Looks like we are fumbling the excution of the big plan

Old PSA

Advanced
Aug 26, 2002
188
0
www.usaviation.com
I would think that now is the best time or was the best time to straighten out some of US''s inefficiency. Well it looks like Dave and the boys when strictly for the money.
Total confusion in the stations as to who can work outside and inside in the big cities and later when the SJs come, the small cities. One mainline jet a year and its mainline ramp however inside express classification can work mainline jets for four months a year. No mainline jets and its contract ramp or affiliated carrier ramp but express classification inside. That really enhances cooperation between inside and outside. Pre-unions we were the same group.
The pilot contract covers the Embraer 170/175 going to mainline junior (Mid-Atlantic), but its stable mate the 190/195 must go to main mainline pilots. So we could have two different groups of pilots flying basically the same airplane. That make no sense.
 

REACC1

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
514
0
Another reason for inside and outside [FONT face=Arial Black]airport[/FONT] employees should be under one union or none.
 
C

chipmunn

Guest
OldPSA:

I would be surprised to see the EMB-190/195 or any other 90-seat RJ appear on the property.

UAL777flyer: Doesn't UAL cross-utilize ground personnel and call the job classification Ramp Personnel? I believe this concept increases productivity and lowers employee expense, which from a business and bottom line perspective, is a concept that would help US in the long-term.

Chip
 

CAETravlr

Member
Aug 20, 2002
48
0
I have personally seen UA do it at MDT and CLT. MDT even moreso, but it is a very small station. The same guy that checked me in would very likely be doing the boarding, or loading luggage, or whatever on the ramp. So, yes, UA does do it. Also, United Express does it for sure in CAE, but not sure about other places, but it would make sense.

However, with Delta, I have NEVER seen that happen. On US, I have never seen it either, but have not flown them enough to be sure.
 

UAL777flyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
730
0
Chip,

Yes, I believe at very small stations this is done. The only one where I've seen it done is when I go in/out of STL to visit the in-laws. The unions would most likely be against it because in cross-utilizing, clearly more present jobs will be lost. But you gain a heck of a lot in terms of efficiency of resources that saves a lot of money. Clearly, in this environment, all airlines need to be looking at things like this. It just goes back to a point I made in a different thread. Airline labor needs to recognize the major changes that are needed for survival. Draconian and inefficient rules/staffing requirements/featherbedding to protect jobs and keep the union rolls fat are no longer possible for survival. It's time to think in terms of being as efficient and productive as possible.
 

UAL777flyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
730
0
Exactly. A great way to REALLY improve your efficiency would be to cross-utilize customer service and ramp personnel. I know HP used to do this at their smaller stations. Not sure, but maybe they still do.
 

Lakeguy67

Advanced
Aug 31, 2002
123
0
www.usaviation.com
CLT is a small UA station, they are all Public Contact Employees, in their contract because of the amount of flights PCEs do all the work in certain size stations. But both PCE and Ramp at UA are IAM, samething goes for NWA
 

REACC1

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
514
0
[P]United's PCE employees are all under the IAM and bid their job and shift with SENIORITY. Something that seems to mean something at some airlines and not others.(which shall remain nameless,lest I sound like I'm b'tching again) Hub stations and certain high volume stations fall under another classification in which they are departmentalized.[/P]
[P]On a more constructive note, cross utilization saves. It usually results in better trained employees. It's fair and impartial. Longevity with the company finally means more than just a higher cost. People can stay in shape(or out of shape if they can bid that line). You don't have to do the same 'movie'(horror flick) over and over and over again. Less vacation time is bid for the station at any one time.[/P]
[P]In short, if yer back hurts, bid upstairs, if yer head hurts, bid the ramp. It is a beautiful thing.[/P]
 
OP
Old PSA

Old PSA

Advanced
Aug 26, 2002
188
0
www.usaviation.com
Hey Chip,

I'm interested in why you feel a 90 seater would be used by US. It would look like we have a gap in aircraft sizes between 70-76 and 120-124. Does this mean that the company is looking at the Airbus A318 or that they don't see a need for that size range? And if they don't see a need, it looks like a repeat of previous managements thoughts on RJs, we will wait until everyone else flys them and then try and patch the hole.
 
C

chipmunn

Guest
Hi Old PSA:

Old PSA asked: I'm interested in why you feel a 90 seater would be used by US. It would look like we have a gap in aircraft sizes between 70-76 and 120-124. Does this mean that the company is looking at the Airbus A318 or that they don't see a need for that size range? And if they don't see a need, it looks like a repeat of previous managements thoughts on RJs, we will wait until everyone else flys them and then try and patch the hole.

