Questions For Usa320pilot
- Thread starter seeking the truth
- Start date
- Status
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
Seekingthetruth:
Seekingthetruth said: “As far as rolling hubs go phl was mentioned yet no movement on the clt hub.â€
USA320Pilot comments: It’s my understanding the PHL hub is the only hub the can be rolled due to O&D traffic. Management has said CLT does not have enough O&D traffic to justify the concept.
Seekingthetruth said: Where I find conflicting information here is when the company says it needs to fly it's assets more per day (which to me makes sense) and you say that current agrrements don't allow this.
USA320Pilot comments: I do not believe that is what I said. What I said is that the current schedule operates aircraft an average of about 10 hours per day and the current contracts/manning provides the minimum amount of personnel to do the job. Everyday we see excessive use of regular reserves being transitioned to short call and POTA’s. Thus, to increase the utilization of the aircraft and use the same number of employees to drive down unit costs the company desires LCC work rules.
I am all for productivity improvements. Nobody likes sitting around.
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot
Seekingthetruth said: “As far as rolling hubs go phl was mentioned yet no movement on the clt hub.â€
USA320Pilot comments: It’s my understanding the PHL hub is the only hub the can be rolled due to O&D traffic. Management has said CLT does not have enough O&D traffic to justify the concept.
Seekingthetruth said: Where I find conflicting information here is when the company says it needs to fly it's assets more per day (which to me makes sense) and you say that current agrrements don't allow this.
USA320Pilot comments: I do not believe that is what I said. What I said is that the current schedule operates aircraft an average of about 10 hours per day and the current contracts/manning provides the minimum amount of personnel to do the job. Everyday we see excessive use of regular reserves being transitioned to short call and POTA’s. Thus, to increase the utilization of the aircraft and use the same number of employees to drive down unit costs the company desires LCC work rules.
I am all for productivity improvements. Nobody likes sitting around.
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot
ClueByFour
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,566
- 37
I'd imagine that US is going to hit an operational limit (if it has not done so already) based on the size of the widebody fleet.geo1004 said:
PIT-LGW is a goner after October, which gives you 1 extra craft. I don't see PIT-FRA going away, as that would be literally pissing money out the door on US' part due to the amount of high revenue O&D on the route (perhaps they'll turn the route over to LH, who knows).
Anyway, it strikes me as an aircraft problem.
mwereplanes
Senior
- Jan 21, 2004
- 302
- 0
"USA320Pilot comments: I do not believe that is what I said. What I said is that the current schedule operates aircraft an average of about 10 hours per day and the current contracts/manning provides the minimum amount of personnel to do the job. Everyday we see excessive use of regular reserves being transitioned to short call and POTA’s. Thus, to increase the utilization of the aircraft and use the same number of employees to drive down unit costs the company desires LCC work rules."
Pure Bunk 320 and you know it. Efficient A/C scheduling without work rule changes would add substantial amounts of hours available for pilots to fly more. Not to mention unrealistic block times the company publishes so as to improve on time performance. How much do you think that costs? I flew the entire month of May and had just 2 legs (out of at least 40) that matched or went over the scheduled block time. The rest were under. Some were substantially under. I was probably paid for at least 3 hours underfly. Multiply that by the number of pilots we have and figure it out. We are undermanned because this company does not understand how to utilize the jets. Not because of our contracts. That's what causes POTA and transition.
Yes, we can change things in our contract to become more efficient. But there are a myriad of ways to do it NOW while the talks are ongoing. And they could have been done years ago. The waste is incredible. You know it as well as I.
Management pal. That's the key. But then I suppose I might as well talk to a rock.
mr
Pure Bunk 320 and you know it. Efficient A/C scheduling without work rule changes would add substantial amounts of hours available for pilots to fly more. Not to mention unrealistic block times the company publishes so as to improve on time performance. How much do you think that costs? I flew the entire month of May and had just 2 legs (out of at least 40) that matched or went over the scheduled block time. The rest were under. Some were substantially under. I was probably paid for at least 3 hours underfly. Multiply that by the number of pilots we have and figure it out. We are undermanned because this company does not understand how to utilize the jets. Not because of our contracts. That's what causes POTA and transition.
Yes, we can change things in our contract to become more efficient. But there are a myriad of ways to do it NOW while the talks are ongoing. And they could have been done years ago. The waste is incredible. You know it as well as I.
