" Right Gauging the Fleet "

[Super FLUF]

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...

It's not that the market can't be served "profitably" with the larger aircraft. Management made a conscientious decision years ago to replace a few mainline flights every day with several smaller aircraft. The "frequency" argument. They claimed that this is what the business traveler wanted. What a "visionary" idea. Right up there with "more room throughout coach". The RJ gamble has blown up in their face twice. First with the aircraft that they can't even afford to operate, second with the business travelers that hate the RJs and Eagle's rock-bottom performance and have defected to StarAlliance or SkyTeam.

Airlines survived for decades without RJs and did just fine. Now they are (apparently) indispensable. Whatever. The only ones claiming they are indispensable are the managers that made the poor decisions sending us down the primrose path years ago.

 

[Super FLUF]

But you were too busy "Defending the profession"

Why the constant references to this old picket line campaign? Was something wrong with it? You would have done something differently? Who do you fly for and what "high bar" have you and your pilot group set for the industry and profession?

 

[FWAAA]

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.

AA doesn't need 460 planes to replace 200 MD-80s, 120 757s and 15 762s. That totals only 335 planes, and there's an additional 28 738s for 2011 delivery that aren't a part of the 460. The new narrowbodies aren't slated to replace 763s, so there's about 160 growth narrowbodies in that number. Presumably, many of those would be 73G or A319s for the markets that can't support 160 seats but need more than 88 seats.

787s aren't here yet, but why might they "never be here?" APA either agrees to a payrate for them now or one will be imposed as part of the section 1113 process. The 763s will need to be replaced by more fuel efficient aircraft, and the 787s are those planes.

Yes, 777s are here now (and 10 more 77Ws, almost as large as 747s) and some furloughs are proposed, mainly because of the productivity improvements. Pilots will fly more hours each month and that means fewer bodies.

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.

Ramp jobs have been and will be outsourced because Menzies and others can get warm bodies to work for cheap. Pilots cannot save their own jobs indefinitely against market forces, let alone ramp and maintenance. Bears knows it as he's retired fleet service. Sure, APA's stubborn stance on small planes may have preserved a few ancillary jobs. On the other hand, APA's stubborn stance over the years may have helped cause a smaller mainline AA, meaning fewer 738s, 757s, 763s and 777s. Perhaps abandoning the tired mantra of "if we allow outsourced small jets, AA will buy 1000 of them and all our jobs will disappear" might have resulted in more RJs and more large mainline planes. We'll never know.

 

[Mach85ER]

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.

FYI,

Sovich had Clinton's Chief of Staff on speed dial (Bruce Lindsey?).

In the tense days leading of to the strike, everybody was on edge in the inner circle including Sovich, even more so on the night of the strike, except for Sovich. On that day he was relaxed and nobody knew why. Sovich know because he made a deal with Clinton asking for the PEB. Sovich hated the RJ's and didn't see a problem with them at AE. He was/is a fool.

Seriously, APA will make a deal to fly the RJ's, probably close to what others fly them for. The others also have FA's working for $25/hour. Ask APFA if they'll work for the same industry comparison pay as the pilots are willing to.

I think you can guess the answer to that.

 

[jimntx]

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.

Unfortunately, AMR executives have lied to the employees and screwed them over (while awarding themselves bonusses and raises) for so very long that no one much cares whether AA goes up in flames or not. All of this baloney about "time is of the essence and we have only a short window to come to agreement before we have to force the issue." What about the years before bankruptcy when the company was dragging its feet on negotiations?

If it fails, it fails. We won't be the first airline to go out of business because of executive mismanagement (though like the others we, the employees, will be blamed. Ho-hum), nor will we be the last. There seems to be a certain executive hubris in the airline business that says all my decisions are like the Virgin Mary--without sin or error. If my decisions do not result in record profits, then it must be that we are paying the employees too much. There is no possibility that my decisions were wrong.

If the company imposes (with the help of the court) work rules and compensation cuts that are too draconian, I would not be surprised if the flight attendants become willing to strike regardless of the consequences, or decide to retire en masse. The company could not train enough new hires in time to keep the airplanes in the air. No doubt they would get management types to work the "critical" flights--like the almost empty flights between DFW and ATL. After all, we can't cede that market share to Delta.

