" Right Gauging the Fleet "

[strikeforce]

The real talented people should already have their resume in the hands of employers with better prospects for the future, or already contemplating job offers.

Already had job offers!!!

 

[Super FLUF]

With approx. 460 new narrow body's and 787's "enroute" plus 777's already here,(of which None of these A/C are Below 88 seats) means that APA/APFA are still going to be doing a shite Load of flying, PERIOD !

1. The 460 new aircraft are all replacement aircraft for S80, 757, and 767 that are going out the door.
2. 787s are not here and may never be here.
3. 777s "are here" and yet management is talking about furloughs.

APA is going to spend 1/2 Million $$ a month during BK, to among other things lobby thier "position" !

So we shouldn't lobby for our interests?

IF thier "position" is to keep a current stranglehold on the RJ issue, at the possible expense of thousands of Ramp/Amt's/Agents etc. jobs, then I say....Thier position BE DAM*ED !!!!!!!!!!!

Your logic doesn't add up. By keeping aircraft at mainline, ancillary jobs are kept here. Do you have any idea what has happened to ramp workers at other airlines that have had mainline flying outsourced? They are all GONE - outsourced to companies that pay $8/hr. with no benefits.

(another) IF. IF APA is willing to fly said 88 seaters under A/E conditions ($$$), then I say give them "first crack" at it Before A/E pilots !

Oh I see. It's the AA pilots that should take all of the hits in pay, quality of life, and benefits to keep every other employee employed and take minimal cuts in pay and benefits, and of course, take care of the retirees as well.

Riiiiiigggggggghhhhhht. What a "union man" you are. Is your last name Brundage?

 

[Super FLUF]

As you well know, APA has a long history of stonewalling in its own attempt to "save its profession." Of course, that has contributed to AA's problems, dating back to 1996 when the first RJ TA was rejected. At that time, AA was already way behind DL with 50 seaters, which DL began flying at Comair and ASA in 1990 or so. Eagle didn't get its first ERJ until 1999 because of a stubborn (and mistaken) belief that preventing AA from paying Eagle to fly 50 seaters would somehow preserve high pay for all. Didn't work out that way

There isn't a single analyst in this country that isn't saying the 50 seat RJs can't fly to the desert fast enough. These are the 50 seaters that you were saying (above) that we just HAD to have. The CASM to operate these albatrosses is astronomical. Apparently, AA had to get these aircraft because everyone else was getting them. That was the end of the economic analysis behind the purchase here at AA.

Interestingly enough, a few years ago, the 70-seaters were all the rage as an "answer" to the out of control costs of the 50 seaters. Fast forward a few years and surprise! There are now analysts calling for 90-seaters because of the "disappointing" economics of operating the 70-seat aircraft. As it turns out, our "top talent" is now figuring out that the cost of operating one of these POS 70-seaters is almost as much as one of our 737-800s. Well hey, we can fix all that with the 88-seaters....... rinse and repeat.

If these RJs are such a great deal, why don't we have independent operators making a go of it with their own system? Why do they need to be paid on a fee per departure? Everyone already knows the answer - the economic of the RJs is a huge money loser, and there is NO WAY an RJ operator could make a go of it on their own without mainline "welfare" supporting them.

You make light of APAs campaign to "defend the profession", however, you make no mention of how many jobs at mainline that fight has saved. Besides pilot jobs, there are the associated FA jobs, ramp, mechanic, and counter jobs. I'm sure AMR would have been simply delighted to have taken all of those jobs and converted them to much, much lower paying "Eagle" jobs.

If you don't want us defending our profession, what would you have us do? Stand and applaud the PUPsters as they send all of our jobs to the likes of Republic and Trans States? Get real. Whos side are you on? I hear the same BS platitudes from guys like Brundage about "competitive costs" all the while they are making catastrophic business decisions that are running the company into the ground.

Here's a picture of your beloved RJs in action, making buckets of money for us. I'm sure this was all the fault of APA as well.

 

[BoeingBoy]

There isn't a single analyst in this country that isn't saying the 50 seat RJs can't fly to the desert fast enough. These are the 50 seaters that you were saying (above) that we just HAD to have. The CASM to operate these albatrosses is astronomical. Apparently, AA had to get these aircraft because everyone else was getting them. That was the end of the economic analysis behind the purchase here at AA.

Sure, all the analysts are saying that now, but not in the 90's. Then they were saying that network carriers without RJ feed were either losing money serving small markets with airplanes that were too big or making more money by having the 50-seaters that customers preferred to turboprops serving those small markets. But since then crude has gone from ~20/bbl to today's close of $108+/bbl - nearly a 45% increase. Jet fuel has gone from ~50 cents/gal in the 90's to over $3.00/gal today - over a 600% increase. That's why all the analysts are now saying that the 50-seaters can't be retired fast enough.

