uza said:
I don’t reply to static.
The executive team is not on here distancing themselves, are they?
As far as Teddy and Pittbull your post here says it all, reading Pitbull’s endless rants in the thousands only proves my point of the kind leadership the F/A’s group have in Pit.
I am not exactly sure what your response is supposed to mean.....it makes no sense. What does my post say about Teddy and PitBull? The executive team is not on here distancing themselves? What does that have to do with whether or not you are or are not an executive officer?
I will ask for some indulgence from everyone as I repost an earlier post in this topic for UZA to respond to. How exactly are my questions and statements static? You sir, are the one on here making all the noise and yet hav enone of the answers.
REPOST:
I am really only going to address this point for now......
This is where you are totally off base. The IAM recently meet with the company to discuss cost savings of 80-100 million dollars a year. Is this your idea of the IAM complaining about concessions and not offering solutions?
Many posters on here have made some awesome suggestions to help save the company money and they have fallen on deaf ears.
My suggestion - years ago - was to roll the PHL hub. What is in the contracts that prohibit this? I have asked several times for anyone to offer me reasons why the rolling hub concept would not work in PHL and have had only one response about by de-banking PHL you could open yourself to more competition. That being said, if we utilized all of our asstes - employees, facilities and aircraft - to their maximum then we would be able to compete much more effectively. Add to that the right fare structure and the benefits that we offer and LCC's don't and would could keep competition OUT of PHL.
AOG has had many suggestions on things that can be done to save the company millions - but it falls on deaf ears.
Yes, there is a lot of "venting" that goes on in these forums, but there are also a great deal of suggestions that need to be looked at. For the IAM to come to the company with 80-100 million dollars in cost savings ideas, WHILE THEIR CONTRACT IS IN CONSTANT VIOLATION, proves that the realize there is a problem and will participate, but not until all other avenues have been exhausted.
Again, if the company was taking full advantage of all of the benefits of the ALREADY SIGNED CONTRACTS, were treated with dignity and respect and had their CBA's followed and not violated, then I think you would find the employee groups much more receptive to opening additional discussions.
Answer this if you will: What are the items in the contracts that are holding us back from becoming more productive? Why can't some of the ideas that the IAM says will generate saving be implimented? Why are the employees the first thing the company looks to for cost savings, versus taking advantage of what they wanted in rounds 1 and 2? No more hot air and chest thumping.....stick to facts and answer the questions.