Unprecedented Change…

[Bear96]

I look forward to REGULATION OF THE INDUSTRY!

[post="299093"][/post]​

So. When all is reregulated, how much do you think a Republican President and Republican Congress will decide a F/A and her salary are "worth"? How many hours a month will they have y'all flying?

Don't you think the politicians will feel it is in their best interests to keep fares as LOW as possible (and therefore employee salaries low too)? After all, they will have their constituents' wrath to face if fares get too high.

And speaking of higher fares, how many F/A jobs will be lost, if the inefficiencies of regulation drive up fares so much that fewer people fly?

I think it is naive to think reregulation is good for the industry or its employees. The best thing to do for the industry's long-term health is to get the government out as much as possible and let the inevitable consolidations and liquidations occur.

 

[PITbull]

Bear,

I am not sure I should even respond to such a posting.

Congress does not negotiate CBAs for any airline, regulated or not.

I believe that regulating the airines again will prevent fares from being ridiculously low, whereby forcing companies that employ hundreds of thousands of workers into BK in order to compete.

I can't speak for United, as I am sure you can. But US Airways was the FIRST airline to dance into BK, post 9/11, in order to achieve a cost savings that was unprecedent setting. And, before they did this(which was planned far in advance of any ratified agreements in 2002) they hired THE union busters of the industry to ensure they accomplished thier goals. BK was intended to screw creditors and vendors to acheive even more cost savings than they could extract from Labor. And the second concession came only months after all groups ratified and AFTER bk #1 with pscyhological warfare with labor groups using the threat of liquidation as a caveate. And it was more intense and more inevitable for U to go back in and extract MORE cost savings when United danced into Bk on December 9, 2002.

Then after concession #2, U emerged from bk, only to threaten BK, abrogation and liqudation again in 2003, because all other legacies got wise real fast and started bringing their costs down by threatening their labor groups in the exact same way, same plan, same station, same channel.

All one has to do is look at Am. West (Glass), Gait Gourmet (Siegel) and NW (Cohen), Alaska Airlines (McKeen)!

How I came to know all of this....from the front row; front seat, up close and personal.

My, how folks forget THE PLAN and how utterly niaive. Those who forget will repeat history.

 

[Fly]

USA320
I am glad to have your insight on this forum and others. Even though much is speculation(as it has been for over 25 years)Your comments and info are interesting, insightful and often parrallel much of what I hear from others.

[post="299085"][/post]​

Oh crap, he bought his wife a membership.

 

[javaboy]

......................................"

Much of last week's joint US Airways-America West ALPA MEC meeting with Doug Parker and management negotiators was spent on further industry consolidation and the transition agreement. Both MEC's will be back into session tomorrow, where a TA could be discussed and approved. ALPA believes further consolidation will occur and I can tell you this, one option being discussed is United's divestiture of TED's assets with a likely suitor the new US Airways.

Will a deal occur? I do not know. Is it a hot topic in the executive suite? Yes.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="299026"][/post]​

if this is even remotely true, i would highly reccomend that only ONLY DOH be used to combine any work lists.

 

[Bear96]

Congress does not negotiate CBAs for any airline, regulated or not.

Nor do they negotiate fares, in an unregulated environment. Yet you are suggesting regulation. So I am just wondering what kind of "regulation" you are envisioning? Apparently, it is one where low fares are mandated by the government, yet the government would be powerless to stop labor costs from rising. If that is not what you are suggesting, please clarify. If it is what you are suggesting, that doesn't sound very realistic to me.

I believe that regulating the airines again will prevent fares from being ridiculously low, whereby forcing companies that employ hundreds of thousands of workers into BK in order to compete.

The option you appear to be suggesting is that fares should go up, which would ultimately result in fewer passengers, which would ultimately result in fewer airline employees. No?

The rest of your post appears to be irrelevant to the issue of airline regulation.

And, I am still confused why you think politicians will RAISE fares in a regulated environment in order to keep generous wages and benefits for airline employees, while their constituents want (and are used to, and have been conditioned that it is their RIGHT to have access to) CHEAP fares. This is even more confusing to me when you consider that passengers will not want to pay higher fares to provide company-paid health insurance and defined benefit pensions to airline employees, while a large part of the travelling public (and therefore a large part of politicians' constituencies) doesn't have such things.

I can see it now.

Politician: "Well, Mr. and Mrs. Clampett, it's just too bad that you don't have employer-provided health insurance or a defined benefit pension. But I am going to support raising the fare on your next trip taking the mini-Clampetts to MCO or LAS so these crewmembers who work 80 hours per month (that's 20 hours per week!!! Sorry to hear you have to work 50-60 hours per week) can keep their cushy wages, health benefits, and retirement. Yes I know the waitress at the truck stop down the road makes $3/hr plus tips, but we think the stewardesses serving you pop and soda should make $40/hr so we are going to keep fares high."

Of course as airline employees or ex-airline employees we know there are lots of flaws and fallacies in the above reasoning. But the average American and her or his representative in Congress doesn't know that, and that's how the PR game will play out, rightly or wrongly, like it or not.

