Maybe Carty should start addressing the Supv to Mech ratio of 1:15 in Maintenance. In the Crandall days, when AA was the ONTIME MACHINE for five years running, you rarely saw a supv. And please don't give me they're here if a strike or job action occurs. Their numbers can only move a minumum number of aircraft. Does Carty not see this?
Pay Cuts
- Thread starter Hatu
- Start date
In Peter Cappelli's book entitled Airline Labor Relations on the Global Era, there is an article written by Art Luby titled Decline of Control Management In Maintenance.
By 1991 the ratio of Supervisors vs Union mechanics had declined to around 1:20. Thats 25% less than now. How much would the company save by returning to those ratios?
The fact is the policy of minimal management worked until the company got too greedy and allowed mechanic pay to deteriorate to the point where its effect on morale was so severe that productivity was effected. So instead of fixing the pay they decided to hire more supervision, also underpaid, to whip them back into shape.
The beatings will continue until the morale improves.
By 1991 the ratio of Supervisors vs Union mechanics had declined to around 1:20. Thats 25% less than now. How much would the company save by returning to those ratios?
The fact is the policy of minimal management worked until the company got too greedy and allowed mechanic pay to deteriorate to the point where its effect on morale was so severe that productivity was effected. So instead of fixing the pay they decided to hire more supervision, also underpaid, to whip them back into shape.
The beatings will continue until the morale improves.
The fact of the matter is, it's not just AA, at most, if not all of the larger carriers, management is top heavy and too many of them are stressing to find a need for their jobs. The chains of command are broken. When a customer standing at a gate counter has a problem with a ticket or itinerary, and a resolution has to go from agent, to OC, to CSM to flight manager, then something is wrong. When too many people are required to make one simple decision, then for sure the business model is broken.[BR][BR]AA has so many programs in place that are so poorly administered, the only thing they can do is dump more management on any given program to make it look necessary. No one can tell me that an excess of management isn't partly an insurance against a total shut down in the face of a possible strike. The agent groups at AA are non union, and therefore the only voice they could create is with a majority walk off. If the agents walked off the job en mass for a day, it would totally shut down the airline, [EM]totally[/EM]. [BR][BR]Many of the so called [EM]benefits [/EM]that the carrier offers do nothing more than cripple it financially. In visiting with a CSM in Chicago, she claims that the company program of shift changing (CSW) is so severely flawed that it costs the company millions in benefits and overtime and they do nothing about it. When she explained that employees (many of them part time) are allowed to give away (and many of them do) up to 40% of their shifts in any given six month period I couldn't believe it. Anyone who doesn't want to work 40% of their shifts are people who don't want to work at all, and are only there to suck out a benefits program for themselves and their families. You know, to be able to insure say, a family of five for around a hundred fifty bucks a month and only have to work 60% of a part time shift to get it, is pretty smooth! [BR][BR]This is TOTAL waste, and it is allowed at the expense of the full time people who, although they have the same shift changing opportunities, choose to work 100% of their shift and earn the benefits that the company provides. AA, like all other carriers I'm sure, is full of benefit and program abusers and the company just isn't keeping track, they are instead just allowing the flush of huge piles of benefit dollars on a monthly basis.[BR][BR]The other abusive program AA has it's how it administers it's intermittent family leaves. People on family leave are given the same benefits and programs as those who keep working. Instead of being classified as Restricted Duty they are allowed to call in sick whenever they don't feel like working and it doesn't get charged against their attendance. They are allowed to work as if they are on full unrestricted duty and enjoy all the benefits and programs. They will continually call in sick because basically, many of them that are on the program don't need it, they just don't want to work they only want access to the benefits and programs. They can continually call in sick under family leave but miraculously, when it comes time to get that double time and a half for holidays, etc., they manage to show up and once they have that pay in their pockets, they are back to their old habits of calling in sick again.[BR][BR]While AA may have many of it's programs as an incentive to it's workforce, the abuse does nothing to the programs but make them morale busters to those who choose to work and not abuse the system. If you want to stop the cash flow free for all in employee programs, then you have to crack down on the abusers and just tell them, if you don't want to work, there's the door! Policy, programs and benefits need to change and from some of the company annual reports I've seen, it's not just in the airline industry, nearly every major company in the U.S. needs a shot in the audit arm regarding it's employee incentive programs![BR][BR]I don't want to drag up the old yield and overselling flights again because clearly, some members of this board think it's good P.R. policy, but when you oversell flights at today's prices and you end up giving vouchers that are worth two or three times the value of the ticket the person bought to begin with - then yes, clearly the business model is broken. You can't hand a person a voucher for 500 bucks against their 99 dollar fare, it doesn't work because you end up, at that fare, giving them five seats anytime in the near future to replace the one seat that they temporarily vacated. Overselling is no longer necessary in this use it or loose it environment. The no-show factor is going to dwindle (as will speculative ticket sales I'm sure). The past policy of allowing no-shows, reservations without ticketing and over selling available seats has never allowed the industry to accurately project it's revenues. In those instances alone, the business models of every major carrier are no better than the one that resulted in UA being denied ATSB support.[BR][BR]RANT RANT RANT....[BR]
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/7/2002 10:17:05 AM WingNaPrayer wrote:
In visiting with a CSM in Chicago, she claims that the company program of shift changing (CSW) is so severely flawed that it costs the company millions in benefits and overtime and they do nothing about it.