If these RJs are such a great deal, why don't we have independent operators making a go of it with their own system? Why do they need to be paid on a fee per departure? Everyone already knows the answer - the economic of the RJs is a huge money loser, and there is NO WAY an RJ operator could make a go of it on their own without mainline "welfare" supporting them.

Because there's really no role for 70-90 seat planes outside of mid-size and smaller markets. Even though they cost less on a CASM basis than the 50-seaters, they cost more on a CASM basis than 120-290-seaters. In other words, they're most useful for feeding a hub where the passengers from the smaller markets can be aggregated on bigger airplanes and carried to a large city or another hub. The RJ may be a break-even proposition on the feeder flights, but the passengers often produces a profit for the entire trip. Lose that feed and the longer haul flights lose money.

You make light of APAs campaign to "defend the profession", however, you make no mention of how many jobs at mainline that fight has saved.

AA went from ~84,000 employees in 1995 to ~100,000 in 2002, then dropped to ~66,000 in 2010. At the same time, the number of pilots went from ~9,000 in 1995 to 12,300 in 2002 to 7,900 in 2010. Note the increases when Eagle was getting the RJ's (and those are mainline numbers)? Note the declines after the 2003 concessions? I'd say that "defending the profession" has a lot less effect than other factors since the number of mainline employees went up as the RJ's were coming. Are you going to include language in the APA contract calling for only mainline maint/FA/ramp/agents/res/etc working mainline airplanes/flights? Otherwise, your contract has nothing to do with preserving the jobs of other groups, but everything to do with saving your job. But if the cost is an uncompetitive AA, your job won't be saved long.

Jim

 

[tom barry]

1. The 460 new aircraft are all replacement aircraft for S80, 757, and 767 that are going out the door.
2. 787s are not here and may never be here.
3. 777s "are here" and yet management is talking about furloughs.



So we shouldn't lobby for our interests?



Your logic doesn't add up. By keeping aircraft at mainline, ancillary jobs are kept here. Do you have any idea what has happened to ramp workers at other airlines that have had mainline flying outsourced? They are all GONE - outsourced to companies that pay $8/hr. with no benefits.



Oh I see. It's the AA pilots that should take all of the hits in pay, quality of life, and benefits to keep every other employee employed and take minimal cuts in pay and benefits, and of course, take care of the retirees as well.

Riiiiiigggggggghhhhhht. What a "union man" you are. Is your last name Brundage?

Fluf,.........Spare me the CRY BABY(pilot) BULL SHITE !
Funny how ONLY 400 of you jet jockeys are to be affected !

BK, or no BK, AA only cares what APA is thinking /reacting . Why ? Because AA really does want to emerge as a "stand alone".

The TWU and APFA are SCREWED either way in this Abortion. (AA's holding 90% of the cards in BK)
1. They either approve the company's HORSE SHITE proposal,
Or
2. They(APFA)(the TWU doesn't have the BALLS) will "shut this mother DOWN" , and it gets sold off in pieces. INCLUDING YOU.....Fluf.

So in conclusion Fluf,................if YOU and AA want to re-emerge as a stand alone, YOU WILL fly the E-jets @ A/E prices, ...OR....you can take a job flying in China ! (They're HIRING)

One should pick thier battles to fight. Recognizing the handwriting on the wall, and choosing NOT to fight at this time, does NOT make a person a BAD Union man, if you're the TWU/APFA !

For the record, I've Forgotten MORE about being a union guy, than you'll ever remember ! !

Just curious. Are you one of those "Union Guys" that rah-rah-rah's the Union in the cock pit, and then pulls the (R) lever in the voting booth ??????????

YOUR TURN !!

"E",............As to your question, GOD only knows whats gonna happen to the TWU/APFA sans E-Jets(providing APA agrees to fly them)

 

[TWU informer]

The TWU Leadership may not have the balls, but I do keep hearing from members that would just assume burn the place down and the leadership will not be able to control the membership when the fire gets started.

I wonder if a single consulting firm in exchange for the millions of $ being spent has a contingency plan for the barn burning down?

 

[eolesen]

Fluf, you're absolutely right about replacing 40 seat turboprops with 50 seat RJ's being a bit of a fad, but you also have to remember that there are other considerations that came into play, primarily the better performance envelope...