Management pal. That's the key. But then I suppose I might as well talk to a rock.
mr
Walmartgreeter
Veteran
- Mar 6, 2003
- 1,430
- 1,143
Pure bunk is right. And 320 knows it, he just never lets the TRUTH get in the way of his own crusade. You might as well be calling U management direct when you question him. His current drive is to throw out the MEC members at a base OTHER than his own, while at the same time being the front man at U to attack the Mechanics for their stance on management's theft of their contract.mwereplanes said:
OP
seeking the truth
Member
- Oct 31, 2003
- 90
- 0
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #39
mwereplanes & walmartgreeter,
Thanks for the info in your posts. I knew I had read where a pilot spokesperson publicly stated that the current contracts would allow for more effiecent scheduling and that even the pilots had asked for it. As I said I'm not going to pretend to know anything about the pilots contract language on this. But again the company won't make a move on this. Thats why I started this thread to figure out why 320 is so willing to bend, given these circumstances.
What I can't stomach is, when cost can be taken out of the operation under current labor agreements legally and they aren't. Yet the drumbeat for further concessions from labor is deafening. In addition during the 2nd qtr conference call upper management was asked a couple of times what the company was doing to lower it's non labor costs, and management danced around this issue, without giving specific answers. One analyst even acknowledging that labor has been squeezed already and there might not be that much more to give.
320 is entitled to his opinion as are the rest of us, but I don't get it.
Maybe management has begun to heed !!!!!
Thanks for the info in your posts. I knew I had read where a pilot spokesperson publicly stated that the current contracts would allow for more effiecent scheduling and that even the pilots had asked for it. As I said I'm not going to pretend to know anything about the pilots contract language on this. But again the company won't make a move on this. Thats why I started this thread to figure out why 320 is so willing to bend, given these circumstances.
What I can't stomach is, when cost can be taken out of the operation under current labor agreements legally and they aren't. Yet the drumbeat for further concessions from labor is deafening. In addition during the 2nd qtr conference call upper management was asked a couple of times what the company was doing to lower it's non labor costs, and management danced around this issue, without giving specific answers. One analyst even acknowledging that labor has been squeezed already and there might not be that much more to give.
320 is entitled to his opinion as are the rest of us, but I don't get it.
Maybe management has begun to heed !!!!!
This is exactly right mwereplanes. I will expand upon this.mwereplanes said:
If CCY were to immediately implement the non-Labor efficiencies, US Airways would begin to spread its costs over more ASM's, thus reducing CASM. All of the overhead costs, like CCY lease payments, aircraft rents, insurance premiums, airport leases, etc would be spread over the larger amount of ASM's and therefore reduce costs. If USA320Pilot is correct, that pilot scheduling efficiencies are essentially tapped out, then the company would have to call-back some pilots to make this work, thus they do not realize the savings of having the same total number of people do more work (i.e. the same salary base spread over more ASM's).
On the other-hand, if management can convince labor to work more for the same amount of money, they realize a reduction in CASM, as those new ASM's cost zero dollars of labor to produce.
Thus, its my opinion that management is taking an extremely risky bet. Management is betting that there is a bigger cost-reduction pay-day down the road by pushing labor to do more work for the same amount of money.
Let's take the opposite approach... Let's say management says to labor: We have a cost problem. And here is the plan... We in management will endeavor to remove all of the costs of ineffieciencies that we can. We will reduce costs at every corner and make the company more efficient in every way possible. Then, if we have not reduced our total costs enough, then we will ask labor for concessions.
Now, lets face it... If management did this, and reduced the current loses by 75%, would labor give in to make the company profitable, or would labor say "look, we are now closer to break even, so we don't feel the need to give". I would bet on the latter, as it has happened many times before.
Thus, to some extent, management must get everything from labor that it feels it can get first. Then implement the other structural changes. As long as labor (or at least some groups) is willing to give more in concessions, management will keep playing this game to maximize its labor savings and make the company as profitable as possible in the long-term. The problem for US Airways is that this "game" has very bad short-term consequences should "poop happen," as cash reserves are extremely low, and this company is obviously not prepared to whether another terrorist attack or other major economic event.
OP
seeking the truth
Member
- Oct 31, 2003
- 90
- 0
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #41
Funguy2,
I agree with most of your post. You bring up a good point of not taking out all costs yet, in the case that labor may say look you need no more, point taken. But if your in the middle of a lake and your canoe springs a leak you have a gallon bucket onboard and your sinking. Do you start bailing water now with the gallon bucket or yell to shore for a 5 gallon bucket and wait till it's brought out to you before you start bailing. AMR took efficencies out of their operation in addition to employee concessions. Are they still losing money, YES, but they seem to have a much clearer picture of where they are headed.
Maybe management has begun to heed !!!!!
I agree with most of your post. You bring up a good point of not taking out all costs yet, in the case that labor may say look you need no more, point taken. But if your in the middle of a lake and your canoe springs a leak you have a gallon bucket onboard and your sinking. Do you start bailing water now with the gallon bucket or yell to shore for a 5 gallon bucket and wait till it's brought out to you before you start bailing. AMR took efficencies out of their operation in addition to employee concessions. Are they still losing money, YES, but they seem to have a much clearer picture of where they are headed.
