Reality Check
- Thread starter uza
- Start date
Hey, there's nothing wrong with spirited discussion.PineyBob -
If UZA was truely the man in the Glass house, I would wager that he would be able to put forth a much better arguement then he has so far. When taken to task he can't even respond with a compelling arguement. I believe he is a "lacky" with a torch to burn with Teddy and PitBull....more so then you or I.
I have found his lack of a true response to anyone that challenges him to be a testament to the fact he is NOT a member of the executive team.
If UZA was truely the man in the Glass house, I would wager that he would be able to put forth a much better arguement then he has so far. When taken to task he can't even respond with a compelling arguement. I believe he is a "lacky" with a torch to burn with Teddy and PitBull....more so then you or I.
I have found his lack of a true response to anyone that challenges him to be a testament to the fact he is NOT a member of the executive team.
MMW: I have read all of UZA's posts and I tend to agree with you. This person definately has a major Vendetta against Pitbull and Teddy Xidas. <_<
- Thread Starter
- #64
I don’t reply to static.MarkMyWords said:PineyBob -
If UZA was truely the man in the Glass house, I would wager that he would be able to put forth a much better arguement then he has so far. When taken to task he can't even respond with a compelling arguement. I believe he is a "lacky" with a torch to burn with Teddy and PitBull....more so then you or I.
I have found his lack of a true response to anyone that challenges him to be a testament to the fact he is NOT a member of the executive team.
The executive team is not on here distancing themselves, are they?
As far as Teddy and Pittbull your post here says it all, reading Pitbull’s endless rants in the thousands only proves my point of the kind leadership the F/A’s group have in Pit.
This is the first sentence to this string and to me a very specific, clear statement to discuss or debate. Yet the responses are immediately the same rhetoric and wandering rant. If that figure is accurate or even close, UAir will, without a doubt correct itself or close. If the mech group has leveraged their core functions to that point of work scope, or they maintain that 3 times the staffing of luv is justifyable, their are in for a major reality forecheck. Whether its continued outsourcing, infinite concessions or 2nd bankruptcy that scraps all contracts and starts with applications for work. Thats not bad or vindictive mgmt, thats mgmt serving its core role - surviving within the abilities and realities it has to work with.
I am not exactly sure what your response is supposed to mean.....it makes no sense. What does my post say about Teddy and PitBull? The executive team is not on here distancing themselves? What does that have to do with whether or not you are or are not an executive officer?uza said:
I will ask for some indulgence from everyone as I repost an earlier post in this topic for UZA to respond to. How exactly are my questions and statements static? You sir, are the one on here making all the noise and yet hav enone of the answers.
REPOST:
I am really only going to address this point for now......
This is where you are totally off base. The IAM recently meet with the company to discuss cost savings of 80-100 million dollars a year. Is this your idea of the IAM complaining about concessions and not offering solutions?
Many posters on here have made some awesome suggestions to help save the company money and they have fallen on deaf ears.
My suggestion - years ago - was to roll the PHL hub. What is in the contracts that prohibit this? I have asked several times for anyone to offer me reasons why the rolling hub concept would not work in PHL and have had only one response about by de-banking PHL you could open yourself to more competition. That being said, if we utilized all of our asstes - employees, facilities and aircraft - to their maximum then we would be able to compete much more effectively. Add to that the right fare structure and the benefits that we offer and LCC's don't and would could keep competition OUT of PHL.
AOG has had many suggestions on things that can be done to save the company millions - but it falls on deaf ears.
Yes, there is a lot of "venting" that goes on in these forums, but there are also a great deal of suggestions that need to be looked at. For the IAM to come to the company with 80-100 million dollars in cost savings ideas, WHILE THEIR CONTRACT IS IN CONSTANT VIOLATION, proves that the realize there is a problem and will participate, but not until all other avenues have been exhausted.
Again, if the company was taking full advantage of all of the benefits of the ALREADY SIGNED CONTRACTS, were treated with dignity and respect and had their CBA's followed and not violated, then I think you would find the employee groups much more receptive to opening additional discussions.
