Fleet Rationalization

[Dea Certe]

I thought we were told by thw W&G regime that a big part of US''s problem was too many aircraft types, which led to higher training costs, more expense in keeping parts at hand for all the fleet types, etc.
Now, here''s all this talk about adding more aircraft types. I assume these RJ''s, CRJ''s or whatever will not be flown or maintained by mainline. So, these will go to the W/O''s?
Are any of the W/O''s ALPA? I think some of the f/a''s are AFA represented.
I don''t know, but this is starting to seem like a gnarly hairball. Can someone explain this to me? I''ll admit I am probably suffering from Skyheimers, better know as Old Flyers Disease.
Thanks in advance for any explanation this ancient sky hag can comprehend.
Dea

 

[dash8ter]

I will say operationally, Express will be a headache and a half. Having 12 different Express operators will not provide smooth operations. Each carrier has their own a/c, their own crews, and their own dispatch. Cancellations (within Express) will surely rise as each carrier usually has just enough aircraft and crews for their operation only. I feel sorry for any station that has to deal with more than 2 different carriers!

 

[airlineorphan]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/28/2002 12:43:00 AM Dea Certe wrote:

I thought we were told by thw W&G regime that a big part of US's problem was too many aircraft types, which led to higher training costs, more expense in keeping parts at hand for all the fleet types, etc.

Now, here's all this talk about adding more aircraft types. I assume these RJ's, CRJ's or whatever will not be flown or maintained by mainline. So, these will go to the W/O's?

Are any of the W/O's ALPA? I think some of the f/a's are AFA represented.

I don't know, but this is starting to seem like a gnarly hairball. Can someone explain this to me? I'll admit I am probably suffering from "Skyheimers", better know as Old Flyers Disease.

Thanks in advance for any explanation this ancient sky hag can comprehend.

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


Hey Dea,

As I understand it, PSA, Piedmont and Allegheny f/a's are AFA, Transtate f/a's are Teamsters. I don't know about Chataqua, Mesa and some of the others in the smorgasbord.

I think you are right to raise the concern about the craziness all these different players throws into the mix. However, from management's perspective, there are lots of benefits:

(1) insulates management from the responsibility for behavior of management at the affiliate and subcontracted carriers

(2) opportunities for whipsawing employees at different carriers against each other if anyone gets too uppity.

This trend towards subsidiary spinoffs and use of subcontracting has been going on for a while in other industries, auto manufacturing in particular. It has been most successful in achieving the the 2 things I listed below: insulate management from accountability and responsibility, and drive wages and working conditions down across the industry.

Nike has been pretty successful at this too in the shoe industry: If the workers in their subcontracted factory in Indonesia decide they want to be treated like humans, Nike can just end their subcontract relationship and set up a new one in a free market zone in Vietnam or China or somewhere.

There is a name for this: It's called "sweating" and it's where the word "sweatshop" comes from.

Hang in there and watch each other's backs!

-Airlineorphan