Left At The Gate

[BoeingBoy]

Left at the gate

By Thomas Olson
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, March 5, 2004

US Airways is entering round three of concession talks with labor groups still reeling from the airline's roller-coaster ride in recent years.

PIT Trib-Review Article

Jim

 

[MrAeroMan]

In the article they state that Southwest pays it's pilots more than U but the chart shows U pilots paid on average $147,000.00 while Luv pilots paid on average $140,000.00.
Another plot exposed from those at CCY. 😉 😀

 

[mweiss]

It all depends on how you look at it. If you get Bill Gates into a room with 40 of us, the average per capita net worth is over a billion dollars. Somehow it doesn't make me feel any richer.

 

[UseYourHead]

In the article they state that Southwest pays it's pilots more than U but the chart shows U pilots paid on average $147,000.00 while Luv pilots paid on average $140,000.00.
Another plot exposed from those at CCY. 😉 😀

I have a feeling we are going to find that the number of employees per aircraft, and the amount of hard time flown per employee is considerably different at our airline when compared to LCCs.

We shall see what the facts bring forward....

 

[BoeingBoy]

UseYourHead,

I don't think we'll "find" this tidbit - it is a fact. Just as it is a fact that a McDonalds has less employees per meal served than a full service restaurant. Anyone can make an "apples to oranges" comparison and point the finger of blame - the trick is to compare apples to apples or oranges to oranges to uncover the real problem areas.

Show me a LCC that has a workforce as senior as ours and that flies a hub/spoke system like ours and that's been downsized like ours and has a mixed fleet like ours, and then we can talk about headcound & productivity comparisons.

Jim

 

[RowUnderDCA]

UseYourHead,

I don't think we'll "find" this tidbit - it is a fact. Just as it is a fact that a McDonalds has less employees per meal served than a full service restaurant. Anyone can make an "apples to oranges" comparison and point the finger of blame - the trick is to compare apples to apples or oranges to oranges to uncover the real problem areas.

Show me a LCC that has a workforce as senior as ours and that flies a hub/spoke system like ours and that's been downsized like ours and has a mixed fleet like ours, and then we can talk about headcound & productivity comparisons.

Jim

BB-

But what would be the use of such an apples to apples comparison. U isn't competing against apples. Or 'apples' aren't setting the competitive bench-mark.

It might be a cute exercise, but why bother?

 

[BoeingBoy]

RowUnderDCA,

If the true reasons for our higher costs don't matter, then it is a "cute exercise" although no cuter than just a quoting a statistic (no matter if relevant or not) and saying "That is the problem".

If one wishes to get our costs down to the level of the LCC's, it can certainly be done by employee concessions - just make everyone work for Mesa-level wages to offset the higher structural costs of our operation vs theirs.

Alternately, one could address the structural inefficiencies and minimize the "pain" inflicted on the employees. Of course, that requires the intelligence to understand that there are structural inefficiencies that need to be addressed and a willingness to address them. How much easier to just make the unions and their "outdated" CBA's the problem.

Jim

 

[wings396]

So bring on the 60 more A/C, fly them on point to point routes and keep the headcount the same. I don't recall anyone saying that they would not increase productivity to keep their jobs and a decent wage. I have been told many times that productivity in Fleet and CS is close to the LCC's already. We are on the clock for 8 hours and will work whatever flights are thrown our way. This company wants increased productivity and povery wages all in one package. Anyone in PHL that can jump ship for SWA should run and never look back.......

 

[mweiss]

As if changing the airports would be all that US would need to do to "fix what's wrong."

The entire company, from top to bottom, is inefficiently organized. Geez, you guys still have some of the highest costs in the industry, even if you leave out the LCCs. And it ain't the wages...

 

[colorado_cowboy]

And it ain't the wages

If its not the wages than how can the average employee fix the problem?

 

[700UW]

It is not up to the employee to fix it, it is up to management to learn how to run and airline, adhere to contracts they signed and treat their most valuable asset (the employee) with respect. NO airline has been saved from extinction by trying to take it from the employee's wallets!

WN is the one of the highest paid and highest % of unionized workers, AA, DL, NW and UA all make more then US employees.

It is an inefficient route structure, two hubs in the same state, no hub in the Midwest or West Coast, and minimal international flying.

US Airways is not a major airline anymore, it is a regional with big jets.

 

[mweiss]

If its not the wages than how can the average employee fix the problem?

I assume by that question you mean the line employee. There's not much that can be done.

One option is to accept a wage in line with the employee's overall fiscal contribution to the organization (which would be much lower than WN). That seems to be what Dave's trying to do. It's fiscally correct, but not especially smart. A trained monkey could come up with that plan.

Another option is to petition the top levels of management (preferably through the unions, but I'm not sure I'd trust the union leadership these days) to get the company reorganized to improve productivity in all places in the company. Give people bonuses for coming up with specific, implementable changes to the company that improve the productivity of employees.

Barring that, the last option is to petition the BOD to replace him, specifically with someone willing to reorganize the company to improve employee productivity. This can't be a "we hate Dave, anyone would be better, so replace him" sort of argument. It can't even be a "Dave's a liar" argument. To have the most remote hope for success, you've got to make your demands very, very clear.

Otherwise, you can just try to do what many here appear interested in doing, and siphon off as much of the money as possible in your last year of employment.

 

[mwereplanes]

He can't. The structure must be changed. But to do that you need a management that is capable. If they are incapable of changing the structure, then the easiest route is to blame the employees, their costs, their work rules, their sick leave, etc... We have little intelligence from an operational perspective sitting in CCY as we speak. Make that little to none.

But the media, the public, and even the employees buy what is being fed to them from CCY to cover their !!!es and saying their plan is working. Just too slowly.

Boeing Boy understands. So do the mechanics. The pilots are scared @@@@less and will cave to an inept management and think Bronner is going to save us. He knows less about the airline business than Siegel. Hang on for the ride. We are in deep do-do.

mr

 

[Dilligas]

I just wish people would wake up and quit living under the delusion that dave & dave are at U to operate and/or build an airline.

In my opinion, their goals and motivations are not the same as most people assume. Time is very short now folks.

 

[openview]

There are some very good responses here. Unfortunately, that is very often the minority of employee rationale or thinking. Both mgmt and unions, can, will or do make mistakes. But I feel sorry for the unions. I have seen the unions fight and resist all change under the guise, I will concede nothing more. And propagate language that insites the rank & file to that belief. If mgmt were to point to a paragragh in some contract for example and say look here, technology or regulatory rules or something has changed making that work rule obsolete and its costing us millions -lets change it. Union response would be too bad, or whats it worth to you. Its never a common sense approach that says lets do it tol make the co. heathly in the long run.

I have always felt that unions could rule US (and many companies) and make a fortune if they were clear and concise in what was important to them. But their demands or wants are spread so thin trying to cover so many requests and areas, esp. for a mature co. like US with a whole spectrum and range of employees. So instead of a handful of unnegotatiable items to hold out strongly for like top pay, full health benefits, competitive vacation days, a hand full of sick days, some flexibility in schedules, etc. Many contracts have become pages and pages of inefficient language and restrictions. The afa contract is like 100 pages. Some parts hasn't changed in decades. Yet technology, competition and the economy continually changes. All those little sentences, paragraghs, side bars, and amendments cost money.