Big cut back at AA

[algflyr]

It's a minimum fleet but they could cut utilization by several hours a day, therefore layoffs/furloughs would happen. Wait for it.

The East has a minimum fleet contained in the Transition agreement (as does the West). Not sure about the West, but the East also has a minimum fleet outlined in LOA 93 that also defines aircraft utilization per day.

I guess the question is... If you can't return an aircraft and still have to pay for it, it is cheaper to let it sit idle or fly a revenue leg?

 

[N965VJ]

Well they'd have to offer the east f/a's voluntary first before invol furloughs. SIGN ME UP! ! !

But you just became a blockholder, or is that Mr. Blockholder now.

The East has a minimum fleet contained in the Transition agreement (as does the West). Not sure about the West, but the East also has a minimum fleet outlined in LOA 93 that also defines aircraft utilization per day.

Good question above; could Force Majeure be used?

 

[jimntx]

Good question above; could Force Majeure be used?

The simple definition of Force Majeure is "A standard clause which indemnifies either or both parties to a transaction whenever events reasonably beyond the control of either or both prevents either party from carrying out their side of the contract."

If $130/bbl oil ain't force majeure, what is? If the company can not afford to buy fuel for the a/c, does the union really want to force them to put the plane in the air anyway?

 

[maddawg]

At some point the US Govt. will have to subsidize fuel for the US airline industry or let the industry collapse and then start the real USAirways.

 

[Travelpro72]

But you just became a blockholder, or is that Mr. Blockholder now.

Oh please it was a freak accident. Maybe I'll hold a line again in ANOTHER 10 years.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

For those about to go on the "Bid sheet", I salute you.

Congratulations and good luck.

 

[algflyr]

At some point the US Govt. will have to subsidize fuel for the US airline industry or let the industry collapse and then start the real USAirways.

I agree.

When a large carrier is in contract negotiations and an impasse is reached, the governmnt will step in and stop a strike saying it will cripple the US transportation system. How is this any different? Many of the smaller carriers that went away recently would not "cripple" the industry, but when several majors are at risk, I think they must step in...

 

[iwantout]

It's a minimum fleet but they could cut utilization by several hours a day, therefore layoffs/furloughs would happen. Wait for it.

Yet that idiot PK in Inflight Admin. called back all the people on furlough and a good portion of the people on exl who probably did not want to come back but felt like they had a gun to their head. The price of oil was already skyrocketing when this descion was made. God forbid PK ever thinks anything through. The man should be fired. He continues to prove he knows nothing about staffing this airline but he still keeps his job. Calling these people back only to get furloughed again. It makes no sense.

 

[iwantout]

All of this makes you wonder if AFA should have agreed on a contract before now. We probably would have gotten better than we will now with oil being the price that is. Stupd AFA.

 

[Be Careful What You Wish For.]

What contract?

Don't we have eons until the next contract?

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

At what price of jet fuel does it become more cost effective to ground the 50 seat RJ's? I know we have to pay for them, but is the revenue enough to even cover the fuel cost?

I'm sure that Doug would love to replace the CRJs with Q-400 - or just get rid of them - but outside of a BK3, I don't know of any way US can walk away from its contracts with the express carriers.

But the question does raise another point. Since (AFAIK) mainline pays for the fuel used by the Express operators, do those carriers have any incentive to save fuel?

 

[Chicken or Beef??]

All of this makes you wonder if AFA should have agreed on a contract before now. We probably would have gotten better than we will now with oil being the price that is. Stupd AFA.

Before AFA can "agree" to a contract their must be a tentative agreement. There has NEVER been a tentative agreement. I'm sure that if AFA were to would walk in and approve on all of the company's proposals we would have an agreement in no time. Of course, the proposals would be outrageous; $10/hr - new hire/ $20 max pay for senior f/a ,1 sick call/yr, 7 days vacation, 3 days/mo reserve days off. No medical, dental or life insurance covered by the company. Of course, after- your words - AFA agrees to this contract, the membership would vote on it and I'm sure it would be approved by the 30 percent of the active members who actually vote.
Yup, AFA sure is stupid!

 

[Itestwell]

Wow - AA will start charging $15 for your first checked bag. I wonder if others will follow suit?

Of course they will. Charging for the sodas around the corner. What I don't understand is why everyone is so surprised and miffed every time airline X announces a new charge for amenity Y. Are you not seeing the pattern yet?

 

[US1YFARE]

Are you not seeing the pattern yet?

Yes, I see a pattern of airlines charging those for "extras" when paying low fares. Meanwhile, US charges for "extras" when flying on a full fare and ridiculous change fees for some FC tickets. Oh, and let's not forget the terrible FC service offered by US compared to its competitors.

 

[Itestwell]

Yes, I see a pattern of airlines charging those for "extras" when paying low fares. Meanwhile, US charges for "extras" when flying on a full fare and ridiculous change fees for some FC tickets. Oh, and let's not forget the terrible FC service offered by US compared to its competitors.

Give it time... remember when US was the only one to do the $25 bag rule? Now AA charges for the first bag? Give it time.....