Bush and the Republicans are going to keep UAL and U going as long as they can. They may not believe in unemployement benefits for workers, they sure believe in corporate welfare and having the courts prop up failed companies so they can drive down wages for everybody. Then, POOF, cheap fares like soylent green to the masses. Then when it gets to the point that American workers can't afford to take the jobs anymore . . . . POOF . . . . . open the borders and let the Mexicans in because there's a labor "shortage."
Why Don't The Airlines Just Raise Fares?
- Thread starter FWAAA
- Start date
FWAAA,Nov 30 2004, 10:22 PM]
Some of them, like UAL and USAir, keep going back to their employees again and again and again.
Thats because they still have not caught up with what the TWU gave AA in the first round.
Uhh, doesn't the TWU represent some of the WN employees?
Yes, the Flight attendants, Local 556, the only AFL-CIO group yet that has expressed support of the AFA. They are fortunate in that the International does not interfere with their negotiations.
Some of them, like UAL and USAir, keep going back to their employees again and again and again.
Thats because they still have not caught up with what the TWU gave AA in the first round.
Uhh, doesn't the TWU represent some of the WN employees?
Yes, the Flight attendants, Local 556, the only AFL-CIO group yet that has expressed support of the AFA. They are fortunate in that the International does not interfere with their negotiations.
goingboeing
Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2004
- Messages
- 584
- Reaction score
- 1
Winglet said:
I agree to an extend except it is BOTH political parties that are interested in cheap labor and cheap votes.
It would not surprise me if the U.S government gave the illegals green cards and sent them to A&P SCHOOLS with our tax dollars.Then they could have cheap labor throughout the airline business.
Drippy Quill
Senior
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2003
- Messages
- 262
- Reaction score
- 0
Actually the Vermont Plan was discovered by the TWU, not offered.
jimntx
Veteran
If UAL or U were to fail, it would not really reduce capacity for any length of time at all. The a/c owners would be offering very attractive lease rates/sale prices on all the a/c that would suddenly be available. The LCCs would not have to wait for the delivery of their new a/c.
Anyone who thinks that $20/ticket doesn't matter to some people hasn't had the experience I had this week on an Orlando flight. Family of 5 traveling to Disney World for 4 days. Park admission alone is going to cost them in the neighborhood of $1000 if they plan to visit all 4 days. Plus hotel, plus airfare, plus meals, plus souvenirs. When I came through the aisles selling headsets for the inflight entertainment ($2 and you get to keep the headset to use for free on future AA flights), the mother told me that one of the children wanted a headset. The father said, "We're not paying $2 for that headset" in a very nasty tone as if I was charging $20 for it.
Anyone who thinks that $20/ticket doesn't matter to some people hasn't had the experience I had this week on an Orlando flight. Family of 5 traveling to Disney World for 4 days. Park admission alone is going to cost them in the neighborhood of $1000 if they plan to visit all 4 days. Plus hotel, plus airfare, plus meals, plus souvenirs. When I came through the aisles selling headsets for the inflight entertainment ($2 and you get to keep the headset to use for free on future AA flights), the mother told me that one of the children wanted a headset. The father said, "We're not paying $2 for that headset" in a very nasty tone as if I was charging $20 for it.
firstamendment
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2003
- Messages
- 1,348
- Reaction score
- 0
jimntx said:
Then why doesn't Disney lower THEIR prices? Why should the airlines pay the sacrificial price for ma and pa kettle and the kids to go to Disney. Is Disney directly effected by oil prices? Sure, and I bet the price to enter reflects that. The airline should do no less. But that just one man's thought. 😉
kirkpatrick
Veteran
No competition.
MK
MK
jimntx
Veteran
Because there is only 1 Disney World. They don't have to lower prices. Kids do not ask or want to go to Big Dave's local amusement park and used car lot. They want to go Disney World. The one in Florida.
Do you know how many airlines offer service to MCO? When we were on the ground there last Monday, I saw names painted on a/c that I have never heard of before.
Do you know how many airlines offer service to MCO? When we were on the ground there last Monday, I saw names painted on a/c that I have never heard of before.
firstamendment said:
When revenue falls at Disney the way it fell at the legacy airlines, I'll bet Disney would consider lowering its prices (if its bean-counters thought that lowering prices would increase attendance, and ultimately, revenue).
But Disney isn't in a cash crunch. It's not running out of cash. Like some of the legacy airlines did (leading to their Ch 11 filings). If Disney were relying on DIP financing to stay alive and demanding concessions from its employees, I'm sure it would consider price cuts.