[/blockquote]
She's dead wrong.
First of all, Arpey asked that question two months ago in a meeting I was at, so yes, management is well aware of the issue.
Second, CSW actually saves the company money, because you have junior people working for senior people more often than the other way around.
I more stats for that, and will be happy to share that with the AA employees here. That doesn't include you.
[blockquote]
When she explained that employees (many of them part time) are allowed to give away (and many of them do) up to 40% of their shifts in any given six month period I couldn't believe it.
[/blockquote]
And the facts show that less than 2% of all agent/TWU employees CS more than 30% of their shift.
[blockquote]
AA, like all other carriers I'm sure, is full of benefit and program abusers and the company just isn't keeping track, they are instead just allowing the flush of huge piles of benefit dollars on a monthly basis.
[/blockquote]
Again, wrong. How do you think we know that less than 2% of the people are CSing off anywhere near the cap?
[blockquote]
The other abusive program AA has it's how it administers it's intermittent family leaves. People on family leave are given the same benefits and programs as those who keep working. [/blockquote]
Too bad it's a Federal law we have to comply with. Otherwise, we probably wouldn't have it...
[blockquote]
RANT RANT RANT....
----------------
[/blockquote]
I've come to expect nothing less from you these days...
----------------
On 12/7/2002 10:17:05 AM WingNaPrayer wrote:
In visiting with a CSM in Chicago, she claims that the company program of shift changing (CSW) is so severely flawed that it costs the company millions in benefits and overtime and they do nothing about it.
[/blockquote]
She's dead wrong.
First of all, Arpey asked that question two months ago in a meeting I was at, so yes, management is well aware of the issue.
Second, CSW actually saves the company money, because you have junior people working for senior people more often than the other way around.
I more stats for that, and will be happy to share that with the AA employees here. That doesn't include you.
[blockquote]
When she explained that employees (many of them part time) are allowed to give away (and many of them do) up to 40% of their shifts in any given six month period I couldn't believe it.
[/blockquote]
And the facts show that less than 2% of all agent/TWU employees CS more than 30% of their shift.
[blockquote]
AA, like all other carriers I'm sure, is full of benefit and program abusers and the company just isn't keeping track, they are instead just allowing the flush of huge piles of benefit dollars on a monthly basis.
[/blockquote]
Again, wrong. How do you think we know that less than 2% of the people are CSing off anywhere near the cap?
[blockquote]
The other abusive program AA has it's how it administers it's intermittent family leaves. People on family leave are given the same benefits and programs as those who keep working. [/blockquote]
Too bad it's a Federal law we have to comply with. Otherwise, we probably wouldn't have it...
[blockquote]
RANT RANT RANT....
----------------
[/blockquote]
I've come to expect nothing less from you these days...
Perhaps I don't fully understand what CSW is all about. What I did understand is that the woman I spoke with felt that it was a program that was being abused, at least where her station was concerned. Stil, I tend to think that if this CSW program results in overtime that wasn't otherwise counted on in a bid or budget, it's a flawed program.[BR][BR]As far as the FMLA program being federal, that it is. However, the company IS allowed to add it's own restrictions to the program without violating the spirit of the law. In example, while someone is on intermittant leave, wouldn't it be possible to put them on restricted duty intra-company? How is it possible, that when FMLA can be taken six months at a time, to budget a department or put together a shift bid when you don't know who is going to be show up from one day to the next? This makes it necessary to carry a lot of dead weight in the workforce, part time or otherwise, and is also a large reason why a company may decide to outsource and entire small station rather than attempt to staff it.