 

[Super FLUF]

787s aren't here yet, but why might they "never be here?"

The bottom line is, until those aircraft are actually on property, you cannot say that the deal is sealed. Working at this place of all placed you should know that. The 787 is by no means a done deal and the problems with that aircraft just keep materializing. If it does ever show up on property, how many YEARS later will that be?

Ramp jobs have been and will be outsourced because Menzies and others can get warm bodies to work for cheap.

Nice. Just remember that when the outsourcing man comes knocking at your door. I guess I don't know what you do at AA. To make a statement like the one above you must have some specialized skill and hard-to-get license that would make it almost impossible for AA to outsource or replace you.

On the other hand, APA's stubborn stance over the years may have helped cause a smaller mainline AA

I should have known. Once again, all the pilot's fault. Certainly not management's fault. Yes, we "may" have helped cause a smaller mainline. Just throw the BS conjecture out there without an explanation. I'm sure APA "may" have caused the recent spike in gas prices and snowstorm in the midwest as well. We'll just never know.

 

[will fix for food]

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

This didn't take long to find:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/American-Airlines/McDonnell-Douglas-MD-82/0491012/M/&sid=989e5be2a96f2daea23f7ecf5804b276

 

[will fix for food]

I wish I knew how to imbed pictures.

There are a lot more very similar to this one also.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/American-Airlines/McDonnell-Douglas-MD-82/2068134/&sid=23852cfbb4152ca1153c3b4d2e533cce

 

[FWAAA]

I wish I knew how to imbed pictures.

When you're replying, look at all the little icons above the text box where you type. Roll your mouse over them until you see "Insert Image." It's between "Insert Link" and "Insert email address."

 

[WorldTraveler]

The total reduction in jobs at AA was the least of all network carriers from 2000-2008 when the DL-NW merger started the next round of consolidation. AA reduced its staff by about 25%, followed shortly by CO a few percent higher.
Among the carriers who filed for BK in the 2000s, DL's job reduction was about 35% followed by NW at 39% with UA and US about 50% (including the combined US-HP totals).
AA also did a pretty good job of maintaining its mainline flying during the 2000s - but its yields became increasingly pressured by lower cost competitors and the inability to rightsize markets with smaller aircraft - which included the large RJs which AA had very few of.
.
There is no assurance that AA will order the total 400 aircraft in the next decade, esp. since so many really are growth aircraft and AA has yet to demonstrate that it can grow the airline by up to 25% which is what that many aircraft could imply - on top of the addition of large RJs which AA says it needs to compete with AA and DL.... or perhaps AA drops the 319 part of the order, forces a salary level for an 88 seater, and the growth at mainline comes at the expense of 50 seaters - but since they haven't proposed that yet, so far as we know, that would be a stretch.
.
Still, AA mgmt spent nearly a decade asking for the same relaxed scope provisions to fly large RJs.... at some point shouldn't a company either figure out how to manage with the environment/work rules they are given or retool the airline into something that can work? AA mgmt has to be held somewhat responsible for coming up with a model that could work with the network and labor rules they had w/o looking over the shoulders of DL, UA, and US and saying "we must have those or we can't compete."
.
AA still has an enormously valuable network and market presence and it really has only been in the last 2 years that competitors have been able to start seriously chipping away at AA.
.
So, Jim, the Mary in AA's plan of reorg now is a Hail Mary.... not only do you have a group of employees who have been disenfranchised twice - any new blood that might have made it in the door over the past 8 years will now be pushed right back out. AA's competitors continue to vie for larger and larger pieces of AA's network and revenue. And creditors at this point see an industry that probably could stand to further consolidate and wonder if AA will make it as a survivor against other competitors who seem to have what it takes to adapt and survive.
BTW, DL probably would benefit from ceding some AA-DL overlap markets to AA in order to reduce the overlap with which the AA will have with DL should DL make a proposal to acquire even parts of AA. Note that DL recently decided to pull down about a half dozen MIA routes including MIA-LHR. Given DL's primary interest would be in MIA and LHR, it makes sense to reduce overlap in those markets as the highest priority.

