Read It And Weep
- Thread starter spacewaitress
- Start date
spacewaitress: "Yeah, right after your 35% payhike after you scared away all our best customers. They still aren't back. It's funny how all the pilots are out in the cabin now kissing butt to the very people they screwed in y2k."
That's funny, in a hypocritical sort of way, that you would make a comment like that when you belong to a union that literally trademarked the word CHAOS. It stands for Create Havoc Around Our System, doesn't it? So I'm sure in the up and coming months if the AFA needs self help (as might be your legal right), they would never do anything to scare away passengers, right? I mean the threat of CHAOS is a tool intended to attract passengers, right?
spacewaitress: " I'm embarrased for them most of the time (the pilots, I mean). It seems so phoney, like so much groveling, so hypocritical."
Spacewaitress, I agree that since this Chapter 11 stuff I've seem more pilots, particularly Captains, go back and interact with passengers. It's what I've done ever since I have been on the property, but for the guys who didn't before, it seems like they do more so now. But it's also funny that I see the same thing with the flight attendants. It seems like they have the fear of God in them now. They smile more. They're friendlier. I actually see more flight attendants help moms with their babies and passengers with their bags. I even saw a flight attendant mid flight go down the aisle with water bottles and cups, even though they weren't required to do so. Before our bankruptcy entry, it was not at all uncommon to see a flight attendant just stand there while a mom struggled with a baby and a suitcase or a passenger with an awkward bag. Or to see a flight attendant roll his eyes if a passenger asked for an extra drink. I guess we'll agree some good things have come out of this process?
That's funny, in a hypocritical sort of way, that you would make a comment like that when you belong to a union that literally trademarked the word CHAOS. It stands for Create Havoc Around Our System, doesn't it? So I'm sure in the up and coming months if the AFA needs self help (as might be your legal right), they would never do anything to scare away passengers, right? I mean the threat of CHAOS is a tool intended to attract passengers, right?
spacewaitress: " I'm embarrased for them most of the time (the pilots, I mean). It seems so phoney, like so much groveling, so hypocritical."
Spacewaitress, I agree that since this Chapter 11 stuff I've seem more pilots, particularly Captains, go back and interact with passengers. It's what I've done ever since I have been on the property, but for the guys who didn't before, it seems like they do more so now. But it's also funny that I see the same thing with the flight attendants. It seems like they have the fear of God in them now. They smile more. They're friendlier. I actually see more flight attendants help moms with their babies and passengers with their bags. I even saw a flight attendant mid flight go down the aisle with water bottles and cups, even though they weren't required to do so. Before our bankruptcy entry, it was not at all uncommon to see a flight attendant just stand there while a mom struggled with a baby and a suitcase or a passenger with an awkward bag. Or to see a flight attendant roll his eyes if a passenger asked for an extra drink. I guess we'll agree some good things have come out of this process?
The "threat of CHAOS" had the same impact as did the Antics of 2000? Please. How many flight cancellations did CHAOS cause? Delays? Missed connections? Ruined business deals? At least an action like CHAOS gives the travelling public clear warning that if they don't want to deal with the threat of extra hassles, book elsewhere. Compare that to the Summer of 2000 when pilots were denying anything was amiss, and then trapped people on planes for hours on end with literally no escape or explanation.ualdriver said:
Another point is that once the "threat" of CHAOS ended (such as it was), so did the damage. A lot of the travelling public are STILL mad at UAL because of the ACTUAL damages done in 2000.
Don't get me wrong-- I don't have a problem with labor exercising its muscle if that is the only option available to them, and in many ways I feel the pilots were totally justified in doing what they had to do at the time-- I supported it and actually spoke up about it when my fellow F/As started complaining about it. (Although it sure screwed up MY life that summer as well.)
I know your view of the world is a little different from the other side of the cockpit door. But I continue to be amazed at how clueless most pilost are as to the long-term impace of their actions in 2000. Or how they remain absolutely unwilling to take any responsibility for the consequences of those actions.
I would argue it probably had to be done, and so it was done. Fair enough. But now don't try to pretend it didn't happen or the long term consequences aren't real. Everything comes at a price, and I guess now it's time to pay.
But I know... pilots can do no wrong... never have, never will... believe me I get the message in almost every pre-flight briefing...
I think you and I are going to have to agree to diagree on why we are here in Chapter 11. The Summer of 2000 was certainly a small part of a very rich tapestry of events, but to even think that is even close to being the sole reason as to why we are here today is way off base. Think short staffing pilots that summer, dividend payouts, stock buy backs, US AIR merger, musical chairs in the CEO office, poor labor/management relations, September 11th, a nationwide recession, the use of the internet for "perfect pricing" to the customer, the proliferation of LCC's, etc., etc.
"But I know... pilots can do no wrong... never have, never will... believe me I get the message in almost every pre-flight briefing..."
You're going to have to clue me in about this generalization? This would seem to imply that almost every pre-flight briefing a pilot tells you he is never wrong? Confused.
"But I know... pilots can do no wrong... never have, never will... believe me I get the message in almost every pre-flight briefing..."