CSW is simply change-of-shift-worked, or the ability to trade shifts with someone else. And it doesn't result in overtime. It actually -reduces- overtime, since it tends to reduce sick time abuse (i.e. there is some thought that not being able to shift trade would result in more people calling in sick in order to have personal time off).
Family leave as a program is still pretty new, so I won't go to great lengths to defend it, but look at it this way: people get sick, quit, get fired, go out on jury duty, on vacation, etc., so we already have to put a certain degree of overstaffing (relief) into our staffing.
Someone in a situation where they qualify for intermittent family leave would probably call in sick if we didn't offer it, and then we'd still be stuck with the same problem of covering a hole in the manning. The cost of administering FMLA is probably less than paying the sick time -and- overtime to cover the sick call...
Family leave as a program is still pretty new, so I won't go to great lengths to defend it, but look at it this way: people get sick, quit, get fired, go out on jury duty, on vacation, etc., so we already have to put a certain degree of overstaffing (relief) into our staffing.
Someone in a situation where they qualify for intermittent family leave would probably call in sick if we didn't offer it, and then we'd still be stuck with the same problem of covering a hole in the manning. The cost of administering FMLA is probably less than paying the sick time -and- overtime to cover the sick call...
rampguy,
If the ramp wants to give up something, go ahead and be our guest. Unfortunately, it has been shown at U that givebacks rarely satisfy the Corporate Beast.
If the ramp wants to give up something, go ahead and be our guest. Unfortunately, it has been shown at U that givebacks rarely satisfy the Corporate Beast.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/8/2002 7:18:15 PM Boomer wrote:
rampguy,
If the ramp wants to give up something, go ahead and be our guest. Unfortunately, it has been shown at U that givebacks rarely satisfy the Corporate Beast.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Boomer;
You're right, all one needs to do is look at USAIR. Back in August the company and union worked out a restructuring proposal that was presented to their members. Article 17 of the proposal read;
17. Bankruptcy Protection — US Airways will not seek concessions beyond this proposal if ratified.
The proposal was ratified but despite this the company is already seeking more concessions. What we will end up in is a race to the bottom. We must not allow the most financially troubled carriers to set the new rates of pay for the industry. As each airline gains concessions the others seek to gain the competative advantage by gaining even more concessions- in the end we all lose. I would choose to stay out of this game and take my chances by just saying NO.
----------------
On 12/8/2002 7:18:15 PM Boomer wrote:
rampguy,
If the ramp wants to give up something, go ahead and be our guest. Unfortunately, it has been shown at U that givebacks rarely satisfy the Corporate Beast.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Boomer;
You're right, all one needs to do is look at USAIR. Back in August the company and union worked out a restructuring proposal that was presented to their members. Article 17 of the proposal read;
17. Bankruptcy Protection — US Airways will not seek concessions beyond this proposal if ratified.
The proposal was ratified but despite this the company is already seeking more concessions. What we will end up in is a race to the bottom. We must not allow the most financially troubled carriers to set the new rates of pay for the industry. As each airline gains concessions the others seek to gain the competative advantage by gaining even more concessions- in the end we all lose. I would choose to stay out of this game and take my chances by just saying NO.
Any who read my posts know that I have few good words to say about the upper management (UM) of the U.S. Big Six airlines; they are responsible for the rightful rap that the airlines are the most poorly managed U.S. industry. On this topic I will depart from that norm and put in a good word for Don Carty and his UM team.
While concessions are painful no matter how the story is spun, Mr. Carty & associates have, at least, made it their last resort for stemming the ongoing hemorhage of red ink. Some honest and meaningful attempts to bring about long overdue changes have been implemented or planned; most notable are the the rolling hub idea to retain the benefits of the hub-and-spoke model while sharply reducing or eliminating costly inefficiecies inherent in scheduling flights in banks; AA has also addressed the issue of irrational pricing with Value Pricing II in some of its markets, thus rationalizing the unrealistic, unsustainable pricing models of the Big Six that, more than any other issue IMO, triggered the current crisis.
By contrast, it seems US and UA UM made draconian concessions their first and last resort in dealing with the issues at hand and, in their typical myopic manner, carried on as though they smugly assumed that nothing else about the business model they developed was broke. That is why ATSB's unanimous response to UA's application for $1.8B was get real (the only difference in the voting was that Norman Mineta wanted to offer UA a time extension to get real).
In sharp contrast to US and UA, Mr. Carty & associates approach the employees of AA for possible concessions with some modicum of credibility since they made it their last resort in dealing with losses that cannot continue very much longer.
