ops till you leave the airport your hourly number could easily double, especially if you fly multiple short hops. Then people could see that sometimes that 5 hours of flying time took 16 hours to make.
As your leaders embrace change maybe thats something you need to look into. When you guys are doing your preflight and the FAs are preparing the cabin, when sitting on the gate because of a delay, when the people are getting off, you should be paid. Instead of coming to work dressed, have them provide locker rooms so that you go in, change, then go through the hassle of security on the airlines time, not yours. With the increasing amount of delays we see it makes sense.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #19
If you lowered the hourly rate-thus looking like a concession, but demanded to be paid for all hours on the job, from when you check into ops till you leave the airport your hourly number could easily double, especially if you fly multiple short hops. Then people could see that sometimes that 5 hours of flying time took 16 hours to make.
BOB, I've been saying just that for years. The Railway labor act needs to be abolished. If I sign in at 7 and don't start pay until 11am I should be paid at least minimum wage and not nothing.
The stupid FA unions should be more concerned about that rather than boycotting a stupid ficticious movie about flight attendants.
Well, I will check again but last I saw, we are still below UA and DL even with their new paycuts. I make approximately 42 a flight hour regular and 45 incentive (after 70 hours). at 12 years (internatonal payscale). I think on our website somewhere there is a comparison, I will look for it and get back. Even though they make more it isn't substantialy more, well it depends whom you ask. Maybe 5% more? If anyone can confirm this, please post it.
WallStreet
Newbie
- Oct 2, 2005
- 4
- 0
AAStew said:
An increse in the pilot's line value from say 75 to 89 hours would be an increase of productivity approaching 20%. While it sounds nice it won't happen without a fight as this would put a LOT more pilots on the street.
Could it happen? Sure, but not without some pound of flesh out of management's hide. I think we'll begin to get some idea in the next 6 months.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
WallStreet said:
Since when does protecting jobs become number one?
There is a glut of seats.
There is a capacity problem.
There must be downsizing in some fashion.
And jobs will be eliminated or an early retirement plan must emerge.
Otherwise, you will place EVERYONE'S job in jeopardy trying to to protect those that might be RIF'd or retired.
What part of this problem dont you understand?
WallStreet
Newbie
- Oct 2, 2005
- 4
- 0
TWU informer said:
Oh I understand the problem very well. All I'm trying to point out is that you or anyone shouldn't expect APA to rollover and offer up 1200-1500 jobs without getting something in return. I think you'd expect the same of any union leadership when these things will inevitably happen.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
SKY HIGH said:
Yeah, the management faithful on this board want everyone else to shut down and AA to grow.
If they keep their current path, it may be the other way around!
So what should AA do? Shrink? Lets look at that for a moment.
Say AA shrinks by 50%
AA would lose all the revenue on those flights, assuming that they are the poorest performing flights, lets assume that AA loses only 40% of its revenue.
AA would be able to raise fares slightly, because of reduced capacity, but given that we still compete with other airlines on most of the routes left over, lets be generous and say fares can go up by 15%.
Considering AA connects a lot of passengers and our best customers are business travellers that don't like sitting around the airport. AA will lose additional revenue because connection times will be too long, due to reduced frequency and now that AA is half the size, our frequent flyer program is not as valuable. Reducing revenue by 20%.
So where are we .6 * 1.15 * .8 = 55% of previous revenue
On the cost side.
You now have to lay off a ton of people. Since most of these people are unionized, AA would lay off the least senior people. Reducing your work force by 50%, but not reducing your costs by 50%, because you've laid off all of your cheap labor and kept the most expensive.
You still have a massive amount of debt that you're trying to pay off, but now you have 45% less revenue to do it with. Good move!
You still have retiree healthy care coverage that you're paying for, that cost hasn't gone down.
AA's pension payment requirements aren't going to decrease by 50%.
AA still has lease commitments that aren't going to go away immediately.
You back office costs don't decrease by 50%.
You still have huge capital investments that are going to be terribly underutilized, like maintenance bases and terminals. Same cost, less revenue to support them.
In case you've missed it, the point is that shrinking the airline is a terrible idea, that just makes the loses worse and makes it even more difficult to get back to profitability.
TWU informer
Veteran
- Nov 4, 2003
- 7,550
- 3,731
Oneflyer said:
So quit screwing labor into the ground because you do not want to shrink the airline and decrease supply. WHo said you have to layoff to reduce heads? Ever heard of an early out package to get folks to leave from the top? Get the government to fund an early out instead taking over the pensions, that will save both sides money.
Most supply and demand industries can get more revenue when demand is greater than supply. You on the other hand, want to increase supply, which will decrease revenue, and subsidize this backwoods thinking with employee concessions and Government subisidies.
You do not even begin to factor in an honest increase revenue potential due to lack of available supply in your analysis. You assume that there is only a 15% increase in revenue due to loss of supply. What if you assume the increase is 35%? DO you honestly believe that a 50% reduction in AA's size only commands a 15% increase in revenue? I think you are nuts! What about the BK Airlines already shrinking supply, is there a value to that for the industry also? How does the "poorest performing flights" cause more problems? AA is operating at a loss right? SO eliminating those poor performing flights cuts losses not revenue. Unless of course there is some "cooking of the books" going on there is positive revenue on every flight, but somehow a loss is actually shown. Losing revenue that cost more to produce than you get in return cannot be counted as a problem in any business.
Just look at fuel for example, prices and profits are high why? Due to lack of available supply. Now if OPEC would increase/grow supply, the prices would come down, but would profits increase?
Instead, you want to either claim revenue will not increase if there becomes a supply deficit, or you live in a bubble that wants to compete with a bus ride in price, and you want labor and big Government to fund the cheap ticket. This my friend is NOT capitalism you speak of, it is socialism through and through.
I think flight is a premium service due more than a bus ride.
You sound as though you have no intention of raising ticket prices, instead you want to flood the market with more seats, so that your average CASM lowers. Explain to me how this increases profits. Your revenue will just decrease along with your average CASM reduction.
If the taxpayer/passenger could factor in the tax liability they owe due to government handouts, and add that to the price of their "low cost" ticket, they would likely find, leaving government out of it, and paying more for a ticket would be better for them as individuals and better for our country as a whole.
By the way, reading your post makes a great case for filing Bankruptcy, not growing the airline.
Maybe you could file Bankruptcy and at the same time convince the Judge you need to grow your airline to return to profitable status. :down:
Once again, you are confusing AA capacity with INDUSTRY capacity. If AA reduces capacity it is just going to be backfilled by some other airline, so I think a 15% increase is very reasonable, even if you raise it 20 or 25 percent the same logic applies, you can't cut your costs enough to justify the cut in revenue.
Early out packages cost money, the expense to offer the package is probably the same as keeping them on, otherwise I'm sure the company would have already done it.
Your point is well taken about OPEC and in that situation I agree with you. The situation is not comparable. To make it comparable, you have to look at AA as one, non-OPEC oil producing country. The comparison has to be to a non-OPEC country because what OPEC tries to do in the oil market is illegal for companies to do in the United Staes, its called collusion. Lets say Mexico, since they don't dictate price, it is always better for Mexico to produce as much as they are capable to produce given their current assets, because no matter how much they produce they can not effect the price.
Another point is that if AA, maximzes its own flying it continues to put more pressure on the other airlines, which ideally forces them out of business, eventually. Reducing capacity just allows other airlines further entrance into our markets.
