How many supervisors do you need to load a plane?

atabuy

Senior
Oct 13, 2002
419
0
No matter how many management personel you have the plane will not get off the ground.
The point here is; it takes productivity workers to keep the planes coming in and out. Management positions decrease this productivity by diluting the PME''s.
The existing revenue cannot support non productive jobs anymore. We cannot support the chain of command we have had since regulation.
This is one of the biggest hurdles the company will face getting the remainder of the union groups to agree to givebacks.
Yes, production workers pay can be cut to break even under this economy, but to start making money a lot of the management positions will have to go until we increase the yield to support them.
Even then, are they neccessary to have.
This is a true reality and I expect management personel to dispute this.
When you do, please explain why your job is vital to the revenue of Ual.
By the way, I am not bashing management. I also know we do need some management positions. The question is: How many.
 

gatemech

Senior
Aug 24, 2002
356
5
www.usaviation.com
I have seen ramp supervisors just sitting in a truck watching the bags being loaded. What a waste. If the leads are doing their job then I don't see any reason for a supervisor to be present. Only one supervisor is needed per shift. Lead groups could be larger. I think 11 makes a lead group. At least for mechanics. A good lead can handle 20 no problem.
 

UAL777flyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
730
0
If you think management positions are the only impediment to worker productivity, you're crazy. Spend 15 minutes at a hub and you'll see enough inefficiency on the ramp and in the terminal to make your head spin. People need to stop blaming management employees for everything. Yes, there is clearly excess management in many areas. But there are many departments of management employees that are drastically under-staffed. But the excess is everywhere. What needs to happen is that ALL of the inefficient and costly work rules and staffing requirements need to be eliminated once and for all. Unfortunately, this will probably lead to some job losses. But that is what has to happen. This company can no longer afford to carry the featherbedding work rules.

So, while yes, there is clearly an excess of management in some areas, there is also an excess of employees in many areas that is driven by antiquated staffing and work rule requirements.
 

gatemech

Senior
Aug 24, 2002
356
5
www.usaviation.com
UAL777flyer,

If you noticed I used the term supervisor. As you keep saying you are in management but do not delegate any work. You are a non-contract employee. I realize that. In most places you can trip over the supervisors. A person with the proper leadership skills can oversee 100+ people. Some places have 4 for 100 people.
 

Tim Thorpe

Member
Aug 20, 2002
53
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/7/2002 5:43:19 PM UAL777flyer wrote:

If you think management positions are the only impediment to worker productivity, you're crazy. Spend 15 minutes at a hub and you'll see enough inefficiency on the ramp and in the terminal to make your head spin. People need to stop blaming management employees for everything. Yes, there is clearly excess management in many areas. But there are many departments of management employees that are drastically under-staffed. But the excess is everywhere. What needs to happen is that ALL of the inefficient and costly work rules and staffing requirements need to be eliminated once and for all. Unfortunately, this will probably lead to some job losses. But that is what has to happen. This company can no longer afford to carry the featherbedding work rules.

So, while yes, there is clearly an excess of management in some areas, there is also an excess of employees in many areas that is driven by antiquated staffing and work rule requirements.
----------------
[/blockquote]
UAL777Flyer are you management or salaried? There is a big difference. At least in the maint division there is. We are so heavily micro managed most employees at UAL would not believe it. We currently have 1 management employee for every 6 workers and I am counting salaried employees on the workers side. I hate to see anyone lose their job. But I have watched 650 people at IND get laid off and only 5 foreman. I feel that the only way to save UAL is to trim the fat where it is thickest. In the maint division that is with management. They currently do a large portion of the job that used to belong to the lead mechanics. Instead of troubleshooting problems leads and mechanics today tend to sit around and wait to be told what to do next. This is a drastic change from the way things used to be 15 years ago. it is also a change for the worse. One's view of UAL changes drastically from division to division. I am sure you have a different view than gatemech and I do but that does not mean that either one of us is wrong.
 

kcabpilot

Senior
Aug 22, 2002
271
0
This is absolutely true. The Leads and Mechanics are sick and freakin' tired of all of these Managers constantly getting in the way and interfering with the work. Most of the supervisors are unfit and know nothing about what needs to be done and frankly, if they would just stay in the office and out of the way things would go a whole lot smoother. A Lead is a Mechanic who has worked his way into that position by paying his or her dues and has spent the years doing the work that they are leading and directing. They are the ones that know what needs to be done. We recently had a leak in an APU fuel line. The foreman stuck his head up into the aft compartment and asked a Mechanic who was working on a pneumatic duct if that was where the fuel leak was. Right pal, a 3 inch fuel line. GET OUT OF MY WAY YOU MORON!
 
OP
A

atabuy

Senior
Oct 13, 2002
419
0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/7/2002 5:43:19 PM UAL777flyer wrote:

This company can no longer afford to carry the featherbedding work rules.

So, while yes, there is clearly an excess of management in some areas, there is also an excess of employees in many areas that is driven by antiquated staffing and work rule requirements.
----------------
[/blockquote]
UAL777flyer,
Reducing wages is only a stop gap measure to the problem here at Ual.
The company has been slow to act in the best interest because of their own conflict of interest.
Clearly management should have been the ones to show the way and taken wage reductions as soon as we were in trouble to show the other unions they were serious about turning this airline around.
Unions are slow to trust a management that isn't willing to take the first steps.
Do you think the negotiations with the iam would be going better if they knew we were all in this together? I think so.
Leads are working members of the crew and if given the chance, will step up without supervisors, and get the job done a lot more effiently.
Everyone is willing to work, but not when they see Ual is not willing to make the right decisions.
There are many jobs within Ual that are important to the whole operation.
Supervisors and a percentage of the managers they report to are redundant, and cost Ual money we can't afford to pay, and create bad morale in a lot of cases.
You might have one of the neccessary jobs we can't do without.
 

UAL777flyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
730
0
Tim Thorpe,

I'm management. I'm well aware of the differences between management and salaried employees. For all the areas where there is excess management, such as the examples cited in this thread, there are many departments of management employees that are under-staffed. My department is just one of them. But there are many. The company needs to do a better job of evening out the inequal numbers.

I agree that salary cuts only get you so far. That's why I didn't mention pay cuts. I'm talking about work rules and staffing requirements. You have no idea how much can be saved by eliminating many of these rules/requirements that were born in the regulated era. If you get rid of these rules, you will have job losses, but you will also lessen the necessity for W-2 cuts and benefit cuts. If job losses happen due to bringing work rules and staffing requirements to a more highly efficient level, than so be it. It is truly unfortunate for anyone to lose their jobs, but it's better than 84,000 losing theirs. Everything must be examined. It's time we become a highly efficient workforce all the way across the board and eliminate those items that have long hamstrung productivity and increased costs.