From the Boyd Group's Monday morning Hot Flash
http://www.aviationplanning.com/asrc1.htm
The Inside-Kamikaze Approach To Labor Relations.
Now, nobody alive and sober should question the pain being inflicted on airline employees by wage cuts and loss of pension plans.
These veneer journalists who paint labor unions as a core cause of the industry's woes need to pick up their crayons and find another career. Since 9/11, 20% of airline employees have lost their jobs, and many of those who're left have seen their compensation slashed by 40% or more. Some have had their pensions cut or almost eliminated. Despite the don't-cry-for-them tone of some of the media stories, all this translates into families having to face near-disastrous financial circumstances.
Nobody, then, should question when labor unions attempt to counter these types of cut-backs. That's their job - trying to find alternatives to any proposed cuts in their members' compensation. Legitimate alternatives, that is. That eliminates alternatives that are nothing more than mindless, destructive tantrums designed to drive off passengers.
Unfortunately, that's just what the Association of Flight Attendants did this past week. They called for random strikes at four very financially-troubled carriers - US Airways, United, Hawaiian, and ATA. They want to lash out against the use of bankruptcy to cut pay and to terminate pension funds. That's understandable, even if an alternative solution at some airlines just isn't in the cards.
But in this case they are suggesting the equivalent of cutting their own financial throats. They announced the intention to carry out randomly-selected "strikes" that would target certain flights at the last minute. This would entirely disrupt the airline's entire system, causing, as the AFA has acronymed the program, chaos.
Real smart. Take it out on the passengers. That'll get'em to book more seats.
Do It Or I'll Shoot Myself. Regardless of the angry doggerel coming from the union, and the press releases announcing "solidarity", this is one of the most idiotic ideas since monks burned themselves in protest on the streets of Saigon in the 1960s. Back then, it changed nobody's minds, fixed nothing, and generally made a mess of the roadway. And in the end, they were, among other things, completely out of the monk-business.
These proposed "chaos" strikes are much the same. They won't contribute to a solution, and could well put the targeted airlines under. This ain't the 1980s. Today, even a minor reduction in an airline's revenue stream - like when consumers avoid an airline due to a highly-publicized strike threat - can choke cash flow and put an already bankrupt airline into the history column in just a few days.
That's exactly what could happen here. Telling the public right before the holidays that flight attendants at already financially-shaky airlines might stage walkouts is new dimension in raw, irresponsible stupidity. Let's be very clear: the anger over continued loss of pay, work rules, benefits and pensions is not invalid, and for a union to take every action reasonable to counter such events is legitimate.
But killing off the airline isn't one of them. Taking it out on passengers - as suggested by this AFA labor leader (or, perhaps more accurate, demagogue) - is the equivalent of cheap grandstanding that will achieve nothing except to tell the public to stay away from the airlines in question.
Even if the program doesn't come off, some of the damage has already been done. For example, there could be a lot of people not booking on US Airways for the holidays because "I heard they're going on strike." Revenues slide, bills come due. That could open up a whole new chapter in labor relations at the carrier.
Chapter 7.
http://www.aviationplanning.com/asrc1.htm
The Inside-Kamikaze Approach To Labor Relations.
Now, nobody alive and sober should question the pain being inflicted on airline employees by wage cuts and loss of pension plans.
These veneer journalists who paint labor unions as a core cause of the industry's woes need to pick up their crayons and find another career. Since 9/11, 20% of airline employees have lost their jobs, and many of those who're left have seen their compensation slashed by 40% or more. Some have had their pensions cut or almost eliminated. Despite the don't-cry-for-them tone of some of the media stories, all this translates into families having to face near-disastrous financial circumstances.
Nobody, then, should question when labor unions attempt to counter these types of cut-backs. That's their job - trying to find alternatives to any proposed cuts in their members' compensation. Legitimate alternatives, that is. That eliminates alternatives that are nothing more than mindless, destructive tantrums designed to drive off passengers.
Unfortunately, that's just what the Association of Flight Attendants did this past week. They called for random strikes at four very financially-troubled carriers - US Airways, United, Hawaiian, and ATA. They want to lash out against the use of bankruptcy to cut pay and to terminate pension funds. That's understandable, even if an alternative solution at some airlines just isn't in the cards.
But in this case they are suggesting the equivalent of cutting their own financial throats. They announced the intention to carry out randomly-selected "strikes" that would target certain flights at the last minute. This would entirely disrupt the airline's entire system, causing, as the AFA has acronymed the program, chaos.
Real smart. Take it out on the passengers. That'll get'em to book more seats.
Do It Or I'll Shoot Myself. Regardless of the angry doggerel coming from the union, and the press releases announcing "solidarity", this is one of the most idiotic ideas since monks burned themselves in protest on the streets of Saigon in the 1960s. Back then, it changed nobody's minds, fixed nothing, and generally made a mess of the roadway. And in the end, they were, among other things, completely out of the monk-business.
These proposed "chaos" strikes are much the same. They won't contribute to a solution, and could well put the targeted airlines under. This ain't the 1980s. Today, even a minor reduction in an airline's revenue stream - like when consumers avoid an airline due to a highly-publicized strike threat - can choke cash flow and put an already bankrupt airline into the history column in just a few days.
That's exactly what could happen here. Telling the public right before the holidays that flight attendants at already financially-shaky airlines might stage walkouts is new dimension in raw, irresponsible stupidity. Let's be very clear: the anger over continued loss of pay, work rules, benefits and pensions is not invalid, and for a union to take every action reasonable to counter such events is legitimate.
But killing off the airline isn't one of them. Taking it out on passengers - as suggested by this AFA labor leader (or, perhaps more accurate, demagogue) - is the equivalent of cheap grandstanding that will achieve nothing except to tell the public to stay away from the airlines in question.
Even if the program doesn't come off, some of the damage has already been done. For example, there could be a lot of people not booking on US Airways for the holidays because "I heard they're going on strike." Revenues slide, bills come due. That could open up a whole new chapter in labor relations at the carrier.
Chapter 7.