Chip answers: Old PSA, in the short-term there does not appear to be a need in the US system for a 90 to 110 seat aircraft. US went to great steps to eliminate the previous 99-seat aircraft, the F100s from its inventory, which was one of the major reasons the board elected to file for a formal reorganization. Interestingly, this may become an industry trend with AA eliminating itss entire fleet of 76 F-100s and replacing them with 50-seat RJs.

Lakeguys67’s comment that “the express carriers are limited to RJs with 76 seats or less, if it is 77 or more it is a mainline jet worked by all mainline employeesâ€￾ is accurate. Therefore, it does not make economic sense to bring in a RJ new fleet type into the mainline, but if necessary US could acquire the A-318 or to renegotiate the pilot’s scope clause to permit the EMB-190 or EMB-195 to operate at MidAtlantic Airways. In my opinion, once the company emerges from bankruptcy and is financially stronger, ALPA would likely not provide authorization for a RJ greater than 76 seats to be flown at the Express level, which is a point management completely understands. Except for HP & DL, all other major airlines have scope agreements that prevent a 90-seat RJ; therefore, at this time I do not see US having to play catch up in this market.

Chip
 

DCAflyer

Veteran
Aug 27, 2002
821
0
Chip said:

Now before I receive a post that makes it sound like I'm bashing other employee groups because I am a pilot, I believe pilots and F/A's could do more them self as well. For example, there is no reason pilots cannot help clean the inside of the aircraft or F/A's do the ticket lift.

DCAflyer replies:

Chip, while I agree wholeheartedly that there are a lot of things we could do and should do, what you proposed, even though only as an example, would violate FARS. When the gate is open, the full compliment of flight attendants must be on board the aircraft performing our boarding duties... even moreso after 9/11. We can't even go down the jetway to get the agent if there are seat dupes.

Personally, I think management and the union brass should go hang out at a Southwest terminal for a day and see how they do things. I must say I was quite impressed and how they go into motion the second an A/C arrives at the gate... almost like watching a colony of ants moving from one gate to the next. There is no reason we can't pick up flying time without increasing fleet size. We must find ways to reduce the staging time of our A/C. Don't we average close to two hours at the gate, not counting overnights? That's ridiculous. We simply must find a way to make turnaround time 45 minutes or less. Scheduling needs to do their part as well. It makes no sense to have crews change aircraft three or four times a day. It makes no sense having us sit in a crowded terminal for three and a half hours between flights. There is so much inneficiency, not only at U but all of the majors, save Southwest. Even the way we board our planes could be improved. I recall UAL Shuttle boarding by zones rather than aft forward. It went something like this... A seats were zone 1, F seats were zone 2 B and D seats were zone 3, etc. Maybe this is something that should be looked at to reduce the 30 minutes we're taking to board. I have no problem tidying up between flights, especially if it's going to cut a couple of hours off my duty day, but deep-cleaning the lavs should be left to the cleaning crew.

All of these are examples of what can be done. I guess the question remains whether the unions will block efficiency attempts by the company.
 
C

chipmunn

Guest
UAL777flyer:

As you know, the airline industry is experiencing a secular shift in the buying patterns of the consumer, which I believe is permanent.

When we shop for a product, do we go to Sam's Wholesale Club, Costco, or Wal-Mart to pay wholesale; or do we go to a Department Store and pay full retail?

The same thing is occurring in the airline industry where low cost airlines like Southwest and JetBlue are becoming the carriers of consumer choice. These airlines offer a quality product at a fraction of the cost of a mature carrier and one of the reasons is cross-utilization.

In my opinion, those unions who fight change could see them self end up like the USW. I'm all for keeping the highest number of jobs possible, but labor and management must work together to preserve the business enterprise.

One way for employees to help the company become more competitive, is for US IAM-FSA, IAM-Utility, and CWA public contact employees to embrace ground personnel cross-utilization. Could a plan be created with management that is a win-win for both the employees and the corporation?

If US can lower its unit and labor cost to more competitive levels, in the long-term all US employees would benefit.

Now before I receive a post that makes it sound like I'm bashing other employee groups because I am a pilot, I believe pilots and F/A's could do more them self as well. For example, there is no reason pilots cannot help clean the inside of the aircraft or F/A's do the ticket lift.

There are a number of ways all employees could work together as a team to become more productive. If we did become more productive, I believe this could become a catalyst for growth by offering a product the consumer would select at a lower price, just like what is occurring at the low cost carriers today.

This would create an incentive for management to grow the airline by being able to more effectively compete and grow revenues.

Chip
 

mga707

Veteran
Aug 19, 2002
1,330
2
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/4/2002 11:31:55 AM UAL777flyer wrote:

Exactly. A great way to REALLY improve your efficiency would be to cross-utilize customer service and ramp personnel. I know HP used to do this at their smaller stations. Not sure, but maybe they still do.
----------------
[/blockquote]


Heck, back in the early days (mid-80s), HP used to cross-utilize not only the above two categories but even cabin crew!
 

Latest posts