Management Screw ups.........tell me!
- Thread starter strikeforce
- Start date
787nightmare
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2010
- Messages
- 722
- Reaction score
- 153
X2
Truth be told...the board would probably kill for Crandall for come back about now.
He's not interested.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
Sorry, but the only person who forced Bob into retirement was Jan. She was tired of competing for his time, and good on her for getting her way for a change.
I didn't agree with Carty's ascending to the throne, but I still say Arpey was the best choice available in 2003. Can you really imagine Dan Garton being the head of AMR? That's the only other person who could have been a choice at the time.
So hang him in effigy all you want, but Dan would have been a nightmare. Look at how lucky UAL was hiring from outside -- they wound up with Glenn Tilton. AA could have probably wound up with Doug Parker or Richard Anderson had then wanted to hire from outside.
It's really easy to criticize the guys at the top, but as "bad" as you think it is at AMR, you have no idea how much worse it could actually have been. The cuts stopped in 2003. They could have just as easily done a US Airways or UAL and come back for more two years later.
But they didn't. They fed at the trough with regard to the PUP and PSP plans, but they didn't materially shrink the airline or ask for further concessions in the process of doing so.
jimntx
Veteran
E, you might as well give it up. When the "good church folk" decide that you (not you specifically...the generic you) are Spawn of Satan, you might as well go ahead and put on your tail and pick up your pitchfork because you are going to be Spawn of Satan in their eyes even while they watch you feed the poor and heal the sick. 
telebender1956
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2010
- Messages
- 88
- Reaction score
- 3
I followed Robert Crandall's career after he left AA while you were siding with the current management at AA. He did not waste any time getting in Corporate management at Celestica Corp.It was quite obvious that he has worked since he left AA and still is working. The only person that made him retire was some moron on the BOD and AA and its employees has paid the price ever since for the dumb ass move.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EKF/is_2258_45/ai_54068106/
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/press-release/amr_-southern-air-appoints-robert-crandall-former-ceo-of-american-airlines-as-director-1456757.html
The last mechanics contract proposal was for more CONCESSIONS and that is why it was VOTED DOWN by a high percentage of the Title I work groups.
The airline has shrunk in size and number of employees since 2003. You must be drinking the management cool aid every day.
Robert Crandall was the best Airline CEO EVER in the history of the Airline business and time will prove this statement to be correct. Herb Kelleher ranks a very close Second.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
Wow, you followed his career after he left. That's really impressive. Are you Facebook friends or a connection of his on LinkedIn?... Maybe you can ask him to clarify who the moron was on the BOD who made him retire at the age of 63.
If serving as an external director equates in your mind to being corporate management, maybe you should do another Google search, this time on corporate governance, and learn why companies like Celestica have external directors and even an external chairman.
You also missed the real gem of Bob's post-AA career when you did your Google search: Pogo.
He and former People Express founder Don Burr partnered up on that venture, of which he is now also Chairman (in addition to Celestica). Pogo still has yet to get off the ground after six years, so I'm sure he has time to run both companies. Really.
Past commentary here say most of you guys think that the BOD just rubber stamps what the CEO wants, so how much time do you really think it takes of his time?
It is so time consuming, Bob has time to serve on three or four other companies' board (including AirCell). Being an external director requires a couple days, maybe a week at best, of someone's time per year.
Not exactly what I'd call a full-time job, but I'm told it pays pretty well. Nobody expected Bob to go sit in a rocking chair, but sitting on a couple of boards vs. running a company leaves plenty of time to be a husband and grandparent, which is what retirement should be all about.
telebender1956
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2010
- Messages
- 88
- Reaction score
- 3
Typical AA Management response; twist facts into their fantasy instead of facing the reality of what really exists. Robert Crandall has always been a hands on Manager and LEADER and will not sit most of the year on the sidelines.
It is OBVIOUS my previous posting just provided a sample of his career since he left AA and not a detailed BIO.