When MQ @ ORD was primarily an ATR42 operation, the cancellation rates were abysmal, as was dependability for MQ-AA connections, even before the Roselawn accident with MQ4184. The one thing that the RJ's have going for them are better foul weather performance (being able to fly above a lot of what would shut down a prop operation) and also were able to cut down block times and open up some longer routes that just couldn't work with props (e.g. ORD-FSD).

All that said, there seems to be a lot of renewed interest in the Q400 and the ATR72, and it wouldn't surprise me to see one or more regional operators start growing their turboprop operations again.

 

[WorldTraveler]

The issue is flexibility... not a specific aircraft type.
Business changes. The airline industry even faster than most industries.
Airlines that don't have the flexibility to adapt to changes in the business environment will lose at the expense of more nimble competitors.
Airplanes are long-life investments but there are deals that have been done (such as various types of leases, capacity purchase agreements) to obtain airline services using specific aircraft types that do not require the normal 15-20 year commitment that is normal for an aircraft.
And then there is BK which provides the opportunity to walk away or write down part of the value in the asset - which has been helpful to write down values for assets like smaller RJs which had high value several years ago but very little now.
.
It is very possible that as the industry conslidates, the need for all types of RJs will diminish as there are fewer but stronger hubs used by fewer players.... some carriers may decide that it is no longer necessary to serve 250 cities in the US with a fleet of inefficient RJs just to be able to gain business which is heavily concentrated in the top 50 - let alone 100-150 markets which have the potential to support mainline aircraft service.
.
AA's ability to survive will depend on gaining the tools to adapt to the market - and specific to aircraft, that might necessitate some small RJs today, 10 years of 70 seaters, and 15 years worth of 80 seaters.... but even on the mainline fleet, who is to say that a 130 seat A319 size aircraft will be necessary in AA's network 20 years from now, although they seem to believe it is necessary today.

 

[TWU informer]

AA's ability to survive will depend on gaining the tools to adapt to the market - and specific to aircraft, that might necessitate some small RJs today, 10 years of 70 seaters, and 15 years worth of 80 seaters.... but even on the mainline fleet, who is to say that a 130 seat A319 size aircraft will be necessary in AA's network 20 years from now, although they seem to believe it is necessary today.

AA's ability to survive will first depend on employee support for the reorganization.
Without that, the plan is D.O.A.

 

[WorldTraveler]

AA's ability to survive will first depend on employee support for the reorganization.
Without that, the plan is D.O.A.

I agree completely... but assuming they obtain that, it will require the flexibility from a fleet and network perspective..
.
Like a lot of people, I am very concerned that the climate of conflict will continue and sabotage all efforts to turn AA around. History shows that airlines go through that phase during their restructuring but then everyone accepts that the alternative is to shut the place down and decide to work together.... I'm not seeing much if any evidence that either side is willing to ban the possibility of failure by pulling together to ensure failure cannot happen.

 

[Super FLUF]

Jet fuel has gone from ~50 cents/gal in the 90's to over $3.00/gal today - over a 600% increase. That's why all the analysts are now saying that the 50-seaters can't be retired fast enough.

That's certainly a big part of it. However, my point is, where was the in depth analysis by all of these managers at AA? Out of all of the variables in operating this aircraft, they never figured the price of fuel would go up? I read Mike Boyd's site quite a bit and he does a very good breakdown of RJ operating costs. Even without the high fuel costs, it sounds like there are many variables that make operating these aircraft extremely costly. Once again, how were all of these costs missed?

The RJ may be a break-even proposition on the feeder flights, but the passengers often produces a profit for the entire trip. Lose that feed and the longer haul flights lose money.

That's what we've always heard, but I find it telling that management has never offered us a breakdown of Eagle costs or a breakdown of their part in the revenue stream. They put Eagle up for sale at fire-sale prices and didn't even get a nibble.

AA went from ~84,000 employees in 1995 to ~100,000 in 2002, then dropped to ~66,000 in 2010. At the same time, the number of pilots went from ~9,000 in 1995 to 12,300 in 2002 to 7,900 in 2010. Note the increases when Eagle was getting the RJ's (and those are mainline numbers)? Note the declines after the 2003 concessions?

What a horrible analysis. AA's biggest growth occurred under Crandall with NO RJs. AA experienced a jump in employees around 2000 after purchasing TWA. It should be noted that even at that time that even when AA added these new employees, the 727s, DC-10s and MD-11s were being parked. The F-100s went shortly thereafter. Over the next few years AA continued to park a variety of aircraft through downsizing (routes lost to Eagle) and bungling (TWA 757s lost to Delta). Also notable is that out of TWA's entire fleet, all that is left is around 50 MD-80s, and those are destined for the bone yard. All of Reno's aircraft are history as well. It is undeniable that while all of this shrinkage was happening, Eagle was growing at a directly proportional rate. The same can be said for all of the other legacy carriers as well. Just a couple of years ago, United parked their entire fleet of 737s. Where did all of those jobs go?

