Looking for an answer

[local 12 proud]

Everytime you use a self-serve checkout you have just eliminated another American job.Wal-Mart wants you to pay them money for doing their job for them.

So don't shop at Walmart, I personally will no set foot in that place for the exact reasons you list. Yet you drive by one any time of day and you will see a vast sea of automobiles covering acres vs. square feet.

 

[ramblingray]

So don't shop at Walmart, I personally will no set foot in that place for the exact reasons you list. Yet you drive by one any time of day and you will see a vast sea of automobiles covering acres vs. square feet.

I agree 100%. They are packed from curb to curb. But why? Most people are stretched so thin that they will do anything to make their money go further. Walmart sometimes provides them with this opportunity. But here again we go back to the same thing. What does Walmart employ, something like a couple hundred thousand people? I dont know the numbers exactly but they are staggering. If everyone is so unhappy there, why dont they just quit? I think there are plenty of 7 or 8 dollar an hour jobs with no benefits out there working anywhere.

The thing that Walmart does is that it extorts cheap foreign and domestic overhead. If you or I owned a company in that line of work, you could not help but to do the same thing. Look at Southwest. Successful. Why? Their Fuel was hedged, employees worked more hours for less money on the average. Lower Overhead. (Don't think they can sustain the hedged fuel costs for long though, then things will even out.)

One last thing I want to make mention of is the following:

What are the airlines to do?

Ticket cost say 200.00

If your expenses are 250, you need to cut. Where can you cut???? Your Airplane Lease Payment stays the same. Insurance payments stay the same or go up. Gate Leases typically rise by what, 3 to 5 Percent each year? Fuel costs are not in anyone's control really. So it comes down to Labor. (And yes to the nay sayers about management, it should take a cut too, but it is the smallest pc. of the equation when compared to the many thousands of employees at an airline)

Either cut labor or raise prices where they should be. But if they do that, low cost airlines will chew you up.

 

[local 12 proud]

Ramblin I agree its a vicious cycle, but where i disagree is with your assumption that Southwest employees work for less money. I have several relatives who work for WN and they are compensated better than most at the legacy Airlines.
Yes they have less work rules and produce with less manpower but they are motivated to do so because they are rewarded by sharing in the success of that company.

Have you ever used a Chinese made tool? sure it was cheap to make and cheap to purchase, but most times it did'nt last long enough to get the desired result. Again we go back to the cliche "you get what you pay for"

regards, Local 12 Proud

 

[Garfield1966]

So don't shop at Walmart, I personally will no set foot in that place for the exact reasons you list. Yet you drive by one any time of day and you will see a vast sea of automobiles covering acres vs. square feet.

Fine, you don’t shop at Wal-Mart. I won’t go there either. That is only 1 grain of sand on a very large beach. Have you gone through your closet and looked at how many products are made in the US? I would venture that you would be hard pressed to find 1 us for every 10 foreign. Is it better to by a Dodge made in Mexico or a Honda made in Georgia?

If you want to survive in this corporate world low labor prices are where it’s at. My guess is SW will have their issues as well at some time in the future. No one last for ever. Pan-Am and Eastern are proof of that.

Everyone says it’s unfair and they don’t like it but no one has come up with a viable alternative. Yes I want my money back but it is not going to happen or if it does, it will be a very very long time. This is the world we live in. SW has a good business plan right now. Someone eventually will find a better mouse trap and the cycle will continue. SW is not AA. We fly internationally, they do not. Their business plan will not work for AA.

If the revenue is not there, the employees cannot get more money. Just be cause you get more money does not mean all is great. US Labor is pricing it’s self out of the market. It’s competition and the free market.

 

[Flying Titan]

Garfield -
So many issues! Let's start with the fact that, at least in the case of NWA, your starting point is wrong on several levels. First, as others have noted, the CEO of NWA doesn't own the Airline. It's a public company.