How's AA Profit Sharing working for you? [since RC left AA]
Management AAgain!! Luckily they can only fly them and can not work on them!!!!!!!!!!
Two Planes Grounded After Tail Strikes
By ANDY PASZTOR
Associated Press
American Airlines grounded two planes after tail strikes.
A recent spate of safety lapses by American Airlines, including a
Boeing 757 that apparently took off at an unusually slow speed and
slammed its tail on a California runway last week, are prompting
concerns among federal safety officials as well as some of the
carrier's pilots and mechanics.
None of the incidents resulted in injuries, though two planes suffered
enough damage to warrant temporarily taking them out of service. An
airline spokeswoman said "we take each incident very seriously,"
various internal reviews are under way to understand the causes, and
American usually works together with labor and government officials
"to make sure these types of incidents are mitigated."
She didn't provide details of what precipitated the operational problems.
Federal officials are conducting their own investigations into a
number of incidents ranging from last week's takeoff error at Los
Angeles International Airport to a botched landing in late December
that resulted in a jet carrying 181 people running off the end of a
snowy Jackson Hole , Wyo. , runway.
The takeoff mistake in Los Angeles ended with the Hawaii-bound Boeing
757—piloted by a senior-management captain who is the chief pilot for
757 crews based in Los Angeles —quickly returning to the field. The
aircraft may have suffered significant damage from what is called a
"tail strike," which usually happens when the takeoff angle is too
steep and the rear portion of a departing jet's underbelly hits or
drags on the runway.
The heavily loaded Boeing 757 was taken out of service and may need
repairs to its rear bulkhead, according to people familiar with the
details.
The plane was ferried to American's Tulsa , Okla. , maintenance base
earlier this week, without passengers and under rules requiring the
pilots to fly at lower altitudes in order to reduce structural
stresses from pressurizing the fuselage.
A Federal Aviation Administration spokesman said the agency is
investigating the Los Angeles tail strike and safety experts are
"assessing the extent of the damage to the bulkhead." The National
Transportation Safety Board also has looked into the incident. Tail
strikes occur from time to time, mostly on longer models such as
Airbus A340 or Boeing 767 and 777 jets, but safety experts said they
are particularly unusual during takeoffs of 757 jets.
Greg Smith, the management captain who was in command of the flight,
didn't respond to questions, and the American spokeswoman said
employees aren't authorized to speak to reporters.
In the past few weeks, the AMR Corp. unit also experienced a separate
tail strike at Los Angeles Airport involving a Boeing 737 taking off
for Canada . American said it didn't tell U.S. or Canadian
investigators about the event because the damage wasn't significant
enough to warrant such reports. The plane, however, remains out of
service, pending a decision slated for next week by American's
engineering and maintenance experts. At a minimum, according to people
familiar with the matter, the aluminum skin around the plane's tail
was damaged.
In early January, yet another American jet, this time a Boeing 767
wide-body aircraft, had to return to New York 's John F. Kennedy
International Airport shortly after takeoff, when its nose gear
wouldn't retract. After making a safe but overweight emergency
landing, it turned out that mechanics had failed to remove a pin
installed during overnight maintenance.
The New York incident has attracted attention from American pilots and
mechanics because such pins have red-and-white streamers attached to
them, reminding crews to "Remove Before Flight." None of the
mechanics, baggage handlers or other ground staff noticed the pin
prior to the plane's beginning its taxi for takeoff. The aircraft's
pilots, who are responsible for visually checking the condition of
every aircraft prior to flight, also missed the pin.
The American spokeswoman said the airline doesn't publicly "discuss
corrective actions" affecting pilots.
At least three of American's recent incidents featured some unusual
factors, and that's partly why they have sparked intense scrutiny from
different groups.
The staff of the safety board, for example, appears especially
interested in figuring out why the experienced captain in the Jackson
Hole event failed to manually deploy panels on top of his jetliner's
wings to help decelerate the speeding plane after touchdown. The
panels failed to deploy automatically as the cockpit crew expected.
