E,
thanks for your comments.
you are correct that WN didn't really START significant amounts of maintenance outsourcing but compared to US PASSENGER LEGACY carriers, WN had and still has higher amounts of maintenance outsourcing than the US PASSENGER LEGACY carriers (airlines as opposed to Amtrak or Greyhound).
My preference is and always will be that US airlines have the flexibility and will to do as much work as possible inhouse and then use all of their capabilities to BRING WORK TO the US from other carriers. AA, DL, and UA ALL have considerable maintenance capabilities that could be used to add jobs while serving foreign carriers' maintenance needs.
actually, I would say that AA, DL, and UA all live fairly compatibly side by side in Europe and Latin America, with each carrier having its strength markets and niches.
The difference with Asia is that the two dominant carrier status quo is being challenged by AA (not debating necessarily whether that is good or bad) which is why Asia is much more of an issue than other parts of the world.
Finally, don't forget that AA was helped greatly in its recent finances by its emergence from BK and the reduced costs that produced. UA had the same thing a few years ago but blew much of the cost advantage because they screwed up the operation and revenue generation.
For the record, I expect AA will do a whole lot better at integration than UA did.
You are very likely right that foreign carrier workforces might well be contributing to their own outsourcing but I'm not sure how the pay and benefits differ between foreign carriers and foreign MROs either.
As for the comment about Asian carriers focus on their product, the fact remains that US carriers compete quite favorably - where COST is comparable. The reason why SQ focuses so heavily on product is because they sit at the "end" of SE Asia which means they have to rely on 5th freedom rights and outstanding service to win over customers. Ironically, it is high quality carriers like SQ that are threatened by the ME3 who have low costs plus more favorable geography.
CX and KE have better geography than SQ but they both compete heavily on flow traffic - and still have the benefit of low labor costs (it's not hard to keep labor costs down when you hire an FA with the expectation that they won't be around for more than a few years).
If you don't have to pay much in the way of salaries, you can compete on a whole lot of other aspects of the product.
Some of us would rather see a few 60 year old but friendly Americans serving us in the cabin alongside some younger Americans than a whole crew of foreign workers who enjoy nowhere near the level of pay and benefits that Americans make.
And let's not forget that many US pilots fly for Asian carriers and they are actively looking for a whole lot more. The US built global aviation and I would far rather keep US pilots flying US registered aircraft.
FWAAA,
there is no doubt that UA screwed up a whole lot with the merger but if there is one truism of aviation chat forums, it is that participants grab onto a notion and won't let go until well after it is no longer true.
UA does seem to be turning things around, and I dare remind you, that for now, they are running a more reliable and on-time operation than AA. Given that so many passengers fled UA because of operational problems - compounded by customer service issues - no one should think that UA is not only capable of regaining some of the passengers lost but also pulling over others who have ridden the fence between AA and UA over the years.
it's also noteworthy that UA just announced today a bunch of enhancements to its premium meal service. I have no idea how it will ultimately compare to the competition but they seem to realize they cut too deep.