Maybe management has begun to heed !!!!!
seeking_the_truth:
I think we agree that this is not the right path for US Airways to take. But it appears to be what they are doing anyway. They seem convinced this is the way to run their business. I'm not sure what will change that viewpoint. I think once they realize there is no 5 gallon bucket on shore, they will begin to use the 1 gallon bucket - It looks like we are witnessing the beginning of this. In the meantime, the guy on shore is yelling back, "I know there is a 5 Gallon bucket around here somewhere!)
I think the whole issue is one of timing, and I think US Airways management's timing is completely wrong. I also think US Airways is essentially betting on the company's future with terrible odds.
I think we agree that this is not the right path for US Airways to take. But it appears to be what they are doing anyway. They seem convinced this is the way to run their business. I'm not sure what will change that viewpoint. I think once they realize there is no 5 gallon bucket on shore, they will begin to use the 1 gallon bucket - It looks like we are witnessing the beginning of this. In the meantime, the guy on shore is yelling back, "I know there is a 5 Gallon bucket around here somewhere!)
I think the whole issue is one of timing, and I think US Airways management's timing is completely wrong. I also think US Airways is essentially betting on the company's future with terrible odds.
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
During the airline financial crisis in the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s traditional carriers pulled down capacity, then load factors increased, and pricing power returned. This approach has always worked to return the cyclical industry to profitability.
Then following the September 11 terrorist attacks US Airways management executed the same plan, but this time did so much more aggressively than the rest of the industry, to the tune of about 30% of its ASM’s. This was much more than any other legacy carrier.
In my opinion, this was a big mistake because the company drove up unit costs, even though it took costs out of the airline – principally from labor – and now has an unproductive fleet and work force.
For example, US Airways only flies its aircraft about 10 hours per day or a total of no less than 936,900 block hours per year (ALPA contractual minimum limit).
Was this a mistake? Absolutely!! This has lead to elimination of banks in Pittsburgh and Charlotte, created longer crew “sit around†time, and created less RASM.
However, there is nothing we can do about the past and at least management recognizes this was a big, big mistake.
The “Transformation Plan†envisions increasing aircraft utilization from 10 to 11.5 hours per day, presumably with the October 2 kick-off and flying power point-to-point service from the focus cities to large metropolitan areas with quick turnarounds.
This will help increase productivity of people, aircraft, and facilities, which is a step in the right direction.
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot
Then following the September 11 terrorist attacks US Airways management executed the same plan, but this time did so much more aggressively than the rest of the industry, to the tune of about 30% of its ASM’s. This was much more than any other legacy carrier.
In my opinion, this was a big mistake because the company drove up unit costs, even though it took costs out of the airline – principally from labor – and now has an unproductive fleet and work force.
For example, US Airways only flies its aircraft about 10 hours per day or a total of no less than 936,900 block hours per year (ALPA contractual minimum limit).
Was this a mistake? Absolutely!! This has lead to elimination of banks in Pittsburgh and Charlotte, created longer crew “sit around†time, and created less RASM.
However, there is nothing we can do about the past and at least management recognizes this was a big, big mistake.
The “Transformation Plan†envisions increasing aircraft utilization from 10 to 11.5 hours per day, presumably with the October 2 kick-off and flying power point-to-point service from the focus cities to large metropolitan areas with quick turnarounds.
This will help increase productivity of people, aircraft, and facilities, which is a step in the right direction.
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot
USA320Pilot:
I would generally agree with what you have said, except for the first paragragh, about the cyclical nature of the industry. My understanding is that the airline industry, since deregulation, has an overall profit margin of -2%. So while the cyclical nature of the industry works for the strong carriers, the weak carriers tend to fail every cycle. And overall, you are more likely to lose money in this business than make some.
I would say every time the cycle was on the upswing, it "band-aids" the problems until the next down cycle. The truly successful companies are able to be profitable in the bottoms of the cycles. Ideally, the industry would not have a survival scare every 10 years.
I would generally agree with what you have said, except for the first paragragh, about the cyclical nature of the industry. My understanding is that the airline industry, since deregulation, has an overall profit margin of -2%. So while the cyclical nature of the industry works for the strong carriers, the weak carriers tend to fail every cycle. And overall, you are more likely to lose money in this business than make some.
I would say every time the cycle was on the upswing, it "band-aids" the problems until the next down cycle. The truly successful companies are able to be profitable in the bottoms of the cycles. Ideally, the industry would not have a survival scare every 10 years.
Is the 936,900 block hours per year limit actually in the ALPA contract? Or is this a calculated number based on guaranteed (or max) hours/pilot/month x number of pilots x months.USA320Pilot said:
So if US Airways acquired 100 new airplanes today, they would have to negotiate with ALPA in order to add the block hours to fly them? Would this be accurate?
I cannot imagine a company limiting itself in such a way. That is pure lunacy.
- Status