I'd say that "defending the profession" has a lot less effect than other factors since the number of mainline employees went up as the RJ's were coming. Are you going to include language in the APA contract calling for only mainline aint/FA/ramp/agents/res/etc working mainline airplanes/flights? Otherwise, your contract has nothing to do with preserving the jobs of other groups, but everything to do with saving your job.

Every route that mainline transfers to Eagle means almost EVERY job associated with that route becomes Eagle. That means at the very least a devastating loss of pay and quality of life to related employees. The secondary cities that used to be mainline cities were all magically transferred to "Eagle" cities. Besides the flight crews, those flights were now all handled by newly minted "Eagle" employees. All tenure at mainline was lost. Gee, what a great deal for all. Hub cities saw commensurate losses of personnel as well. I don't know how you can claim that mainline jobs were not lost. What do you think the airline just kept the mainline employees on the payroll after the jobs were transferred to Eagle?

 

[Super FLUF]

Funny how ONLY 400 of you jet jockeys are to be affected !

Actually, it looks like there will be no furloughs for us. Sorry about that Tom.

Too bad you retired. I'm sure AA misses having a company man like you on property to rally the YES vote.

 

[Super FLUF]

Another RJ providing "critical feed" to UAL at EWR last night.

 

[BoeingBoy]

That's certainly a big part of it. However, my point is, where was the in depth analysis by all of these managers at AA? Out of all of the variables in operating this aircraft, they never figured the price of fuel would go up? I read Mike Boyd's site quite a bit and he does a very good breakdown of RJ operating costs. Even without the high fuel costs, it sounds like there are many variables that make operating these aircraft extremely costly. Once again, how were all of these costs missed?

The same way all the analysts including Boyd missed it in the late 90's. Who expected jet fuel, which had been about 50 cents/gallon all through the 90's except for a short spike to just over $1.00/gallon with the first Gulf War, to be over $4/gallon in 8 years? Or still over $3/gallon a decade later? If AMR had as good a crystal ball as you seem to expect, they wouldn't have bought TWA and would have filed for bankruptcy long before 2011. They would have fewer 50 and under seat RJ's and more larger RJ's. But you were too busy "Defending the profession" - what was wrong with your crystal ball to not foresee all those things?

That's what we've always heard, but I find it telling that management has never offered us a breakdown of Eagle costs or a breakdown of their part in the revenue stream. They put Eagle up for sale at fire-sale prices and didn't even get a nibble.

Since it's AMR that reports. Nobody wants a bunch of 50 and less seat RJ's with fuel at the prices they are.

What a horrible analysis.

Which is why I included the 1995 numbers. You lost employees while "Defending the profession", pilots and other. Yes, the number of employees when up with the TWA acquisition, but that was a one time event - not several years. It also doesn't explain the continued increase in employees through 2002 or the continued loss of employees through 2010 (the last full year figures are available for). The booming 90's increased the size of AA, and with that the number of employees/pilots too. But the start of a recession in 1999, followed by the TWA acquisition then 911 followed by concessions followed by big increases in fuel cost all took a toll. What happened to "Defending the profession" in the following 7 years?

Every route that mainline transfers to Eagle means almost EVERY job associated with that route becomes Eagle. That means at the very least a devastating loss of pay and quality of life to related employees. The secondary cities that used to be mainline cities were all magically transferred to "Eagle" cities. Besides the flight crews, those flights were now all handled by newly minted "Eagle" employees. All tenure at mainline was lost. Gee, what a great deal for all. Hub cities saw commensurate losses of personnel as well. I don't know how you can claim that mainline jobs were not lost. What do you think the airline just kept the mainline employees on the payroll after the jobs were transferred to Eagle?

I won't deny that people at the stations "Eagled" were hurt - it happened at all the network carriers as they got RJ's. But one can't assume that those jobs wouldn't have been lost completely without the RJ's. If a market can't be flown profitably with mainline aircraft, what are the choices other than dropping that market or serving it with RJ's? Surely you have the answer...

Jim

 

[wcs]

APA has low balled a pilot rate in the past to fly these jets and the APFA and the TWU said "no way, full pay".

I don't recall that. But what I do recall is Sovich contacted the TWU and asked that the TWU membership accept lower wages to keep
the RJs as mainline aircraft. The TWU replied that they wanted to do their negotiating with the company not another labor group.
Sovich later called for the strike that lasted 7 minutes in 1997.