Bring Back Crandall

RV4

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
1,885
80
www.usaviation.com
Carty is not the problem.

Labor cost are not the problem.

9/11 is not the problem.

THE PROBLEM IS AN OVER SUPPLY AND SHRINKING DEMAND.

Try hoping for voluntary further reductions in industry capacity or prepare to watch some folks be forced out!
 

WXGuesser

Advanced
Aug 20, 2002
234
0
www.usaviation.com
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/13/2003 7:18:10 PM RV4 wrote:

Carty is not the problem.

Labor cost are not the problem.

9/11 is not the problem.

THE PROBLEM IS AN OVER SUPPLY AND SHRINKING DEMAND.

----------------
[/blockquote]

RV4:

As much as we have been butting heads over other things lately, I agree with you on those points!!

TANSTAAFL
 

Hopeful

Veteran
Dec 21, 2002
5,998
347
I agree RV4,
But Carty does not see it this way. I say shrink AA to profitablility!
 

oldbscaler

Member
Mar 13, 2003
72
0
This my first posting on any kind, so please bear with me. Let's take a misty eyed look backat recent history. The time was about 1980. Airlines were loosing money with lost of people furlowed. There were lowcost carriers in a bunch of markets. They were, Apple Air,People Express, and yes Southwest. Crandall then preached the need to cut labor costs to compete with LCC's.The fundamental difference between then and now is then there was growth opportunities that do not exist now. The easy way out then was to negotiate a new lower pay rate for some guy who was not on the property yet. The B scale, or I believe Crandall called it "market rate".
Here we are again, except this time there is way too much capacity with no growth or B scale opportunities, so the cuts/pain has to be felt by everyone on the property.
We all should probably move sooner than later.
Oldbscaler
 

Hopeful

Veteran
Dec 21, 2002
5,998
347
That's somewhat true with respect to the union. But I did attend the meeting with the JFK Station Manager and he gave a power point presentation on the whole situation. He was asked why the company did not layoff and reduce its size to get the cost control it needed. He was direct in his response that the company does not want to reduce its size and presence. The company feels that once AA gets it costs more in line with the low cost carriers, it will be able to promote more of a full service that one might expect from American,
thus giving itself an edge over the others.
 

RV4

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
1,885
80
www.usaviation.com
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/14/2003 6:54:21 AM Hopeful wrote:

I agree RV4,
But Carty does not see it this way. I say shrink AA to profitablility!
----------------
[/blockquote]


From what I hear, it is not Carty that is opposed to shrinkage, it is as much your dues collection agency commonly called "the union" that is more interested in preserving jobs than pay and benefits.
 

AAmech

Veteran
Aug 22, 2002
766
1
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/13/2003 5:51:54 PM A77IGW wrote:

Bring Back Crandall
----------------
[/blockquote]

The hell with Crandall, lets bring back Al Casey!! Or better yet, I bring a couple shovels and a pickax and we'll go dig up CR Smith!!
Hmmmm, on second thought maybe its easier just to hire Rakesh Gangwal!!
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/13/2003 7:18:10 PM RV4 wrote:

Carty is not the problem.

Labor cost are not the problem.

9/11 is not the problem.

THE PROBLEM IS AN OVER SUPPLY AND SHRINKING DEMAND.

Try hoping for voluntary further reductions in industry capacity or prepare to watch some folks be forced out!
----------------
[/blockquote]
I gotta agree with ya on this one RV4. Its funny though, seems to me that since we have an over abundance of capacity we should be putting planes on the ground, but it seems that the powers that be can't seem to see outside of the box, they have this "tude" that we've always done it that way and thats how its gonna be.
Since the F100s have to have the containment shield mod done at a cost of 1-1.5mm per engine, put em on the ground, don't take 2yrs to do it, put down now. As for the A-300 Scarebus, Put em down, Airbus said they would pay for a new tail on the 1 we took off and inspected, well just like they are doing now about Iraq, they crawfished out of it, so I say put em down and we immediately get rid of 108 planes/34-A300s +74 F100s/. Capacity shrinks, maybe the cuts we are being asked to endure wouldn't be so drastic.
 

AirLUVer

Senior
Aug 22, 2002
448
180
The big problem with immediately pulling these fleets out of service is that you then have approximately 600-1000 pilots that you are now paying to do nothing while you are waiting for simulators and instructors to train them to another airplane. With furlough/RIF clauses in the contracts, you can't furlough just the ones affected by the fleet retirements.

So compare paying full salary for 1000 pilots for doing nothing compared to operating the flights even at a small loss.
 

RV4

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
1,885
80
www.usaviation.com
Damn,

We are all screwed by the Pilot again