Management Watch
- Thread starter diogenes
- Start date
Removing A-320's from the Shuttle routes that do not warrant that capacity and moving them to the Florida/Carribean markets is a good move IMO.
Adding Shannon and Dublin to the international destination list should provide good seasonal revenue.
Froma customer comfort standpoint, all transcons going to Airbus is a good move (with the occasional 767 to LAX).
SOMEONE in management had the brains to reign in Ben Baldanza and his now infamous "let's see how much we can piss off our top customers" schemes.
Adding Shannon and Dublin to the international destination list should provide good seasonal revenue.
Froma customer comfort standpoint, all transcons going to Airbus is a good move (with the occasional 767 to LAX).
SOMEONE in management had the brains to reign in Ben Baldanza and his now infamous "let's see how much we can piss off our top customers" schemes.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/17/2003 3
32 PM geo1004 wrote:
Removing A-320's from the Shuttle routes that do not warrant that capacity and moving them to the Florida/Carribean markets is a good move IMO.
Adding Shannon and Dublin to the international destination list should provide good seasonal revenue.
Froma customer comfort standpoint, all transcons going to Airbus is a good move (with the occasional 767 to LAX).
SOMEONE in management had the brains to reign in Ben Baldanza and his now infamous "let's see how much we can piss off our top customers" schemes.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Even if we were able to match WN in labor costs, we would still be unable to meet their profits. The reasons are two-fold.
Every airline negotiates their own costs for purchasing and leasing aircraft and airport facilities. WN does not fly into airports that have high lease costs for facilities and they pay less for their aircraft leases based on their performance in the market. US cannot borrow money or lease airport facilities or aircraft at the same rate as WN due to poor economic performance, and therefore we have to charge more money per CASM than WN to make the same lease or mortgage payments. The other factor is employee productivity. WN employees are willing to be cross-trained and perform duties that US employees will not. It's pretty simple. US employees are used to getting a flight out and then disappearing into the breakroom for 45mins, while WN employees are willing to go to an adjacent gate and assist with getting the next flight out. It's all about priorities and US personnel are not willing to match WN on productivity.
----------------
On 2/17/2003 3
32 PM geo1004 wrote: Removing A-320's from the Shuttle routes that do not warrant that capacity and moving them to the Florida/Carribean markets is a good move IMO.
Adding Shannon and Dublin to the international destination list should provide good seasonal revenue.
Froma customer comfort standpoint, all transcons going to Airbus is a good move (with the occasional 767 to LAX).
SOMEONE in management had the brains to reign in Ben Baldanza and his now infamous "let's see how much we can piss off our top customers" schemes.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Even if we were able to match WN in labor costs, we would still be unable to meet their profits. The reasons are two-fold.
Every airline negotiates their own costs for purchasing and leasing aircraft and airport facilities. WN does not fly into airports that have high lease costs for facilities and they pay less for their aircraft leases based on their performance in the market. US cannot borrow money or lease airport facilities or aircraft at the same rate as WN due to poor economic performance, and therefore we have to charge more money per CASM than WN to make the same lease or mortgage payments. The other factor is employee productivity. WN employees are willing to be cross-trained and perform duties that US employees will not. It's pretty simple. US employees are used to getting a flight out and then disappearing into the breakroom for 45mins, while WN employees are willing to go to an adjacent gate and assist with getting the next flight out. It's all about priorities and US personnel are not willing to match WN on productivity.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/5/2003 8:36:17 AM diogenes wrote:
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?
[/blockquote]
It's not just pay rates -- in at least some areas it's productivity. And that has a lot to do with how you choose to do business.
Without all the silly fare rules and restrictions WN can be oodles more efficient in any area that touches a customer's ticket than US can be. They can pay a higher rate but since it takes them lots less time and therefore fewer people their total costs are lower.
In a similar manner their "non-hub" approach allows them to pay people more while utilizing them more effectively at a lower total cost for moving a passenger.