 

[Buck]

The bottom line is, until those aircraft are actually on property, you cannot say that the deal is sealed. Working at this place of all placed you should know that. The 787 is by no means a done deal and the problems with that aircraft just keep materializing. If it does ever show up on property, how many YEARS later will that be?



Nice. Just remember that when the outsourcing man comes knocking at your door. I guess I don't know what you do at AA. To make a statement like the one above you must have some specialized skill and hard-to-get license that would make it almost impossible for AA to outsource or replace you.



I should have known. Once again, all the pilot's fault. Certainly not management's fault. Yes, we "may" have helped cause a smaller mainline. Just throw the BS conjecture out there without an explanation. I'm sure APA "may" have caused the recent spike in gas prices and snowstorm in the midwest as well. We'll just never know.

I thought it was Tulsa's fault?

 

[BoeingBoy]

AA mgmt has to be held somewhat responsible for coming up with a model that could work with the network and labor rules they had w/o looking over the shoulders of DL, UA, and US and saying "we must have those or we can't compete."

You mean doing what the other big legacies have done? AA started the B-scales, the others followed. DL started the RJ trend, the others followed. US started the bankruptcy trend after 911, the others followed. US started the 80-90 seat RJ trend (thanks to HP), the others are following. No legacy said "We have these restrictions that we don't dare touch so we've got to make the best of what we have." Why pick on AA but not others...

Jim

 

[eolesen]

What a horrible analysis. AA's biggest growth occurred under Crandall with NO RJs.

Try again --- AA's biggest growth period ENDED when RJ's weren't allowed on the property....

AA experienced a jump in employees around 2000 after purchasing TWA.

Wrong again. If AA's jump to over 100,000 employees was in 2000, that's *BEFORE* the TWA deal. AA simply got fat during the years it was making money (up until 1999).

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).

Hmmm. There were only a total of 19 MD11's, yet there are 47 777's on the property. I don't remember if the DC10's were operating beyond 1/2000.

For every F100 and 727 parked, at least one 738 was added. All of the PW powered 757s were replaced either type for type or with 763s.

I'll try to pull some numbers tomorrow to show Eagle's "growth", and I don't think it's going to add up quite the same as you're making it out to be...

AA may have shrunk in terms of employees, yet I don't think there was as much contraction in ASMs... I'll see what I can pull on that as well...

 

[jimntx]

I don't remember if the DC10's were operating beyond 1/2000.

This is one I can answer (sorta kinda). The DC10s and the MD11s were gone before I started flying in Sept., 2000. There were still a few 727s, and almost all the F100s in the fleet. However, the 727s and the F100s were gone before I was furloughed in July, 2003. The TWA 757s were still around when I was recalled in Nov., 2004, but were gone within the next two years. I loved the seating configuration on the TW 75s because coach was divided into two cabins with the lavs positioned between the cabins. It prevented there ALWAYS being a clot of passengers blocking the aft galley entrance.

 

[tom barry]

Unfortunately, AMR executives have lied to the employees and screwed them over (while awarding themselves bonusses and raises) for so very long that no one much cares whether AA goes up in flames or not. All of this baloney about "time is of the essence and we have only a short window to come to agreement before we have to force the issue." What about the years before bankruptcy when the company was dragging its feet on negotiations?

If it fails, it fails. We won't be the first airline to go out of business because of executive mismanagement (though like the others we, the employees, will be blamed. Ho-hum), nor will we be the last. There seems to be a certain executive hubris in the airline business that says all my decisions are like the Virgin Mary--without sin or error. If my decisions do not result in record profits, then it must be that we are paying the employees too much. There is no possibility that my decisions were wrong.

If the company imposes (with the help of the court) work rules and compensation cuts that are too draconian, I would not be surprised if the flight attendants become willing to strike regardless of the consequences, or decide to retire en masse. The company could not train enough new hires in time to keep the airplanes in the air. No doubt they would get management types to work the "critical" flights--like the almost empty flights between DFW and ATL. After all, we can't cede that market share to Delta.

Well Jim, I agree with you on APFA. Of the 3 Unions, APFA has more women than the other two, yet dispite that fact ...they've got MORE BALLS than the TWU and APA put together.

Good luck to you my friend, and to your co-F/A's as well !!!!!!!!!!!!