New 18% Paycut For Pilots
- Thread starter luvthe9
- Start date
Fly said:
Fares are down, revenues are down, because of overcapacity.
Strictly speaking, the overcapacity is in the number of full-service airline seats available (at the legacy airlines), not the total number of airline seats available.
If half the full-service airline seats disappeared tomorrow, (or even 15-20% of them), the remaining full-service airline seats would command higher prices. Some of the cheapskates currently stuffing your planes would either have to pay more or stay home.
The flights are stuffed full because the overcapacity has caused a bidding down in price. And with break-even load factors approaching 95% (or higher, at some airlines), the seats have to be filled to keep cash coming in the door, no matter the price.
It's long past time for some consolidation in the full-service industry.
But since that means an airline or two needs to go out of business, it's a "taboo" subject. But it's still true. Time for somebody to liquidate. And the sooner, the better. We need to throw somebody out of the lifeboat so that the others can survive.
ualdriver said:
Very true. But at some point the employees may no longer be on board (once they have given, and given and given some more). Can't expect everyone to just keep "taking one for the team" indefinitely.
herkav8r said:
😀 I'd send AA an email with the suggestion, but many people think AA is already well on its way towards implementation of your suggestion.
U
UAL_TECH
Guest
herkav8r said:
Herk,
Thanks for your honest input. (Which is a rarity of late).
With an 18% 'allocation construct' for ALPA why is it that the AMFA M&R are being asked for 24%?
I can answer my own question but I prefer to have input from the 'Pilot Community' which has been quite muted as of late.
Take Care,
B) UT
UALdriver was't wrong on that one. It's only 18% if we give up no work rules whatsoever, which is possible I guess but unlikely.
Where you're getting 24% from is beyond me. Maybe that's how much of a straight pay cut the group would have to take in
order to full the cash "bucket" that's in front of your work group if you negotiate no work rule changes
Where you're getting 24% from is beyond me. Maybe that's how much of a straight pay cut the group would have to take in
order to full the cash "bucket" that's in front of your work group if you negotiate no work rule changes
U
UAL_TECH
Guest
ualdriver said:
My calculation of 24% does not include 'fringe' as the APLA calculations of 18% does not include 'fringe'.
If I am incorrect in my mathematics, then please feel free to send me your calculations.
Regardless, this pig isn’t going to fly no matter how much lipstick is put on it.
The ‘Company’ has put a $101,000,000 price tag on the AMFA M&R CBA and it is not negotiable.
‘not negotiable’ may be a caveat that is untenable to ‘Da Judge’………
We will see……..
You already know my position.
B) UT
L
luvn737s
Guest
FWAAA said:
Having any airline go out of business will hardly improve the lot for the others. Take ATA, for instance. They go out and someone else buys the assets. Total seats remain the same, regardless of full-service or not. The individual player in this industry are under the delusion that they can be the last man standing if they are the absolute lowest cost provider with the largest network. The fact that they may be providing an inferior product that consumers will buy away from at every opportunity seems to escape them.
What needs to go away is the Pricelines and Travelocities of the world. If the airlines could unify themselves against this real threat the way they have against labor, they may really have something. Restrict any third-part distribution of fare information and force the consumer to do their own legwork and see how fast RASM rebounds.
ualdriver said:
$101 million from (approx) 6,000 mechanics = $16,833 each
mechanic pay is currently (approx) $64k
so actually it 26.1%
but actually it's higher because there are less than 6,000 AMFA members and because of the inclusion of cleaners, far less than 6,000 mechanics.
So there ualdriver, it's no longer 'beyond you' it's right here in front of your face. Plain, simple mathematics.
U
UAL_TECH
Guest
kcabpilot said:
kcabpilot,
Thanks for the formula correction!!!
FYI,
*********************************************
Negotiations will be held in San Francisco Dec 14,15,16
The Westin Hotel (Airport)
1 Old Bayshore Highway, Millbrae, CA 94030
Times: 0900-1700 daily
*********************************************
I hear the coffee is hot and the muffins are tasty.
I'm going for the 'Bacon and Eggs'............
Take Care,
B) UT
jimntx
Veteran
luvn737s said:
Actually, when ATA goes out, it will reduce capacity domestically. The reason that AWA withdrew from the bidding is because the ATA a/c are not available for lease at a reasonable price. The lessor has gotten a better deal for the a/c overseas somewhere.
luvn737s said:
Problem with this argument is first, it's a restriction of free trade. Second, the airlines created the Priceline/Travelocity monster themselves in trying to cut travel agents out of the market. And, when you can go to Travelocity or Orbitz and get cheaper tickets on the same flights than on the airline's own website, well...
Don't know if it's still true, but Travelocity was/is partially owned by Sabre which was/is partially owned by AMR.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
ATA also controls access to one of the top markets in the country. Their local market will certainly be replaced but their flow capacity will not be replaced. Both WN and FL will use smaller aircraft which will reduce the amount of flow traffic in the US system. Further, eliminating any of the legacy carriers’ hubs, the weakest of which are in smaller cities, will definitely reduce overall flow capacity in the industry. Given that LCCs do not compete to the same degree in that segment of the business, any elimination of a network carrier hub will reduce overall domestic flow capacity which will help other legacy carriers. ie if US folded and its PHL hub was not acquired by another legacy carrier, the MCI-PHL market could well be served by another carrier like WN but MCI-BOS, MCI-BUF, MCI-PWM traffic over PHL would likely be lost.
As for the internet travel agencies, the legacy airlines did create them – to help sell off the excess capacity in the industry. You probably can’t eliminate online agencies until you get rid of the excess capacity in the legacy industry.
What should be of concern is the huge amount of capacity that is coming online to the LCCs in the next couple years – far more than US traffic will grow. As has happened before, they will siphon off the best local markets, putting more pressure on the network carriers left to compete for a shrinking volume of connecting traffic plus what each of the legacies have for local traffic. There probably needs to be 20-25% of network carrier domestic capacity eliminated over the next couple years just to keep up with the influx of LCC capacity.
As for the internet travel agencies, the legacy airlines did create them – to help sell off the excess capacity in the industry. You probably can’t eliminate online agencies until you get rid of the excess capacity in the legacy industry.
What should be of concern is the huge amount of capacity that is coming online to the LCCs in the next couple years – far more than US traffic will grow. As has happened before, they will siphon off the best local markets, putting more pressure on the network carriers left to compete for a shrinking volume of connecting traffic plus what each of the legacies have for local traffic. There probably needs to be 20-25% of network carrier domestic capacity eliminated over the next couple years just to keep up with the influx of LCC capacity.