US management will have to come to grips with these issues sooner or later.
----------------
On 2/5/2003 8:36:17 AM diogenes wrote:
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?
[/blockquote]
It's not just pay rates -- in at least some areas it's productivity. And that has a lot to do with how you choose to do business.
Without all the silly fare rules and restrictions WN can be oodles more efficient in any area that touches a customer's ticket than US can be. They can pay a higher rate but since it takes them lots less time and therefore fewer people their total costs are lower.
In a similar manner their "non-hub" approach allows them to pay people more while utilizing them more effectively at a lower total cost for moving a passenger.
US management will have to come to grips with these issues sooner or later.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/17/2003 7:16:13 PM SpinDoc wrote:
The other factor is employee productivity. WN employees are willing to be cross-trained and perform duties that US employees will not. It's pretty simple. US employees are used to getting a flight out and then disappearing into the breakroom for 45mins, while WN employees are willing to go to an adjacent gate and assist with getting the next flight out. It's all about priorities and US personnel are not willing to match WN on productivity.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Why not have the US managers tell the US workers to get out of the breakroom and be more productive?
----------------
On 2/17/2003 7:16:13 PM SpinDoc wrote:
The other factor is employee productivity. WN employees are willing to be cross-trained and perform duties that US employees will not. It's pretty simple. US employees are used to getting a flight out and then disappearing into the breakroom for 45mins, while WN employees are willing to go to an adjacent gate and assist with getting the next flight out. It's all about priorities and US personnel are not willing to match WN on productivity.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Why not have the US managers tell the US workers to get out of the breakroom and be more productive?
autofixer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 1,804
- 241
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/18/2003 3:02:50 PM Steiner wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/17/2003 7:16:13 PM SpinDoc wrote:
The other factor is employee productivity. WN employees are willing to be cross-trained and perform duties that US employees will not. It's pretty simple. US employees are used to getting a flight out and then disappearing into the breakroom for 45mins, while WN employees are willing to go to an adjacent gate and assist with getting the next flight out. It's all about priorities and US personnel are not willing to match WN on productivity.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Why not have the US managers tell the US workers to get out of the breakroom and be more productive?
----------------
[/blockquote]
It is called "corportate culture." The corporate culture at U needs fixed. It was one of those things that Dave mouthed off about, but did nothing to change. From where I sit, Dave actually made the culture worse...pitting groups against each other and getting employees so angry that they will not lift a finger to do anything extra.
----------------
On 2/18/2003 3:02:50 PM Steiner wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/17/2003 7:16:13 PM SpinDoc wrote:
The other factor is employee productivity. WN employees are willing to be cross-trained and perform duties that US employees will not. It's pretty simple. US employees are used to getting a flight out and then disappearing into the breakroom for 45mins, while WN employees are willing to go to an adjacent gate and assist with getting the next flight out. It's all about priorities and US personnel are not willing to match WN on productivity.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Why not have the US managers tell the US workers to get out of the breakroom and be more productive?
----------------
[/blockquote]
It is called "corportate culture." The corporate culture at U needs fixed. It was one of those things that Dave mouthed off about, but did nothing to change. From where I sit, Dave actually made the culture worse...pitting groups against each other and getting employees so angry that they will not lift a finger to do anything extra.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/18/2003 4:41:58 PM sdavis29 wrote:
----------------
[/blockquote]
you forgot 1 point....
even if employees wanted to help...most of the contracts forbid it....
grievance greivance greivance....
----------------
[/blockquote]
It must be a really strong ramp contract that has language in it that prevents working adjacent gates. And greivances have what kind of power with the company? All in all it sounds like management is not effectively using its resources, and the unions are getting the blame for management's inadequacies.
----------------
On 2/18/2003 4:41:58 PM sdavis29 wrote:
----------------
[/blockquote]
you forgot 1 point....
even if employees wanted to help...most of the contracts forbid it....
grievance greivance greivance....