Investigators are examining whether a maintenance mix-up contributed
to that failure, and somehow also may have helped delay deployment of
devices at the rear of the engines intended to slow the jet by
reversing the direction of engine thrust.
Initially, the pilots of the Boeing 737 that scraped its tail climbing
away from Los Angeles didn't realize anything unusual had happened.
But during the flight, according to people familiar with the details,
flight attendants alerted the cockpit crew that they had heard sounds
of creaking metal after the jet's tail smacked the runway.
The Boeing 757 damaged during takeoff from Los Angeles may have been
climbing at a speed of less than 120 miles an hour, according to
people familiar with the details. That's markedly slower, these people
said, than such a 110-ton jet typically would be flown in order to
lift safely off the ground.
Two Planes Grounded After Tail Strikes
By ANDY PASZTOR
Associated Press
American Airlines grounded two planes after tail strikes.
A recent spate of safety lapses by American Airlines, including a
Boeing 757 that apparently took off at an unusually slow speed and
slammed its tail on a California runway last week, are prompting
concerns among federal safety officials as well as some of the
carrier's pilots and mechanics.
None of the incidents resulted in injuries, though two planes suffered
enough damage to warrant temporarily taking them out of service. An
airline spokeswoman said "we take each incident very seriously,"
various internal reviews are under way to understand the causes, and
American usually works together with labor and government officials
"to make sure these types of incidents are mitigated."
She didn't provide details of what precipitated the operational problems.
Federal officials are conducting their own investigations into a
number of incidents ranging from last week's takeoff error at Los
Angeles International Airport to a botched landing in late December
that resulted in a jet carrying 181 people running off the end of a
snowy Jackson Hole , Wyo. , runway.
The takeoff mistake in Los Angeles ended with the Hawaii-bound Boeing
757—piloted by a senior-management captain who is the chief pilot for
757 crews based in Los Angeles —quickly returning to the field. The
aircraft may have suffered significant damage from what is called a
"tail strike," which usually happens when the takeoff angle is too
steep and the rear portion of a departing jet's underbelly hits or
drags on the runway.
The heavily loaded Boeing 757 was taken out of service and may need
repairs to its rear bulkhead, according to people familiar with the
details.
The plane was ferried to American's Tulsa , Okla. , maintenance base
earlier this week, without passengers and under rules requiring the
pilots to fly at lower altitudes in order to reduce structural
stresses from pressurizing the fuselage.
A Federal Aviation Administration spokesman said the agency is
investigating the Los Angeles tail strike and safety experts are
"assessing the extent of the damage to the bulkhead." The National
Transportation Safety Board also has looked into the incident. Tail
strikes occur from time to time, mostly on longer models such as
Airbus A340 or Boeing 767 and 777 jets, but safety experts said they
are particularly unusual during takeoffs of 757 jets.
Greg Smith, the management captain who was in command of the flight,
didn't respond to questions, and the American spokeswoman said
employees aren't authorized to speak to reporters.
In the past few weeks, the AMR Corp. unit also experienced a separate
tail strike at Los Angeles Airport involving a Boeing 737 taking off
for Canada . American said it didn't tell U.S. or Canadian
investigators about the event because the damage wasn't significant
enough to warrant such reports. The plane, however, remains out of
service, pending a decision slated for next week by American's
engineering and maintenance experts. At a minimum, according to people
familiar with the matter, the aluminum skin around the plane's tail
was damaged.
In early January, yet another American jet, this time a Boeing 767
wide-body aircraft, had to return to New York 's John F. Kennedy
International Airport shortly after takeoff, when its nose gear
wouldn't retract. After making a safe but overweight emergency
landing, it turned out that mechanics had failed to remove a pin
installed during overnight maintenance.