While concessions are painful no matter how the story is spun, Mr. Carty & associates have, at least, made it their last resort for stemming the ongoing hemorhage of red ink. Some honest and meaningful attempts to bring about long overdue changes have been implemented or planned; most notable are the the rolling hub idea to retain the benefits of the hub-and-spoke model while sharply reducing or eliminating costly inefficiecies inherent in scheduling flights in banks; AA has also addressed the issue of irrational pricing with Value Pricing II in some of its markets, thus rationalizing the unrealistic, unsustainable pricing models of the Big Six that, more than any other issue IMO, triggered the current crisis.
By contrast, it seems US and UA UM made draconian concessions their first and last resort in dealing with the issues at hand and, in their typical myopic manner, carried on as though they smugly assumed that nothing else about the business model they developed was broke. That is why ATSB's unanimous response to UA's application for $1.8B was get real (the only difference in the voting was that Norman Mineta wanted to offer UA a time extension to get real).
In sharp contrast to US and UA, Mr. Carty & associates approach the employees of AA for possible concessions with some modicum of credibility since they made it their last resort in dealing with losses that cannot continue very much longer.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/8/2002 7:18:15 PM Boomer wrote:
rampguy,
If the ramp wants to give up something, go ahead and be our guest. Unfortunately, it has been shown at U that givebacks rarely satisfy the Corporate Beast.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Well, looks like a couple of you took a very simple post and turned it into something else. My point is we all will give back sooner or later. You will, you just don't know it yet. I have already been down that road. But now is the time where you can at least set a few of the parameters. UA people will give back but due to the late hour, they won't get much of a voice in the process.
Sorry Boomer; I don't speak for the ramp. I speak for myself and myself only. I am ready to help. I've been in this business for many many years so I know all about the corporate beast. I did notice you said our guest instead of my guest. Are you an elected spokesperson for a particular group?
----------------
On 12/8/2002 7:18:15 PM Boomer wrote:
rampguy,
If the ramp wants to give up something, go ahead and be our guest. Unfortunately, it has been shown at U that givebacks rarely satisfy the Corporate Beast.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Well, looks like a couple of you took a very simple post and turned it into something else. My point is we all will give back sooner or later. You will, you just don't know it yet. I have already been down that road. But now is the time where you can at least set a few of the parameters. UA people will give back but due to the late hour, they won't get much of a voice in the process.
Sorry Boomer; I don't speak for the ramp. I speak for myself and myself only. I am ready to help. I've been in this business for many many years so I know all about the corporate beast. I did notice you said our guest instead of my guest. Are you an elected spokesperson for a particular group?
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/9/2002 4:29:35 AM rampguy wrote:
Well, looks like a couple of you took a very simple post and turned it into something else. My point is we all will give back sooner or later. You will, you just don't know it yet. I have already been down that road. But now is the time where you can at least set a few of the parameters. UA people will give back but due to the late hour, they won't get much of a voice in the process.
Sorry Boomer; I don't speak for the ramp. I speak for myself and myself only. I am ready to help. I've been in this business for many many years so I know all about the corporate beast. I did notice you said "our guest" instead of "my guest". Are you an elected spokesperson for a particular group?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Well I agree with Boomer, so now he can say Our.
----------------
On 12/9/2002 4:29:35 AM rampguy wrote:
Well, looks like a couple of you took a very simple post and turned it into something else. My point is we all will give back sooner or later. You will, you just don't know it yet. I have already been down that road. But now is the time where you can at least set a few of the parameters. UA people will give back but due to the late hour, they won't get much of a voice in the process.
Sorry Boomer; I don't speak for the ramp. I speak for myself and myself only. I am ready to help. I've been in this business for many many years so I know all about the corporate beast. I did notice you said "our guest" instead of "my guest". Are you an elected spokesperson for a particular group?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Well I agree with Boomer, so now he can say Our.
rampguy,
Sorry about the delay in responding. I was able to see Carty yesterday in NY and further evaluated our participation in the giveback scheme. After careful consideration of that request, we have again decided that the lack of a viable plan for a return to actual profitability will prevent us from voting to participate.
Upon my return from NY, I presented my findings to my constituency, the family approved my decision and so I can again say with certainty: if you wish to give something back, be our guest.
Coincidentally, the Director of the TWU-ATD also reached the same decision.
Sorry about the delay in responding. I was able to see Carty yesterday in NY and further evaluated our participation in the giveback scheme. After careful consideration of that request, we have again decided that the lack of a viable plan for a return to actual profitability will prevent us from voting to participate.