----------------
[/blockquote]
It must be a really strong ramp contract that has language in it that prevents working adjacent gates. And greivances have what kind of power with the company? All in all it sounds like management is not effectively using its resources, and the unions are getting the blame for management's inadequacies.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/18/2003 4
53 PM autofixer wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/18/2003 3:02:50 PM Steiner wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/17/2003 7:16:13 PM SpinDoc wrote:
The other factor is employee productivity. WN employees are willing to be cross-trained and perform duties that US employees will not. It's pretty simple. US employees are used to getting a flight out and then disappearing into the breakroom for 45mins, while WN employees are willing to go to an adjacent gate and assist with getting the next flight out. It's all about priorities and US personnel are not willing to match WN on productivity.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Why not have the US managers tell the US workers to get out of the breakroom and be more productive?
----------------
[/blockquote]
It is called "corportate culture." The corporate culture at U needs fixed. It was one of those things that Dave mouthed off about, but did nothing to change. From where I sit, Dave actually made the culture worse...pitting groups against each other and getting employees so angry that they will not lift a finger to do anything extra.
----------------
[/blockquote]
you forgot 1 point....
even if employees wanted to help...most of the contracts forbid it....
grievance greivance greivance....
----------------
On 2/18/2003 4
53 PM autofixer wrote: [blockquote]
----------------
On 2/18/2003 3:02:50 PM Steiner wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/17/2003 7:16:13 PM SpinDoc wrote:
The other factor is employee productivity. WN employees are willing to be cross-trained and perform duties that US employees will not. It's pretty simple. US employees are used to getting a flight out and then disappearing into the breakroom for 45mins, while WN employees are willing to go to an adjacent gate and assist with getting the next flight out. It's all about priorities and US personnel are not willing to match WN on productivity.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Why not have the US managers tell the US workers to get out of the breakroom and be more productive?
----------------
[/blockquote]
It is called "corportate culture." The corporate culture at U needs fixed. It was one of those things that Dave mouthed off about, but did nothing to change. From where I sit, Dave actually made the culture worse...pitting groups against each other and getting employees so angry that they will not lift a finger to do anything extra.
----------------
[/blockquote]
you forgot 1 point....
even if employees wanted to help...most of the contracts forbid it....
grievance greivance greivance....
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
SDavis,
For us, it was a great thing...we grew our numbers for as long as we could.
In society, more jobs created (by any means) is good for the country and nation. We got to pay our bills on time, support our families, educate them, and put some monies away for retirement.
Job creation makes the world go round; and creates balance in society. Plus, less people experience depression when times are good, and crime rate decreases as well. I believe Unions have "good" purpose besides the obvious.
Now, you will see "chaos". When folks don't have work, depression sets in and crime goes up; one problem begets the other,and the other, and so forth and so on.
For us, it was a great thing...we grew our numbers for as long as we could.
In society, more jobs created (by any means) is good for the country and nation. We got to pay our bills on time, support our families, educate them, and put some monies away for retirement.
Job creation makes the world go round; and creates balance in society. Plus, less people experience depression when times are good, and crime rate decreases as well. I believe Unions have "good" purpose besides the obvious.
Now, you will see "chaos". When folks don't have work, depression sets in and crime goes up; one problem begets the other,and the other, and so forth and so on.
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/18/2003 5:34:23 PM Steiner wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/18/2003 4:41:58 PM sdavis29 wrote:
----------------
[/blockquote]
you forgot 1 point....
even if employees wanted to help...most of the contracts forbid it....
grievance greivance greivance....
----------------
[/blockquote]
It must be a really strong ramp contract that has language in it that prevents working adjacent gates. And greivances have what kind of power with the company? All in all it sounds like management is not effectively using its resources, and the unions are getting the blame for management's inadequacies.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Unions are about creating jobs and saving jobs, and job security. That is the premise for this kind of language in contracts.
