Actually Bob, they DO owe the U employees something. they have this little thing called a CONTRACT. Both sides AGREED to that contract. If you or I break a contract, then we are LIABLE for damages. Same applies to U management. U was in BK. If they couldn't be successful with the cost structure the established with the nuclear weapon that is BK, then they shouldn't have emerged. Failure after BK is a reflection on the management, NOT the employees who've bleed about all they can bleed.
Vp Meeting In Phl
- Thread starter hack73
- Start date
And that my friend is the whole problem with US management past and present. You know it and I know it, that this isnt "MY" company, but after 19 years of service I would like to THINK that its my company. That all the time and effort I've put into giving 100% the past 19 years to keep customers coming back paid off in some way other than getting my next (downsized) paycheck. Management calls the shots here, no doubt, but a little effort and illusion from CCY that this is MY COMPANY and the company of the rest of the 30,000 employees would go a loooong way in making me want to work harder to keep MY company growing and prospering. Otherwise, those without some set of standards are going to continue to come to work and give the minimum effort to get their paycheck for the work that is required of them and nothing else. How hard is it at least to GIVE THE IMPRESSION that this IS MY COMPANY to all the employees? And just how much would THAT cost us?PineyBob said:
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
Tadjr,
Cause it is OUR company. NO ILLUSION OR DELUSION ABOUT IT. We, collectively can make or break this company if we will it. Management is only a small part of the whole, and they just visit. In a humble sense, we don't have to prove this to anyone. It just is.
Cause it is OUR company. NO ILLUSION OR DELUSION ABOUT IT. We, collectively can make or break this company if we will it. Management is only a small part of the whole, and they just visit. In a humble sense, we don't have to prove this to anyone. It just is.
ClueByFour
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,566
- 37
The better move, IMHO, would be to make more opprotunities for better productivity by growing the network. I was drooling over PIT-PDX and PIT-SAT. Things like that.PineyBob said:
Run 5 EMBs PIT-ROC everyday, and put the damn 319 out to PDX and back.
The list goes on an on.
Pitbull, I KNOW this is my company, I just cant control whats being done like I could if I were in charge. I see waste everyday that goes unchecked because those in charge either dont care about it (after being told numerous times) or dont think its too serious a problem. Overtime called in when its not needed and not when it is. Paying FT overtime when we have agents downgraded who would love the chance to work FT again and would cover the shifts being covered with OT and the list goes on. This is part of the entire "its my company" problem that management had and continues to have. If THEY didnt think of it or find it out, then its not important. THIS is what is so frustrating. Do they think we want to see OUR company lose money? We give them ideas and suggestions to help OUR company do things smarter and it isnt OUR company so they ignore them. That is what is so frustrating and I can tell you its been MY company a lot longer than its been Dave and friends.
Hopefully when the new RJS come online this will happen. They wont have to add any agents to any of the new cities they start since the contract states they can run flights there and contract them out as long as they dont run more than a couple of flights. The crews would be there anyway whether they're going to ROC or PDX. I'm sure there are at least a couple of routes that US could make some money on doing this. I guess only time will tell.ClueByFour said:
Instead of running mainline PIT-ROC (and BUF, SYR), they should put jungle jets on all of those and return the 319's to LGA-BUF,SYR,ROC. It absolutely amazes me that JetBlue's most full flights are from JFK to these 3 stations. They carry 156 pax on their 320's on every flight every day to those stations. After US cut mainline between LGA and these stations they lost a ton of revenue... the HSBC contract in BUF for example... which now belongs to JetBlue! Idiots!
Light Years
Veteran
- Aug 27, 2002
- 2,878
- 0
Bob,
You say you think U needs less employees. I don't agree with you but am interested in your reasoning. I assume you understand at least vaguely things like stage length and seniority from this board...
