Management Watch

[diogenes]

Now would be a good time to turn our attentions from one another and place the spotlight where it belongs - management.
I propose on this post for anyone with any information on what management is doing to move this company forward (other than labor savings) to post it here.
It can be as simple as centralized paper clip purchases. Just anything that shows they've got off the dime.
The floor is now open.

 

[genejockey]

I think your post is a great idea. However, I have a feeling that managements next creative move will be....you guessed it: CONCESSIONS ROUND III![BR][BR]"An empty can rattles the most!" (Metallica - The Black Album)

 

[mlt]

Inflight created [STRONG]3[/STRONG] new manager positions this week.

 

[diogenes]

I suppose, in the interests of full disclosure, any moves that hinder (and again, outside of labor concessions - they get covered very well on other posts)progress should also be reported.

 

[diogenes]

mlt,

That'd be a negative, I take it?

 

[Severed-N-Happy]

One martini lunches instead of two.
9 holes of golf instead of 18.

 

[REACC1]

I tried to get an answer to this on an earlier thread. There was a lot of debate about the merits of WN vs U. The only two things that stood out was the code share with UA and "not much else". Getting out of bankruptsy is a good start, however, impaling labor is not the answer I believe. Hopefully this is a temporary near term fix.(Im slightly partial but alas seemingly insignificant} Unfortunately we are the dragon to be slayed.
The RJ's come to mind, and seem meaningful. Im about 50/50 on that. As far as the WN debate goes-"The more corrupt the republic, the more numerous the laws."- Tacitus

 

[sdavis29]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/20/2003 6:17:36 PM diogenes wrote:
[P]Probably wasn't fair to start this thread when I did - management had bigger fish to fry last week, what with the reorg plan, and extracting another pound of flesh from [BR]ALPA.[BR][BR]So let's kick off the week with ANY news of improvement.[BR][BR]I see we're going to run jets into AGS, which is a good news/bad news kind of thing. good, that U jets return to AGS in time for the Masters. Sorta bad, in that it's a mainline jet, mainline crew, maintained by mainline mechs, worked in AGS by express agents.[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]i dont believe the average JO can afford the masters....check out these ticket prices[BR][BR][A href="http://www.razorgator.com/shop/list_event.asp?categoryid=MA2003&open=Golf&c=1-1-0-17-0-2-12"]http://www.razorgator.com/shop/list_event.asp?categoryid=MA2003&open=Golf&c=1-1-0-17-0-2-12[/A][BR][BR][BR][/P]

 

[diogenes]

Probably wasn't fair to start this thread when I did - management had bigger fish to fry last week, what with the reorg plan, and extracting another pound of flesh from
ALPA.

So let's kick off the week with ANY news of improvement.

I see we're going to run jets into AGS, which is a good news/bad news kind of thing. good, that U jets return to AGS in time for the Masters. Sorta bad, in that it's a mainline jet, mainline crew, maintained by mainline mechs, worked in AGS by express agents.

 

[N628AU]

Nice to see us putting up a competitive response in AGS for The Masters. DL for years has run B757 and B757 equipment in for this week from ATL, while we had CCAIR or Mesa throwing in an additional DH-8 or two a day. Add the non-stop service from LGA and DCA, and we have some a way to get some additional revenue. Heck, they are even subbing A321 aircraft to SAN for the SuperBowl week over the A319 and A320 service. I think it was like 245 additional daily seats into the market. This may not seem like much, but things won't change overnight. I give them credit for getting started, now it is up to them to keep it up.

 

[delldude]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/16/2003 12:05:55 PM diogenes wrote:

Now would be a good time to turn our attentions from one another and place the spotlight where it belongs - management.

I propose on this post for anyone with any information on what management is doing to move this company forward (other than labor savings) to post it here.

It can be as simple as centralized paper clip purchases. Just anything that shows they've got off the dime.

The floor is now open.
----------------
[/blockquote]
you need a VP'S ok on just about any purchase in maint, now.includes overtime...recently needed a special wrenching tip for the sheet metal
area at $7 each...needed 10,call the veep.
COB for super in PIT FAB engine shop too.

 

[diogenes]

Picking up from the previous post.

OK, it's now Feb 2003. Multiple rounds of givebacks, Chapt. 11, etc.

It's obvious the Big 4 are having kittens at the notion of U emerging from BK, because we finally may have lower CASM's than they.

Whither WN? They ain't even flinching, because their CASM's have been, and remain, LOWER than post-BK U's CASM's.

How can this be? WN is heavily unionized. WN fleet TOS is $25. U's fleet TOS is $19, and headed towards $13 in a lot of places. Same dynamic with f/a's, mechs, agents, etc. WN pays their people MORE than U pays theirs, yet WN has LOWER CASM's.

Could it be that costs NOT associated with U labor are driving U's high CASM's?

I said back in 1999, give me the WN contract, work rules and all. The fact it was not offered leads me to believe U would lose money even if we were operating under WN's contract.

And, in closing, an historical tidbid. The WN notion was pitched to Gangwhal back in 99, and his response was, to emulate the WN model, we'd have to downsize the fleet from 400 to 280.

Well, Rakkee, looked at the fleet size lately?

 

[diogenes]

Another fun question (and yes, this will be the thread that will not die)

Pre-parity (1999), U's CASM's were higher than the Big 4 (AA,DL,NW and UA) and markedly higher than CO and WN.

IIRC, along that timeline, WN and U both reported labor as representing about 40% of their costs.

Management claimed in the late 90's labor costs were the reason U was unprofitable - and, given the pattern bargaining that goes on in this industry, a debatable claim. But ok, let's go with it, and voila, parity with the Big 4 in 1999.

If management's claim of labor being the problem were valid, you'd expect U in 2000 and beyond to at least equal AA,DL,NW and UA's CASM's.

As we all know, that was not the case. U's CASM's remained higher than the Big 4's.

How can this be? Could it be that costs NOT associated with labor are driving U's high CASM costs?

 

[diogenes]

While waiting for the Palace to dazzle us, consider this.

Management has 1 billion (yes, that's WITH a 'b') in annual extractions from labor. 'Nother billion from 'management' (ha!), vendors and cost savings (ha, again).

If, at the end of 2004, the Palace announces, glory of glories, we had a 250 mil profit, wouldn't that be 'inside the grip'?(for non-golfers, often in friendly games, a putt that measures between the grip of the putter and its' head is conceded)

Any profit for the next 8 years LESS than 2 bil is as a result of concessions, yes? Only profits in excess of 2 bil could be attributed to management activities, right?

Or, am I wrong?

 

[Zephyr]

diogenes., great thread!

Based on Global warming forcasts, Mgt elected to reduce de-icing capabilities to 25% or previous capacity...

But on a serious note, I find it noteworthy that Mgt has secured the authority to subcontract nearly 500 RJs to non-owned carriers, while only agreeing to operate 147 mainline planes. Thereby efficiently transferring the vast majority of "capacity" to outsourced companies (who are not at all US Air but paint their planes to look like they are, like the one that crashed in CLT last month), yet while keeping the illusion that passengers are actually purchasing tickets to "fly on US Airways."

Yes, I do find they have had a noteworthy impact… does that count as "what management is doing to move this company forward (other than labor savings)"?