From a management stand point, it is more efficient to have employees cross over and do multiple tasks and encompass different job descriptions and responsibilities. Yes. That does make more sense in economics. However, it eliminates jobs, and that is counterproductive for our union bussiness that has the philosophy to grow the nunbers, which is economical from our perspective.
If you take your idea and apply it to management, as well, how come they don't decrease their senior mangement numbers with all those 34 vice presidents (which have been increased while our numbers have decreased)and have them do multiple tasks and cross over and take on more departments? Why do we need all these managers and directors. We have created many more in Inflight alone. Personally, I would be more apt to rethink my union position if management would put in place their own philosophy. As you know, our staffing on the planes has decreased substantially just recently. However, senior mangement numbers remain at a constant.
Point, "practice what is preached". Otherwise, the only job security there is and we're seeing is mangement.
----------------
On 2/18/2003 5:34:23 PM Steiner wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/18/2003 4:41:58 PM sdavis29 wrote:
----------------
[/blockquote]
you forgot 1 point....
even if employees wanted to help...most of the contracts forbid it....
grievance greivance greivance....
----------------
[/blockquote]
It must be a really strong ramp contract that has language in it that prevents working adjacent gates. And greivances have what kind of power with the company? All in all it sounds like management is not effectively using its resources, and the unions are getting the blame for management's inadequacies.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Unions are about creating jobs and saving jobs, and job security. That is the premise for this kind of language in contracts.
From a management stand point, it is more efficient to have employees cross over and do multiple tasks and encompass different job descriptions and responsibilities. Yes. That does make more sense in economics. However, it eliminates jobs, and that is counterproductive for our union bussiness that has the philosophy to grow the nunbers, which is economical from our perspective.
If you take your idea and apply it to management, as well, how come they don't decrease their senior mangement numbers with all those 34 vice presidents (which have been increased while our numbers have decreased)and have them do multiple tasks and cross over and take on more departments? Why do we need all these managers and directors. We have created many more in Inflight alone. Personally, I would be more apt to rethink my union position if management would put in place their own philosophy. As you know, our staffing on the planes has decreased substantially just recently. However, senior mangement numbers remain at a constant.
Point, "practice what is preached". Otherwise, the only job security there is and we're seeing is mangement.
[blockquote]
----------------
----------------
----------------
[/blockquote]
It must be a really strong ramp contract that has language in it that prevents working adjacent gates. And greivances have what kind of power with the company? All in all it sounds like management is not effectively using its resources, and the unions are getting the blame for management's inadequacies.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Unions are about creating jobs and saving jobs, and job security. That is the premise for this kind of language in contracts.
From a management stand point, it is more efficient to have employees cross over and do multiple tasks and encompass different job descriptions and responsibilities. Yes. That does make more sense in economics. However, it eliminates jobs, and that is counterproductive for our union bussiness that has the philosophy to grow the nunbers, which is economical from our perspective.
If you take your idea and apply it to management, as well, how come they don't decrease their senior mangement numbers with all those 34 vice presidents (which have been increased while our numbers have decreased)and have them do multiple tasks and cross over and take on more departments? Why do we need all these managers and directors. We have created many more in Inflight alone. Personally, I would be more apt to rethink my union position if management would put in place their own philosophy. As you know, our staffing on the planes has decreased substantially just recently. However, senior mangement numbers remain at a constant.
Point, "practice what is preached". Otherwise, the only job security there is and we're seeing is mangement.
----------------
[/blockquote]
i agree with on the management thing...even in lower management...all the way to having far to many supervisors...
you are also correct with unions creating jobs.....problem with that was nothing but fluff was created....
[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/10.gif']
----------------
----------------
----------------
[/blockquote]
It must be a really strong ramp contract that has language in it that prevents working adjacent gates. And greivances have what kind of power with the company? All in all it sounds like management is not effectively using its resources, and the unions are getting the blame for management's inadequacies.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Unions are about creating jobs and saving jobs, and job security. That is the premise for this kind of language in contracts.