The New York incident has attracted attention from American pilots and
mechanics because such pins have red-and-white streamers attached to
them, reminding crews to "Remove Before Flight." None of the
mechanics, baggage handlers or other ground staff noticed the pin
prior to the plane's beginning its taxi for takeoff. The aircraft's
pilots, who are responsible for visually checking the condition of
every aircraft prior to flight, also missed the pin.
The American spokeswoman said the airline doesn't publicly "discuss
corrective actions" affecting pilots.
At least three of American's recent incidents featured some unusual
factors, and that's partly why they have sparked intense scrutiny from
different groups.
The staff of the safety board, for example, appears especially
interested in figuring out why the experienced captain in the Jackson
Hole event failed to manually deploy panels on top of his jetliner's
wings to help decelerate the speeding plane after touchdown. The
panels failed to deploy automatically as the cockpit crew expected.
Investigators are examining whether a maintenance mix-up contributed
to that failure, and somehow also may have helped delay deployment of
devices at the rear of the engines intended to slow the jet by
reversing the direction of engine thrust.
Initially, the pilots of the Boeing 737 that scraped its tail climbing
away from Los Angeles didn't realize anything unusual had happened.
But during the flight, according to people familiar with the details,
flight attendants alerted the cockpit crew that they had heard sounds
of creaking metal after the jet's tail smacked the runway.
The Boeing 757 damaged during takeoff from Los Angeles may have been
climbing at a speed of less than 120 miles an hour, according to
people familiar with the details. That's markedly slower, these people
said, than such a 110-ton jet typically would be flown in order to
lift safely off the ground.
Frank Szabo
Veteran
Uh - as I recall, the pins remain in place until the engines are running as a safety. When the pilot does his walkabout, they should still be in place or someone didn't do their job.
I WILL believe the pin either didn't have the "remove" streamer attached to it or the friggin' thing blew up into the gear hole.. The safeties are supposed to have a flag long enough to be seen from almost any angle, especially from the front where the "plane captain" should be on engine turn.
As I'm not "proficient" nor familiar with line ops (I'm a diemaker at TULE), I do remember the procedures from my time in the Navy and what little time I spent on the roof.
You decide if this is a screw up or not.
Management decides to add 12 seats to the 737 fleet. Total seats in the new configuration 160.
That requires another flight attendant. So we have increased the capacity by about 8% but we have
increased flight attendant costs by 33% on that fleet. The potential to obtain revenue from those seats
only happens when the load factor exceeds 94%.
And they complain about productivity
Management decides to add 12 seats to the 737 fleet. Total seats in the new configuration 160.
That requires another flight attendant. So we have increased the capacity by about 8% but we have
increased flight attendant costs by 33% on that fleet. The potential to obtain revenue from those seats
only happens when the load factor exceeds 94%.
And they complain about productivity
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
How often was minimum crew actually used? Two FA's in F and two in Y seemed to be the norm whenever I was on a 738, and staffing less than that means service suffers accordingly.
I'd also venture to say that by having those extra 12 seats, 8 customers weren't forced into middle seats when the flight was booked at a load factor much closer to where AA has been running for the past year or so... Not quantifiable, but certainly a slightly higher comfort factor.
To set the record straight we have 2 diff. config of the 737 for the moment. The B8 16F/132Y is normally staffed with 3 FA's. One for F two in Y. This config flies mostly in and out of MIA. The B9 16F/144Y is staffed with 4 FA's. The added FA on the B9 is a flex position. Help get the drinks out in F and then go to Y.
jimntx
Veteran
But, let's be clear. The B9 is not staffed with a 4th f/a for service standards reasons. It is staffed that way because it is FAA minimum crew.
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
I realize that the B9's require the fourth, but even back in 2007 and 2008, I recall seeing a fourth flight attendant more often than not on my ORD-West Coast and MIA-Central America flying (which was the only places I would see the 738s).
Guess it was just a perception and not reality... or maybe it's just taking a really, really long time to convert airplanes? When did the new config start to roll out?
Guess it was just a perception and not reality... or maybe it's just taking a really, really long time to convert airplanes? When did the new config start to roll out?