Upon my return from NY, I presented my findings to my constituency, the family approved my decision and so I can again say with certainty: if you wish to give something back, be our guest.
Coincidentally, the Director of the TWU-ATD also reached the same decision.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/30/2002 7:03:58 PM WingNaPrayer wrote:
[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 11/30/2002 5:46:12 PM [STRONG]B737NG [/STRONG][EM]wrote[/EM]:
I have learned 2 things.
1. We don't know the big picture.
2. We don't know the bottom line.
Enjoy your family and be thankful for what you have.[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[/P]As employees, you are the backbone of the airline, it doesn't fly without it's employees. Therefore, [EM]you create the big picture[/EM], and make it all possible. Since employees are responsible for creating the big picture, then it serves to reason that [EM]they are the bottom line![/EM]
----------------
[/blockquote]
Here's a preview of the big picture.
Management blames labor; reduces wages and lays off productive workers to support unproductive management pyramid.
Starring I M greedy and a cast of thousands, enslaved by Carty to build the pyramid for the workers to use. Owens is in the dessert asking to let my people go. I will stop here! I don't want to spoil the ending.
Producer is Crandall. Working from the sailboat.
----------------
On 11/30/2002 7:03:58 PM WingNaPrayer wrote:
[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 11/30/2002 5:46:12 PM [STRONG]B737NG [/STRONG][EM]wrote[/EM]:
I have learned 2 things.
1. We don't know the big picture.
2. We don't know the bottom line.
Enjoy your family and be thankful for what you have.[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[/P]As employees, you are the backbone of the airline, it doesn't fly without it's employees. Therefore, [EM]you create the big picture[/EM], and make it all possible. Since employees are responsible for creating the big picture, then it serves to reason that [EM]they are the bottom line![/EM]
----------------
[/blockquote]
Here's a preview of the big picture.
Management blames labor; reduces wages and lays off productive workers to support unproductive management pyramid.
Starring I M greedy and a cast of thousands, enslaved by Carty to build the pyramid for the workers to use. Owens is in the dessert asking to let my people go. I will stop here! I don't want to spoil the ending.
Producer is Crandall. Working from the sailboat.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/10/2002 4:29:43 AM atabuy wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/30/2002 7:03:58 PM WingNaPrayer wrote:
[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 11/30/2002 5:46:12 PM [STRONG]B737NG [/STRONG][EM]wrote[/EM]:
I have learned 2 things.
1. We don't know the big picture.
2. We don't know the bottom line.
Enjoy your family and be thankful for what you have.[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[/P]As employees, you are the backbone of the airline, it doesn't fly without it's employees. Therefore, [EM]you create the big picture[/EM], and make it all possible. Since employees are responsible for creating the big picture, then it serves to reason that [EM]they are the bottom line![/EM]
----------------
[/blockquote]
Here's a preview of the big picture.
Management blames labor; reduces wages and lays off productive workers to support unproductive management pyramid.
Starring I M greedy and a cast of thousands, enslaved by Carty to build the pyramid for the workers to use. Owens is in the dessert asking to let my people go. I will stop here! I don't want to spoil the ending.
Producer is Crandall. Working from the sailboat.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Don't tell me I'm going to have to part the East River! We'll take the Mid-town Tunnel instead. You know us mechanics, we always take the easy way.
----------------
On 12/10/2002 4:29:43 AM atabuy wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/30/2002 7:03:58 PM WingNaPrayer wrote:
[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 11/30/2002 5:46:12 PM [STRONG]B737NG [/STRONG][EM]wrote[/EM]:
I have learned 2 things.
1. We don't know the big picture.
2. We don't know the bottom line.
Enjoy your family and be thankful for what you have.[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[/P]As employees, you are the backbone of the airline, it doesn't fly without it's employees. Therefore, [EM]you create the big picture[/EM], and make it all possible. Since employees are responsible for creating the big picture, then it serves to reason that [EM]they are the bottom line![/EM]
----------------
[/blockquote]
Here's a preview of the big picture.
Management blames labor; reduces wages and lays off productive workers to support unproductive management pyramid.
Starring I M greedy and a cast of thousands, enslaved by Carty to build the pyramid for the workers to use. Owens is in the dessert asking to let my people go. I will stop here! I don't want to spoil the ending.
Producer is Crandall. Working from the sailboat.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Don't tell me I'm going to have to part the East River! We'll take the Mid-town Tunnel instead. You know us mechanics, we always take the easy way.