Second, there is a contract in place already. Why should any employee (or group of employees) be forced to re-negotiate a contract that they and their employer have already signed??? Why shouldn't the employer be forced to live up to his word??? If the employer wants changed in this agreement, why shouldn't he be forced to request these amendments from the other parties to the contract??? (rather than being able to unilateraly impose them - which is what was threatened)

You have made it abundantly clear that you don't care about issues like sweat shops and child labor because they were in the past and this is 2006. Well, make no mistake, if that were the prevailing attitude, then it wouldn't be very long before this less-than-glorious part of our past would come back to haunt us. Those who don't know (or care) about their history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[local 12 proud]

SW is not AA. We fly internationally, they do not. Their business plan will not work for AA.

If the revenue is not there, the employees cannot get more money.

Kinda like this huh?


bizjournals.com
American says Love Field service won't make money
Tuesday February 21, 1:36 pm ET


American Airlines Inc. will compete aggressively with low-cost Southwest Airlines Co. at Dallas Love Field, said an airline executive Monday, adding it's doubtful the legacy carrier will make money flying from its newest airport.
ADVERTISEMENT


American on Monday unveiled to the media the three gates from which the airline will operate at Love Field.

Southwest has more than 90 percent of the flights at Love Field, where the carrier has operated for more than 30 years. American plans to steal some of those customers, according to David Cush, an American vice president and general sales manager.

American starts its new service from Love on March 2, with 16 flights a day to Austin, San Antonio, Houston, Kansas City, Mo., and St. Louis.

The carrier was driven to expand from its fortress hub at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport to serve Love Field by a recent relaxation of the federal Wright Amendment, which uniquely restricts Love to short-distance flights in jets with more than 56 seats.

With the recent relaxing of Wright to include Missouri, American is now on the defensive to stem any losses of its customer-base in the North Dallas area. American has a huge customer base in the area, said Cush.

But chances are American -- which has seen a near steady run of losses since Sept. 11, 2001 -- won't make money doing it, he indicated.

"It's tough to forecast a profit anywhere in the airline business," said Cush. "My guess is it will be tough to make a profit here. ...It will be tough sledding."

American has vigorously opposed any relaxing or elimination of the Wright Amendment. But Cush said American will do whatever it takes to compete hard against Southwest out of Love.

"As silly as it sounds, we're not here to make a profit off this operation, we're trying to serve our customers," he said, adding later, "We're going after Southwest customers."

Tim Smith, a spokesman for American, added however that "It would cost us lots more in lost business to not compete."

According to Beth Harbin, a spokesperson for Southwest Airlines, "American's interest in Love Field is to make a point, not a profit."

Even so, she said in an e-mail response to American's comments, American will no doubt benefit from the well-known "Southwest effect" that has found passenger volumes increase at airports where Southwest and other airlines compete.

However, she added, Southwest believes American's strength and best product offering locally has always been from its hub at D/FW "and not stringing itself out at Love Field."

"It's their choice, however, to locate where they see fit and we will work alongside them at Love Field as we do in many of our other cities," said Harbin.

In an aggressive marketing push, American is already offering triple bonus miles through May to frequent fliers who choose Love Field. That gives AAdvantage Miles customers the opportunity to earn 60,000 miles -- enough to fly to Hawaii, Europe or Japan in off-peak season, said Linda Johnson, American's general manager at Love.

"That's one of the richest offers in the history of our program," said Johnson. "Thousands have already signed up to qualify for this program."

American's first flight out of Love is an early morning departure on March 2 to Kansas City, Mo., said Cush.

The airline will have 1,000 seats a day out of Love Field, but Cush declined to say how many passengers might actually board the planes. A typical "load factor" for the airline is 70% to 80% full. Planes moving through Love Field won't be that full, though he declined to specify a number.

"Because we'll be carrying only local traffic we'll expect to see load factors significant lower than at D/FW," said Cush.

Published February 20, 2006 by the Dallas Business Journal

 

[a320av8r]

"My opinion is that government should be held accountable for the work conditions and rules."

You want to let George W and the rest of the Nazi's, the same people who are outsourcing America to the rest of the world with impunity, to make your work rules??!!
And what are "government" and "accountable" doing in the same sentence.

You must be very young.

 

[ramblingray]

Ramblin I agree its a vicious cycle, but where i disagree is with your assumption that Southwest employees work for less money. I have several relatives who work for WN and they are compensated better than most at the legacy Airlines.
Yes they have less work rules and produce with less manpower but they are motivated to do so because they are rewarded by sharing in the success of that company.

