To Usa320pilot

[usairways_vote_NO]

Ahh, so your point is that pilots' only use is in crashing airplanes. OK, so let's get rid of them all together, shall we? It'd save the airlines a huge amount of money.

AHH and your point was that pilots are foolproof as your example US232 shows and they can take care of everything with no problems at all. They also can think faster then aircraft computers so no need to spend all that extra money for all that stuff. So just use the extra money line to managements pockets. AHH got ya now.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

usairways_vote_NO, that was a real cheap shot. Really stupid on your part, just stupid. :angry:

He asked for it and I gave it to him. He used UA323 twice as an example if all on board had died in that crash then would that have been cheap shot, stupid and stupid? For a first hand account of UA323 by the captain himself see.

323

 

[frankbooth]

Of course, a collateral benefit is that military pilots are much more likely to stay in the military instead of jumping ship after the taxpayers have invested significantly in their training. Perhaps that is the real motive for the government's attack on airline employee salaries.

As a former military pilot pilot (and current reservist), I'll take some umbrage at that statement. I spent 12+ yrs on active duty (my commitment was 7 yrs) and have flown in every combat zone we've had since 1989. How much more death do I need to risk to validate your investment? Just curious. I hear Iran may be next.

 

[mweiss]

AHH and your point was that pilots are foolproof as your example US232 shows and they can take care of everything with no problems at all. They also can think faster then aircraft computers so no need to spend all that extra money for all that stuff. So just use the extra money line to managements pockets. AHH got ya now.

No, my point is that, as someone intimately acquainted with electronic technology, I recognize that the systems will not be programmed to handle all possible permutations of events.

When the truly bizarre happens (which is why I pulled out UA232), it's far better to have a human being up there. Humans are capable of adapting to new circumstances far more rapidly than machines can.

Personally, I'm rather fond of the symbiotic relationship of quick-responding people working with even quicker-responding computers.

Let us not forget how we got here. I said

Pilots have to make the right decisions in a rapid-fire fashion, which mechanics do not

to which you, as a mechanic, took exception. God forbid that there be something a pilot would ever be better at than the epitome of all humanity, an airline mechanic.

No, you felt compelled to turn this into a "pilots only wish they could be as cool as mechanics" topic.

 

[frankbooth]

Do you fly? The aircraft nowadays are way capable of handling your above mentioned complex landing and do it on their own. Try that with a load of kids on a bus on a winding road with ice at night with drunk drivers and lunatics driving.

No need to say anything about your second paragraph ,,, see above

Dude, I know 320 has you spun up, but you need to back off a couple of threads on the old screw.

If flying is so easy and pays so well, go do it yourself -- evidently it's a piece of cake. I fly a jet with the best 60's tech available (DC-9). Your posts don't apply.

 

[ktflyhome]

Martha Stewart type treatment is what every employee including low level management is subjected to the only difference is the U employees don't see the light at the end of the tunnel, unless they make a personal choice to just walk away from years of service, years of their life's effort.

Any sane person is angry, upset and just frustrated. The airline industry like everything else is being buffeted by a global economy and wal*mart-ization which brings up everyone on the planet while bringing down USA working class.

What galls me more that anything is the fact that this management team chooses to use to their advantage the woes of the airline industry to bring us all down instead of fighting back with a real honest to goodness business plan and model. This airline has been reinvented every six months since I have been here and all for naught only costing billions of wasted dollars and energy and many jobs affecting many families.

If they continue attacking the employees moral will be such that this franchise will self destruct from within and it already is happening.

It's like a cancer patient trying to cut out his own cancer and while driving his car, he’s about to wreck.

Lakefield is just another talking head put in place to placate the employees. I hope to the good Lord above that the IAM walks the walk until the bitter end! I am personally ready for whatever occurs and want to see a stance made once and for all, whatever the outcome, whatever.

Very Well said. I concur

 

[funguy2]

First, we have had this whole debate before... So I am not going to go through it all again, specifically, the what are <job> worth...

Two comments, though...

Point 1: Its clear that USA320Pilot does not understand the "LCC Model." He can't, because there isn't one. The LCC's have two things in common: CASM below 8.25 cents and a rational fare structure...

USA320Pilot said:

I do not like the fact that LCC and Express employees are willing to work for less pay and benefits than you and I, but they are. Therefore, how can any legacy carrier compete when most of their other costs are fixed?

I recognize the LCC business model is different with point-to-point flying, one fleet type (this is about to change), no expensive hubs, and no heavy aircraft maintenance, but every company must compete across-the-board or the high cost operator will fail.

"All LCC's have low employee costs..." generally true, but not absolutely... LUV's wages, according to folks in here, are higher than UAIR's in similar positions...

"All LCC's are profitable..." I am sure the folks at ATA and Frontier wish this were true.

"All LCC's have point to point networks..." Somebody should explain this to ATA, America West, Frontier, and AirTran

"ALL LCC's have coach-only aircraft..." Again, AirTran and America West are the exception... Spirit and ATA have recently announced First/Business Class seating.