 

[PITbull]

Bear,

You have been on here for at least as long as I have. I think you are living on planet earth...but I have been known to be wrong about that.

Your simplified black or white answer does not apply to what I am conveying. And making assumptions on what I mean in the post is typical.

When the airlines were regulated, folks did fly and airlines did report profits and made profits with standards maintained for their employees. Thats a fact. You giving me the same blah, blah, blah, that managmnet does, and has done, to justify the obliteration of our wages, and benefits is proof positive of the brainwashing that has taken place in our profession and with other groups.

AND WITH ALL THESE CONCESSIONS (3) and BK (2) in 3 years, AND LOW FARES, OUR LOAD FACTOR IS LOWER THAN THAT OF OTHER CARRIERS THAT DID NOT. And the only plan in town for U is MERGER. And your airline hasn't gotten out of BK with all your cuts. And when they dump your pensions, they still won't be in the clear until they merge with some other carrier(s).

Deregulation of the industry started in the 80's with Reagan, who I happen to vote for twice. PSA thinks that they were the first LCC, but I believe that the "true" LCC was People's Express, that ultimately didn't survive.

With regard to $40 hour wages and comparing that to what a truck stop diner waitress makes with tips is as absurd as your post.

F/as work an average of an 80-hour work MONTH; not week.

Put in that equation paying for benefits and attempting to contribute to a 401K is lower than what an average waitress makes (who don't have fixed incomes and wages as f/as), and who can work other jobs in addition. Unlike a f/a WHO LEAVES HOME AVERAGE 4 DAYS A WEEK! AND OFTEN TIMES HAVE TO ALLOW FOR TIME TO COMMUTE.

No. I believe that someone had a plan and was smarter than the unions, as we didn't know what hit us. Unlike the Europeans who will shut a company down if they pull the crap that goes on in the States with our Labor.

That's reality...end of debate.

 

[SoldWholeSale]

Deregulalation started in 1978 with Jimmy Carter.......

 

[PITbull]

It was started with Nixon Administration if we want to trace back history.

 

[SoldWholeSale]

Maybe the idea, but not any action or legislation. We have Jimmy peanut to thank for this semi-regulated mess.

 

[Bear96]

When the airlines were regulated, folks did fly and airlines did report profits and made profits with standards maintained for their employees. Thats a fact.

And how many people were flying then? Answer: A lot less than fly today.

And how many airline employees were there back then? Answer: A lot less than there are today.

You want the good old days of regulated aviation, fine. But then acknowledge that back then, travel by air was relegated to the relatively few rich, with a correspondingly number of few airline employees.

I don't particularly have a problem with making air travel unaffordable to the masses. But I would like you as a union leader to acknowledge that you are advocating policies that would put thousands of your members out of work.

Are you willing to do that? Answer (apparently): No.

With regard to $40 hour wages and comparing that to what a truck stop diner waitress makes with tips is as absurd as your post.

F/as work an average of an 80-hour work MONTH; not week.

No sh!t. Perhaps you missed this part of my post:

Of course as airline employees or ex-airline employees we know there are lots of flaws and fallacies in the above reasoning. But the average American and her or his representative in Congress doesn't know that, and that's how the PR game will play out, rightly or wrongly, like it or not.

That's reality...end of debate.

I'm surprised at you. In politics (as I assumed you knew, and as you are advocating with your suggestion to re-regulate), the debate doesn't center around reality, but around PERCEPTION.

 

[Bear96]

What's wrong, Bobbie? Not getting enough attention from CCY these days so you've got some time to spare to make sure you are still the center of attention?

Or do you actually believe that PITbull's calls for re-regulation of the airilne industry would be good for frequent business travellers such as yourself? So instead of free market forces and comptetitive reasons leading to a carrier starting up (or continuing) on the PHL-XXX route, you would prefer to leave it in the hands of the politicians to decide who can fly what route and at what fare?

Care to stick to the issues? Or are silly inconsequential personal jabs more your style...

 

[EyeInTheSky]

I am calling it:

TED will be sold off to some British "chap" named Richard Branson and will be re-flagged Virgin America. From TED to Virgin...this is so San Francisco.

 

[jimcfs]

I am calling it:

TED will be sold off to some British "chap" named Richard Branson and will be re-flagged Virgin America. From TED to Virgin...this is so San Francisco.

[post="299221"][/post]​

IIRC, wasn't Branson looking to do Virgin America based out of SFO?

 

[EyeInTheSky]

IIRC, wasn't Branson looking to do Virgin America based out of SFO?

[post="299222"][/post]​

They have their corporate offices there now. They're just waiting...for something...to happen... http://www.virginamerica.com/Main.aspx

 

[jbguppy]

Lets get real here,

1. Uair had to beg borrow and steal to get out of Bankruptcy.
2. UAL has it's choice of lenders.
3. As a result of their merger, the combined America West will shed about 60 aircraft.

Now you want us to believe they are going to go out and buy 60 more...


This board continues to be one of stupidity after another,

JBG