Have you ever used a Chinese made tool? sure it was cheap to make and cheap to purchase, but most times it did'nt last long enough to get the desired result. Again we go back to the cliche "you get what you pay for"

regards, Local 12 Proud

You said a mouthful there. PRODUCE with less manpower. My point exactly. (maybe it didnt come out that way in my post. Hypothetically, if Southwest pays its mechanics 65,000 a year and they finish up 5 aircraft a day and the legacy airlines as you put them make 62,000 a year but do only 2 airplanes, who fares better? Same thing goes with hours pilots fly, Bags unloaded per hour, etc. YOu get my point. And yes, when American worker productivity is on a high, (In a fair Company) The company will be rewarded with profits, while the employees should be rewarded financially. THIS ONLY WORKS IN PRIVATELY HELD COMPANIES. When you apply it to publicly traded companies, the formula does not work. You need to continually make a higher percentage, higher profits and higher revenues. If not, your stock falls. Imagine that. Management Im sure, reaps many many many shares of stocks in the way of stock options and bonuses. This is a double edged sword which often gets management thinking of his portfolio rather than the company in which he or she works for.

With that being said imagine tommorrow is Southwest employees start having the (lets slow down attitude) How long can Southwest continue to maintain profits? NOT LONG. This is another key ingredient on why management is so important. When you have good management in place, you keep the glue together. When you have divisions and rifts, employees slow way down to stick it to their management, management gives it right back at them by stabbing them in the back, unions save some worthless people's jobs with greivences and we have a recipe for disaster.

 

[CSAR GYRENE]

OK, I have asked this question before and I do not recall if I ever got an answer so I will try it again,

Why should any employer be forced to negotiate with it’s employees over work rules, wages, benefits or what have you? I do not care that there were sweat shops back in the 1800’s or that children were working in industries where they should not have been. What organized labor did back then was a good thing. This is 2006. Lets move on.

My opinion is that government should be held accountable for the work conditions and rules. The mining accidents in SAGO should never have happened. The union dropped the ball and what ever agency should be over seeing the mines (OSHA?) should both be keel-hauled.

Having said that, I decide to start a widget manufacturing plant in Never Never land. I figure out my cost and I decide that I need 100 people to work the line. I decide that my budget allows for them to be paid $x.xx a hour. Several years go by and the 100 employees decide that they want a 20% raise because the widget manufacture down the street is making 15% more than they are. They tell me that if I don’t cough up the cash, they will not show up for work. Fine, I tell them, there is the door, enjoy your self. I’ll see if there is anyone else out in the world who is willing to work for $x.xx an hour.

It is my company. Why should I not be able to fire who I want when I want and pay what I want? If you as an employee feel that you can make more money else where, go for it. That is the free market system. That’s how it works. If I as an employer cannot get enough people to work for me at what ever salary I am offering, I will either have to cough up more money, or go out of business.

Do my eyes decieve me, or has someone here ACTUALLY taken free market economics 101?

Yes yes, as the uber capitalists like to say "...In the long run, it will all even out". But as J.M. Keynes so astutely pointed out "In the long run, we're all dead". I cannot see how some some can have such a rigidly fundamentalist view of the economy that they're willing to be martyrs to an ideology...come hell or high water. Either martyrs, or more accurately, blindly optimistic free-market fundamentalists who are more than willing to throw huge blocs of wage earners under the bus ( wage earners that drove the economy BTW ) because they figure at the very least, it oughtta be good for their portfolios.

Some wonks have surmised the corporation today holds the same influence as the church did in the middle ages. Quite clear that's the case.

Since you brought up foreign competition ( and by extension, "globalism" ) I'd like to call to attention a shift in an old paradigm. This has head the effect of severely weakening the "What's good for the corporation is good for you" plattitude. Not necessarily anymore. Oh, I'm sure their quarterlies are improving, and life for the "chiefs" in mirrored mid-rises are great, but this in no way assuages the loss of buying power by the "indians". Henry Fords ex-employees won't be buying black Model T's anymore.

It's been a LOOOONG time since I studied Keynesian economics, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but wasnt he a huge proponent of Govt intervention on free market forces? Since we all know the govt could screw up a wet dream, do we realy want them to dictate market worth?