"All LCC's have one aircraft type..." Not ATA, America West, and AirTran.

"LCC's don't have Express..." Tell this to Frontier and America West

"LCC's don't participate in CRS..." America West, AirTran, and Southwest do, although they also push potential passengers to the internet.

Point 2: US Airways will not be saved by reducing employee costs... What US Airways really needs is more productive assets at all levels... Very little, in terms of redefining what each employee group does, seems to have changed. Very little new technology has been introduced to make employees/assets more productive... US Airways needs employees to turn airplanes in 25minutes, and a 12 hour average aircraft utilization (and profitable places to fly them) in order to be successful.

Wage cuts only alienate employees... Asking employees for help (i.e. we need you to find a way to do <X>) empowers them... US Airways has a culture of top-down management and employee alienation. This will only continue to result in unhappy workers and underutilized assets (and employees).

 

[mweiss]

"All LCC's have low employee costs..." generally true, but not absolutely... LUV's wages, according to folks in here, are higher than UAIR's in similar positions...

It becomes absolutely true when you add one little word. "All LCCs have low employee unit costs." In other words, the total number of cents in CASM attributed to employee costs is very low.

Otherwise, you're on the money.

There's one other thing that LCCs all have in common, at least to date. When the economy is good, LCCs have lower profits per ASM than legacies. When the economy is bad, the reverse is true. Legacy profits almost perfectly map to the change in the stock market (say, S&P 500), while LCCs are generally more steady.

Point 2: US Airways will not be saved by reducing employee costs...

This is true until you add that same little word. US Airways can be saved by reducing employee unit costs. But there are many more levers to move than simply hourly pay and benefits. The closest the folks in Crystal City have gotten to moving them is a tentative toe in the water toward point-to-point flying and rolling hubs.

 

[Bear96]

"All LCC's have low employee costs..." generally true, but not absolutely... LUV's wages, according to folks in here, are higher than UAIR's in similar positions...

To simplify what mweiss said, and as many people have tried to explain many, many times before, total "employee costs" are not the same thing as hourly "wages."

It is indeed possible to have relatively high wages, while total employee costs are relatively low, as SW proves. The tradeoff is that there are a lot fewer employees per seat mile or per dollar of revenue.

 

[ktflyhome]

I"ll go if it will save the company money!!!!! Give me a life long furlough!!!!!!

 

[whlinder]

There's one other thing that LCCs all have in common, at least to date. When the economy is good, LCCs have lower profits per ASM than legacies. When the economy is bad, the reverse is true. Legacy profits almost perfectly map to the change in the stock market (say, S&P 500), while LCCs are generally more steady.

You threw in the "at least to date". I'm personally skeptical that the profits of the legacies would far outpace those of the LCCs should we enter another boom like the late 90s. The internet has made pricing so transparent that I don't believe many business travelers would willingly pay the fares they did back then. I also think that with the reduction in service that has resulted from the legacies' need to cut costs that few travelers would find a noticable difference between a legacy and a LCC, and thus not have the willingness to pay what they did in the last boom. I just don't see it happening like in the past.

 

[mweiss]

I'm personally skeptical that the profits of the legacies would far outpace those of the LCCs should we enter another boom like the late 90s.

Yeah, me too. But you and I are both guessing, because we haven't had a chance to see for ourselves. That's why I put the caveat in there.

 

[PITbull]

To simplify what mweiss said, and as many people have tried to explain many, many times before, total "employee costs" are not the same thing as hourly "wages."

It is indeed possible to have relatively high wages, while total employee costs are relatively low, as SW proves. The tradeoff is that there are a lot fewer employees per seat mile or per dollar of revenue.

Employee reduction along with wages are about to happen again.

 

[Atlantic]

Got one better Frank,
Put Hier Dr. No in a J3 and see how long before he gets undgluded.

 

[Ifly2]

to US airways vote no:

you said:

"Do you fly? The aircraft nowadays are way capable of handling your above mentioned complex landing and do it on their own. "

Well, I do fly, airliners, (Boeings and former Douglas's) and there is not one of them that is currently capable of making ANY flight by itself. Not ONE. The Airbus isn't either.

The autoland systems work well enuff, when they work, and are quite useful for low visibility landings in relatively calm conditions, on some runways. That is what they are intended for. Using autoland in a gusty crosswind landing on a slick runway, as per the example, is a really, really, good way to get an airplane stuck in the mud. There are still plenty of times, most of the time actually, when it is not even permissible to use Autoland. And somebody (the pilot) has still got to get the thing to the point where it can do its work.

I am not taking any shots at anybody for thier job, the value of thier job, or thier contribution to the enterprise or society, but let's get off this "the airplane flys itself" trip already. It just ain't so. So far as the bus driver analogy, I have done both. Until you have, maybe you shouldn't make such comparisons. Sorry, but they are not even close, OK?

Cheers