Show Me The Money

[robbedagain]

oh lets not forget that darn bag delivery system. i know for a fact that we are spending a lot of money just to deliver bags to the right pax. If we're send a lot, then why not hire a couple of folks back from furlough and start up a company thing strictly for baggage delivery. it sure would cut down by half or more the expenses it uses to deliver bags back to their pax

 

[Mike W]

Diogenes,
I did some checking and there have been a few instances of cross utilization.Such as Fleet Service agents helping with Kiosk machines.Our contract contains some ambiguities concerning the cross utilization clause. The Fleet Service contract also states that: "The company will not use this provision in a manner which directly results in an increase in the number of positions in another craft or class and a corresponding decrease in the number of fleet service craft or class positions." These provisions only apply to ClassII stations. You can be sure if the company thought they could use these provisions to lower head count beyond what it already is,they would have done so. I also doubt the company wants to go to the added expense of sending Fleet Service agents to ticketing training.
It sure would be nice if someone would focus on ways to generate a profit rather than finding new and ingenious ways to wack more employees.

 

[diogenes]

Mike, I hear what you're saying. Here's how it worked out at an undisclosed location I'm familiar with.

We actually have a few more employees than we did post 911.

Had the company elected to cross utilize prior to the increase in headcount, there would have been no contract violation.

Plenty of my IAM brethren are opposed to cross-utilization (along with all the CWA'ers) including some who were there at the creation. If it was such a big issue, how did the language get in the contract?

My personal opinion is we should operate as lean as possible at all times - a concept an undisclosed airline we have in common obviously knows nothing about.

Anyway, the gist of my posts were;

1. The company and their apologist's incessant whining about labor rules and the nasty unions causing the problems.

2. The company has a ton of work rules, whether they're popular with us or not, to save real monies, available that they never use.

3. Therefore, the company needs to go bark up another tree.


And have you noticed none of the usual suspects want to refute any of this?

Facts are an inconvenient thing.