Actually, lesser theme parks DID cut their prices in the wake of September 11. The Buy-a-Day-Get-a-Year passes at Universal here in LA were cheaper in 2002-to today than they were in 2001. Additionally, Universal has run newspaper coupon deals in the LA papers offering up to $20 off each person's one-day admission (depending on season) for the past three years.
Even Disney moderated their usual steep annual price increases somewhat, in recognition of its lower attendance figures. But Disney is still rolling in cash. None of its theme park employees is highly paid. Working at Disney pays like working at Wal-Mart.
Besides, it isn't the cheap fares to MCO that are killing the legacy airlines. It's the glut of legacy airlines featuring full service, and the shrinking pool of higher-yield pax that are the problems.
There are still people paying high fares. Problem is, none of the 6 legacy airlines has enough of them. There's too many businesses offering roughly the same thing to a dwindling pool of customers.
The good news is that the recent plunge in oil prices might help the survivors make it after all, provided there is some consolidation (and/or liquidations) among the six legacy airlines.
Bob Owens said:
Puh-leeze!
The LCC's are SO unreliable that Southwest had won the Triple Crown (for Best On-Time Performance, Lowest Lost Baggage rates, and least complaints) three years in a row. They are highly regarded for service in this industry.
JetBlue has routinely had very good on-time performance and completion factors, even through the northeast blackouts a couple years back and this year's hurricane season.
America West had three months in a row last year of best On-Time Performance.
Most of the other LCC's are within an acceptable range.
And its not like US Airways and UAL get super-reliable on-time performance from their sub-contractors like Mesa and Trans States...
Puh-leeze.... There is not much difference between the legacies and the LCC's in terms of completed and on-time flights. Most airlines are doing very well with better than 80% On Time Performance... In fact, this has become very competitive in recent years... In times past, if the airlines got to 80% on time, it was a good month... Now, the top airlines usually close in on 85% on time...
jimntx said:
You make a good point jimntx. That's why I keep going back to the whole situation being a matter of timing. Some capacity would likely disappear permanently... particularly turboprops and maybe some of the older Boeings (or at least it would disappear from the USA). Certainly some of those aircraft would get re-leased for USA service. But it would not be instantaneous. Presumably there would be some transition time. And that transition time is important.
Also, I think the shutting down of a major USA airline would also create immediate downward pressure on the price of Jet-A. At least in the short term, due to an immediate decline in demand. This will also be good for all of the remaining carriers.
In the long run, the capacity will be replaced (although, as discussed the new capacity will not be the same as the old capacity, in terms of markets, fares, etc). In the short-run, the capacity needs to go away. Unfortunately, this industry is notoriously bad a reducing capacity in an organized way. The only way the airlines have successfully reduced capacity since Deregulation is to have all airlines grow until the economy dips, and then have a catostrophic failure.
If, during this recession, no major airlines fail, it would be a first since deregulation, and George W. would be able to claim an economic "victory" vs. his predicessors. His people already call this the "shallowest recession in recent history." I don't think George W. will be so lucky.
firstamendment said:
After 25 years in this industry its become clear that the airlines will always be in "trouble", even when they are making money.
On the one hand we have people telling us we must all work for less so the airlines can make money, or else we will all lose our jobs, on the other hand if we say we are going to strike the government tells us that the service we provide is essential to the economy and we cant strike.
In other words or labor is so valuable that we can not withhold it.
So when they want to take money away from us our labor is worthless and we should be thankful that they are willing to pay us at all but when we collectively decide to withhold it, all of a sudden we are exploiters victimizing the poor "hard working people of America".
The fact is the Airlines do provide an essentail service. In order for Disney, the Hotels and scores of other companies to make their money the people have to be able to get there.
The fact is that as First Amendment brought up, we are being forced to subsidize other industries.
Another fact is that even when the airlines dont make money, they are generating tons of cash for others, and should we all threaten to go on strike they would come out of the woodwork lobbying the government to stop us.
Because the airlines are so labor intensive there is no incentive to make the industry profitable-the workers would just demand a piece of the action. So the same institutions that own the planes, bonds for the airports, fuel companies, Hotels, theme parks, etc all make money even when the airline is losing money as long as they are moving people. However when we stop moving them none of them make money, they all lose, not just the airlines.
That is the key to our success. That is why we should all unite as if under one union and if the courts start abrogating contracts-shut the whole thing down. They either live up to their agreement-or liquidate and let other carriers expand-hire those displaced and fill in the gaps.