From a management stand point, it is more efficient to have employees cross over and do multiple tasks and encompass different job descriptions and responsibilities. Yes. That does make more sense in economics. However, it eliminates jobs, and that is counterproductive for our union bussiness that has the philosophy to grow the nunbers, which is economical from our perspective.
If you take your idea and apply it to management, as well, how come they don't decrease their senior mangement numbers with all those 34 vice presidents (which have been increased while our numbers have decreased)and have them do multiple tasks and cross over and take on more departments? Why do we need all these managers and directors. We have created many more in Inflight alone. Personally, I would be more apt to rethink my union position if management would put in place their own philosophy. As you know, our staffing on the planes has decreased substantially just recently. However, senior mangement numbers remain at a constant.
Point, "practice what is preached". Otherwise, the only job security there is and we're seeing is mangement.
----------------
[/blockquote]
i agree with on the management thing...even in lower management...all the way to having far to many supervisors...
you are also correct with unions creating jobs.....problem with that was nothing but fluff was created....
[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/10.gif']
Management does not manage, the leads and the workers keep this company going. Management just turns a blind eye to the operation and just seek to get people in trouble for not coming to work when the roads are covered in ice.
You seem to want to make management be dictators, well we all know that style does not work.
You seem to want to make management be dictators, well we all know that style does not work.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/18/2003 5:46:47 PM LavMan wrote:
Steiner you have no clue, there are no more fleet assigned to gates, they are teams and work zones and the lead tells them what flights to work and where. Get a clue!
----------------
[/blockquote]
It is true I have no clue as to how the gates/flights are staffed. However, I am getting fed up with all the productivity faults being blamed on labor. In my own case, it is hard to be productive when management is failing to schedule work for me, or failing to find enough assignments to keep me busy. If all the union members are required to be self starters and dig up their own work and assignments, why have management around? Last I checked management was supposed keep everyone busy.
In the example SpinDoc gave, why is management giving the crew so much slack? Would it be the crew's fault or the manager's that the crew isn't hustling?
----------------
On 2/18/2003 5:46:47 PM LavMan wrote:
Steiner you have no clue, there are no more fleet assigned to gates, they are teams and work zones and the lead tells them what flights to work and where. Get a clue!
----------------
[/blockquote]
It is true I have no clue as to how the gates/flights are staffed. However, I am getting fed up with all the productivity faults being blamed on labor. In my own case, it is hard to be productive when management is failing to schedule work for me, or failing to find enough assignments to keep me busy. If all the union members are required to be self starters and dig up their own work and assignments, why have management around? Last I checked management was supposed keep everyone busy.
In the example SpinDoc gave, why is management giving the crew so much slack? Would it be the crew's fault or the manager's that the crew isn't hustling?
[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/18/2003 8:01:01 PM LavMan wrote:
Management does not manage, the leads and the workers keep this company going. Management just turns a blind eye to the operation and just seek to get people in trouble for not coming to work when the roads are covered in ice.
You seem to want to make management be dictators, well we all know that style does not work.
----------------
[/blockquote]
That is not what I am after. I am just tired of labor being blamed for management's shortcomings, and it seems that no one cares that inept management is not held accountable for labor's perceived problems. I wish unions were as strong and powerful as their critics make them out to be.
----------------
On 2/18/2003 8:01:01 PM LavMan wrote:
Management does not manage, the leads and the workers keep this company going. Management just turns a blind eye to the operation and just seek to get people in trouble for not coming to work when the roads are covered in ice.
You seem to want to make management be dictators, well we all know that style does not work.
----------------
[/blockquote]
That is not what I am after. I am just tired of labor being blamed for management's shortcomings, and it seems that no one cares that inept management is not held accountable for labor's perceived problems. I wish unions were as strong and powerful as their critics make them out to be.
Similar threads
- Traveler
- American Airlines