Answer this if you will: What are the items in the contracts that are holding us back from becoming more productive? Why can't some of the ideas that the IAM says will generate saving be implimented? Why are the employees the first thing the company looks to for cost savings, versus taking advantage of what they wanted in rounds 1 and 2? No more hot air and chest thumping.....stick to facts and answer the questions.
- Thread Starter
- #67
Actually I was jubilantly corrected on my numbers. It is even worse being 3.9 per an a/c where U is around a solid 12. 4:1 and we are bleeding profusely.openview said:
Debate? What's to debate about when it's fact? If the mechanics prevail do you believe that will solve our problems, if so how? Can they work harder, faster, smarter, you tell me. But until the issue is completely settled debating is moot.
sentrido
Veteran
- Jan 8, 2004
- 1,004
- 0
I would like to see total cost of maint per aircraft. I guess you would have to use an average, US has a diverse fleet type and it wouldnt be fair to compare the maintenance cost of a 330 to a 737. Sinse Southwest is a domestic airline, Maybe we should only compare the domestic portion of the US operation also. Heck, shouldnt we only compare the cost of operations that directly compete with SW? Do the stated stafing levels include the regoinals and wholly owneds? I know the mechanic to plane ratio is a lot smaller in those operations. Any one have these answers? Whats the flight to gate ratio? simple example:
if you have 14 flights, but you roll so that you only need 2 gates to service tham in a day, and you staff 1 mechanic per gate, thats 2 mech per 14 "aircraft" worked. but if you need 4 gates cause you dont roll and staff 1 mechanic per gate, thats 4 mechs per per 14 "aircraft" worked. Plus the cost of operating 2 more gates than needed. Or just have 1 mech for all tha gates and hope nothing breaks!
if you have 14 flights, but you roll so that you only need 2 gates to service tham in a day, and you staff 1 mechanic per gate, thats 2 mech per 14 "aircraft" worked. but if you need 4 gates cause you dont roll and staff 1 mechanic per gate, thats 4 mechs per per 14 "aircraft" worked. Plus the cost of operating 2 more gates than needed. Or just have 1 mech for all tha gates and hope nothing breaks!
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
openview,
I did point out that the numbers in the post you quoted are inaccurate.
uza,
You're still using inaccurate numbers. This time I won't do your research for you - find the correct numbers yourself. Maybe a little research is in order before you bash others with made-up "facts".
Jim
I did point out that the numbers in the post you quoted are inaccurate.
uza,
You're still using inaccurate numbers. This time I won't do your research for you - find the correct numbers yourself. Maybe a little research is in order before you bash others with made-up "facts".
Jim
It looks very specific at first blush, but it isn't really specific enough. Is the WN number low because of outsourcing? Or is it that there are truly fewer hands of any sort per plane touching the mechanical workings of WN's 737s than US's fleet?openview said:
The answer to that question would be very elucidating.
In my opinion, the specifics of the comparison factors are getting lost in the end result. If one outsources more or one has more aircraft types to contend with, or one pays more per hour, or one has more liberal contract language, in the end it is the culmination of all of those factors that is the key. Is your overall cost to maintain your fleet higher or lower than the competition. Is your overall cost to fly your fleet higher or lower than the competition. Is your overall cost to clean your fleet higher or lower than the competition. etc. etc. If overall its lower pay gains are in store. If its continually higher, corrections i.e. concessions of some form are in store.
Good question mweiss,
Outsourcing does mask how many people are actually involved in the work. If I have 4000 people doing work inhouse and another 3000 doing aspects that are outsourced, I cannot then claim that there are only 4000 people doing the work. I am paying for the outsourced work as well as the inhouse work.
-Airlineorphan
Outsourcing does mask how many people are actually involved in the work. If I have 4000 people doing work inhouse and another 3000 doing aspects that are outsourced, I cannot then claim that there are only 4000 people doing the work. I am paying for the outsourced work as well as the inhouse work.
-Airlineorphan
Checking some numbers..........
US Line mechanics have a ratio of 4.1 mech per aircraft. This does not include inspection, utility, GSE etc....... This would be comparable to WN.
US Line mechanics have a ratio of 4.1 mech per aircraft. This does not include inspection, utility, GSE etc....... This would be comparable to WN.
Similar threads
- Traveler
- American Airlines