Lets say U's current size (mainline) is the size it will stay. The active employees are some of the most senior in the industry. The most junior pilot is 1989 seniority as would flight attendants if all voluntary furloughees returned. There are very few FAs that are under 5 years, which is when they are on a much lower payscale. The same goes for all work groups as U is made up of other airlines that had been around forever.
U is a mature airline. So are AA, UA, DL, NW, CO... they all have very senior employees as well, but also alot of junior employees as they were pretty much always growing. U went through long periods of non-growth, so no junior employees were brought in to bring down average labor costs. The fact that U is a mature carrier with mature costs (not just labor), but operates as a fancy regional doesnt help. Costs are spread out more by long haul flying, which for U means breaking a time zone.
As you know seniority is everything in this industry. Last in, first out, as is fair. Getting rid of more employees drives costs up as the average costs per employee skyrocket as the company is left with top-of-scale employees. Shrinking into profitability has never worked for an airline.
You say you think U needs less employees. I don't agree with you but am interested in your reasoning. I assume you understand at least vaguely things like stage length and seniority from this board...
Lets say U's current size (mainline) is the size it will stay. The active employees are some of the most senior in the industry. The most junior pilot is 1989 seniority as would flight attendants if all voluntary furloughees returned. There are very few FAs that are under 5 years, which is when they are on a much lower payscale. The same goes for all work groups as U is made up of other airlines that had been around forever.
U is a mature airline. So are AA, UA, DL, NW, CO... they all have very senior employees as well, but also alot of junior employees as they were pretty much always growing. U went through long periods of non-growth, so no junior employees were brought in to bring down average labor costs. The fact that U is a mature carrier with mature costs (not just labor), but operates as a fancy regional doesnt help. Costs are spread out more by long haul flying, which for U means breaking a time zone.
As you know seniority is everything in this industry. Last in, first out, as is fair. Getting rid of more employees drives costs up as the average costs per employee skyrocket as the company is left with top-of-scale employees. Shrinking into profitability has never worked for an airline.
T-bone
Advanced
- Feb 15, 2003
- 239
- 2
Those ratios you mention may be inaccurate as U does all it's own maint and wn farms some out. There still paying someone to do the work but they show less in the ratio you mention. Also I think U uses more flight attendants to provide the superior service our customers are used to, can't be done at the gray hound you talked about.PineyBob said:
Light Years
Veteran
- Aug 27, 2002
- 2,878
- 0
T Bone-
We used to have more flight attendants per aircraft for service- the 757 always had 6 and the A319/320 had up to 5, sometimes four on the 737. I believe the A330 even used to see 14 if I remember correctly. Shuttles always had four. Now the aircraft are staffed at FAA minimums- it would be illegal to send out a plane with less than our current staffing.
Although most of our fleet are narrowbodies than can be staffed with three FAs, we also have larger aircraft (A321, A330, B757, B767) that require more cabin crew, so naturally more staff is needed. The same goes for ground personnel- a WN skeketon crew could not cater, service, and clean a widebody aircraft that just arrived from overseas. You're correct that comparing Southwests or JetBlues employee ratio to US Airways by fleet is irrelevant.
We used to have more flight attendants per aircraft for service- the 757 always had 6 and the A319/320 had up to 5, sometimes four on the 737. I believe the A330 even used to see 14 if I remember correctly. Shuttles always had four. Now the aircraft are staffed at FAA minimums- it would be illegal to send out a plane with less than our current staffing.
Although most of our fleet are narrowbodies than can be staffed with three FAs, we also have larger aircraft (A321, A330, B757, B767) that require more cabin crew, so naturally more staff is needed. The same goes for ground personnel- a WN skeketon crew could not cater, service, and clean a widebody aircraft that just arrived from overseas. You're correct that comparing Southwests or JetBlues employee ratio to US Airways by fleet is irrelevant.
You can't, on the one hand, understand the efficiencies of Wn's route structure vs. U's routes, and then complain that U has more employees per a/c than WN. Apples and oranges. WN has fewer employees per a/c than DL, AA and UA. Not because of positive attitudes. Not because of labor contracts. Because of the BUSINESS PLAN; i.e., their route structure.