You're going to have to clue me in about this generalization? This would seem to imply that almost every pre-flight briefing a pilot tells you he is never wrong? Confused.
As was mentioned by someone, there is a 'line in the sand' and it may be a different spot for each group but for the Mechanics it's right here, right now. For us it goes beyond the cash aspect as many of us feel that what has been done to our profession over the past few years borders on criminal. Take it from those of us who have our heads stuck in the cowls - maintenance is not what it used to be. The system was built with an abundance of safeguards and they've worked but under the banner of 'cutting costs' those guards are being compromised. We see it every day. You might notice that there are fewer Mechanics flying NRSA these days - it's not just because half of us were laid off.
The grand experiment of AAR spooling up at Indy is going to be interesting to watch. The plan is obviously to replace our jobs with ones that pay half the wage. What the powers, making these plans, don't realize is that the vast majority of skilled A&P mechanics are through with this industry. Our management team is already in place at AAR and have you ever, in your entire career here, seen management not screw up their plan?
The grand experiment of AAR spooling up at Indy is going to be interesting to watch. The plan is obviously to replace our jobs with ones that pay half the wage. What the powers, making these plans, don't realize is that the vast majority of skilled A&P mechanics are through with this industry. Our management team is already in place at AAR and have you ever, in your entire career here, seen management not screw up their plan?
casual rat
Senior
- Aug 25, 2002
- 413
- 3
Wow, lots of finger pointing going on...Um, in the short term, I think the Industry's Managers are taking advantage of the Market's Environment--don't call me 'Einstein'. It takes 77 gallons of fuel to fly a single passenger across the country. It seems that the fares don't support the 'overhead' at all. When a company undersells (in any industry) to maximize sales, it must be the single-most efficient entity in the Marketplace, or face failure. There is no such thing as 'copycat efficiency'. To compensate for failure: the only way to get out of legal promises/contracts is with the legal device known as Bankruptcy. The laws protect the inefficient who cannot live within their means. The problem I have with the Industry is that it seems so 'nakedly' intentional--like the family that intentionally overspends and abuses credit in aquiring material goods that they can't afford, even though they realize the consequences are at hand.
Fuel prices will decline in the future as Americans/The World react to high prices. I think the Industry's intention is to lock in labor in the short term via long term contracts, then reap tremendous profits in the long term. At the end of those contracts, the Industry will find a way squander those profits (it's happened before), and use something else at hand (not to be cynical, but 9-11 comes to mind) to repeat the cycle.
The unfortunate consequence is that service will suffer as the skilled, experienced, quality employees go on to other opportunities, and are replaced with employees whose work ethic is less in degree than the employees they replace. Everything will be compromised as a result, safety margins compromised, if you will. Gradually, labor costs will require an increase, as quality labor will need to be attracted, as that cycle will repeat. Turnover can be very expensive.
Will Management ever change from a reactionary philosophy, to a more proactive one? If the workplace was 'happier', would a person really demand so much in monetary compensation? I really doubt that the current people in charge of the Industry really grasp this concept--they're too 'draconian'. I think the emphasis now is on a dehumanized system of management. There is a reason for Unions, as mismanagement reinforces a Union's existence. Management recognises this, but 'internal' politics prevents any short term changes. However; Management needs to change its face before this Industry sees anything in the way of meaningful profits. Reregulation is one option in the future.
I'm not Ray Neidl, nor would I want to be, but that's the way this file number sees it.
It's all about the pendulum-- not what happened yesterday. It's much bigger than any of us...
Now can't we all just get along?
Fuel prices will decline in the future as Americans/The World react to high prices. I think the Industry's intention is to lock in labor in the short term via long term contracts, then reap tremendous profits in the long term. At the end of those contracts, the Industry will find a way squander those profits (it's happened before), and use something else at hand (not to be cynical, but 9-11 comes to mind) to repeat the cycle.
The unfortunate consequence is that service will suffer as the skilled, experienced, quality employees go on to other opportunities, and are replaced with employees whose work ethic is less in degree than the employees they replace. Everything will be compromised as a result, safety margins compromised, if you will. Gradually, labor costs will require an increase, as quality labor will need to be attracted, as that cycle will repeat. Turnover can be very expensive.
Will Management ever change from a reactionary philosophy, to a more proactive one? If the workplace was 'happier', would a person really demand so much in monetary compensation? I really doubt that the current people in charge of the Industry really grasp this concept--they're too 'draconian'. I think the emphasis now is on a dehumanized system of management. There is a reason for Unions, as mismanagement reinforces a Union's existence. Management recognises this, but 'internal' politics prevents any short term changes. However; Management needs to change its face before this Industry sees anything in the way of meaningful profits. Reregulation is one option in the future.
I'm not Ray Neidl, nor would I want to be, but that's the way this file number sees it.
It's all about the pendulum-- not what happened yesterday. It's much bigger than any of us...
Now can't we all just get along?
For my mechanic brethren, I'll be right there beside you voting no on this one. Glenn and company have crossed my line in the sand. To hell with UAL.