If WN hubbed on the scale of AA, DL, UA or U, and EVERYTHING else in WN's world remained constant, their CASM's would approximate ours. Which is exactly why WN does things differently.
Now, I'm not saying ignore WN - they are eating our lunch. U, and eventually, all legacy carriers must adapt or perish. But surviving means using accurate information.
For an apples and apples, how does U stack up, employee per a/c, to the legacy carriers? Bet it's in the ballpark.
If WN hubbed on the scale of AA, DL, UA or U, and EVERYTHING else in WN's world remained constant, their CASM's would approximate ours. Which is exactly why WN does things differently.
Now, I'm not saying ignore WN - they are eating our lunch. U, and eventually, all legacy carriers must adapt or perish. But surviving means using accurate information.
For an apples and apples, how does U stack up, employee per a/c, to the legacy carriers? Bet it's in the ballpark.
UseYourHead
Veteran
- Apr 1, 2003
- 720
- 0
Bob,PineyBob said:
One of the disappointments of being a union member is that many members just don't get it...if a business cannot compete, it will not survive. It is not rocket science.
As US Airways employees, we have everything to lose if that is the outcome. Management will go and manage somewhere else. We will never replace our positions in terms of seniority, years of service, etc.
It is so easy to deduct that you must remain in the game, to be here later to enjoy the upside. This is a cyclical business, and this trough has been quite deep, it is not the first, nor the last.
I can only hope that others have learned from the long list of extinct airlines, and realize there is nothing to be gained from joining that club, all chest pounding aside.
We should be discussing how we will help our airline to be more competitive, rather than playing the "blame-game." There is enough blame to go around, both from management actions, as well as union actions. This does not necessarily imply cuts, nor does it rule them out. This is about SURVIVAL. Something must change to lower costs here...that concept is a no brainer.
Focus on the future, the issues, and possible conclusions. We all have a stake in this.
US Airways has avoided this showdown for years, it is time to stand and compete. Can we do it? You bet, however, success will be greater with the majority pulling on the rope the same direction.
BTW, this group here on USAviation.com DOES NOT represent the employees of as a whole, and represent a small vocal minority...is that to say no one is angry, hurt, resentful, etc.? No...Sure, I fit that description above, however, that does not give me an excuse to take my eyes off the ball. I owe it to myself, and the other employees to act responsibly.
All one has to do is visit other airline forums to see that in the cyclical low points, airline workers are hurting, we are human, and at US Airways we are not alone. However, we continue to have great jobs, those who are lucky enough to remain.
If you don't believe it, instead of spending all day belly-aching here, take a LOA, get another job, and you will serve yourself up a dose of reality!
Good luck to all of us!
Well they say we will not run at PHL. But we ran at BWI. Every flight we pulled was full. We could easily have more flight at BWI. There are numerous customers day in and day out who fly to PHL and LGA on a Dash 8 to connect to MHT, BOS,PVD etc. This because the do not want to fly WN or FL. These Dash 8s are constantly full. So how many customers are we turning away? Recently got an evening jet back at 6p for PHL. Full almost every night. 20 or more conx to just to BOS on it.
deltawatch
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 887
- 0
Everyone’s comparing U's route structure to WN's. In 1987 Piedmont had a midsize hub in CLT and very small hub in BWI. Those flights represented about 50% of Piedmonts total. The rest were point to point. Piedmont connected two medium size cities into a big one. Example CHS ORF LGA. There was a medium sized market between CHS and ORF, CHS and LGA and also between ORF and LGA. The aircraft stayed full the entire route. Another great routing was ORD-RIC-ORF-BOS. That flight ran a 98% load factor year round. There was some creative pricing going on between ORD and BOS and it worked. U abandoned the strategy in the early 90’s. And the completion has been picking us apart since. That strategy sounds a little like WN's.