P.S. You'll get no apologies out of me for 2000. Any pilot that makes excuses or offers some mealy-mouthed apology needs to grow a set.
Love to all,
737
P.S. You'll get no apologies out of me for 2000. Any pilot that makes excuses or offers some mealy-mouthed apology needs to grow a set.
Love to all,
737
Globetrotter11
Member
- Jun 17, 2004
- 44
- 0
<<< Glenn and company have crossed my line in the sand. To hell with UAL.>>>
737nCH11,
Please help me understand why you and your mechanic friends on this board feel it is necessary to take out the airline if you do in fact feel that you can do better elsewhere.
I am not entirely surprised when I see posters from other airlines (mostly AA and NW) trying to agitate employees of other airlines to "shut them down". That clearly benefits the agitators. What gets me is the need of the "brave and strong" to make sure that they destroy the livelyhood of their fellow workers. I see much of the same bravado at the USAirways forum.
With a few exceptions, these are difficult times for the airlines. Do you think that the financial picture would be different for UA if it had jetfuel at the $25/barrell cost that Southwest has? The fact is - UA does not have this. So where does one go from here?
So please tell all of us - why is it that you feel the compelling need to destroy the livelyhood of your fellow employees instead of making a decision that is right for you - and affects ONLY you?
737nCH11,
Please help me understand why you and your mechanic friends on this board feel it is necessary to take out the airline if you do in fact feel that you can do better elsewhere.
I am not entirely surprised when I see posters from other airlines (mostly AA and NW) trying to agitate employees of other airlines to "shut them down". That clearly benefits the agitators. What gets me is the need of the "brave and strong" to make sure that they destroy the livelyhood of their fellow workers. I see much of the same bravado at the USAirways forum.
With a few exceptions, these are difficult times for the airlines. Do you think that the financial picture would be different for UA if it had jetfuel at the $25/barrell cost that Southwest has? The fact is - UA does not have this. So where does one go from here?
So please tell all of us - why is it that you feel the compelling need to destroy the livelyhood of your fellow employees instead of making a decision that is right for you - and affects ONLY you?
Globetrotter11 said:
Globetrotter
It's not about 'taking out the airline' it's just about giving another billion dollars a year in concessions to a group that has no viable business plan. UAL management will use this cash for nothing more than to fund the continuation of their play acting. For them it's just a fun game with all those spread sheets and colorful powerpoint graphics. This is not aviation anymore, these people don't know anything about airplanes and don't care. It's all just marketing and managing and playing around with idiotic ideas and plans, too much time at the PC, no crosswind landings and no grease under the fingernails.
The mechanics have pretty much been slaughtered over the past three years. Maintenance intervals have been extended, aircraft due for maintenance have been parked, OSV's (funded and tooled by guess who) are screaming for qualified people to come do the work at half the wage but nobody's showing up. The dam's about to burst on this scheme that somebody hatched from a stack of numbers on an Excel spreadsheet.
Don't blame us
Using round numbers, let's say an A320 flies JFK-LAX. It will burn about, on average, 5,500 lbs. of fuel per hour for 6 hours for a total of 33,000 lbs of fuel. Let's say one gallon of jet fuel today weighs 6.9 lbs, so now we've burned 4,800 gallons of fuel on this trip. If the plane is full, our A320's hold 138 people. So it just took 4,800 gallons of fuel to fly 138 people across the country. That's about 34.8 gallons per passenger. If jet fuel costs $1.25 per gallon out of JFK, we spend about $43.50 per person, one way, just in fuel to fly him across the country.
casual rat
Senior
- Aug 25, 2002
- 413
- 3
I meant 77 gallons per passenger...thanks for covering me Bear96! I think the news article that I saw used a 757 as an example.
johnny gearpin
Member
casual rat,
i'm sympathetic to ual's amts. aar is intenet with alaska and looming on the horizon for ata's mechs as well.
since being layed off almost 2 years ago wages have risen for contractors and 3rd party mro's. the main reason is amt's are demanding more for their skills and experience. as amts choose to continure in the trade, the cost of 3rd party will not seem so sweet to the mainline. my fear is when the mro's get too expensive and the mainline no longer has the ability to insource the work -- where does the work go? mexico where labor is less? will the quality and oversight be there? do people think we have wages that price us out of jobs?
i think i should have left aviation to a hobby instead of a career.
i wish the best to all those left. B)
best regards,
johnny gearpin
i'm sympathetic to ual's amts. aar is intenet with alaska and looming on the horizon for ata's mechs as well.
since being layed off almost 2 years ago wages have risen for contractors and 3rd party mro's. the main reason is amt's are demanding more for their skills and experience. as amts choose to continure in the trade, the cost of 3rd party will not seem so sweet to the mainline. my fear is when the mro's get too expensive and the mainline no longer has the ability to insource the work -- where does the work go? mexico where labor is less? will the quality and oversight be there? do people think we have wages that price us out of jobs?
i think i should have left aviation to a hobby instead of a career.
i wish the best to all those left. B) best regards,
johnny gearpin
