Revamp Phl!
- Thread starter MarkMyWords
- Start date
Thanks PSA1979...I didn't want to get down to the true feelings, but since you are 8 years senior to me I can say You are right about the elitist thing.PSA1979 said:
For years the various management teams (none whom I have cared for) have stated that the company could save money and have more flexability if the F/A's seperated from the pilots. The uppers of seniority are so afraid of not being tied to the pilots because I guess that don't think the amount of f/as to fill a basketball arena isn't enough power to negotiate what we want?
Common myths:
1. We will loose our duty rigs.......How many trips have you had that actually HAD rig time?
2. We will have to work longer days.....Good, more flight hours a day means less time at work and a few less 3 hour productivity breaks.
3. We'll get screwed. ( I actually heard this one) ......As opposed to the past?
4. We'll give up more.......Hummmm!! Stick with the pilots and history proves you'll give more.
5. When it snows, the system will be really screwed up.......Blizzards and heavy snowstorms cause major disturbances anyway.
6. CRM............The new cockpit doors took care of that. The gov't took care of that. The cockpit is to be saved no matter if you and your crew are dead or not...so theres your CRM.
7. We'll stay in worst hotels......the pilots have no power there...anymore.
It goes on and on. I can only hope that the MEC will look at this without venom if approached. If and I say IF this particular could save money but not cost the f/as a dime, what is the issue?
And you are correct. For every 30 hour f/a out there, you will get a 125 hour f/a....so flight options are yet another hand tying.
I do not want to give the company anymore of my hourly wage, but we can work to make things more efficient.
PITbull
Veteran
First amendment,
First, here are the facts. In our summer restructuring agreement AFA asked the co. to take the fence down, as it had a cost to keeping it up. THE COMPANY DID NOT WANT THIS, and it never showed up on their counter proposals. The COMPANY said the cost savings was not enough for that item to have any significance. Go figure.
Your "more one day theory", slready been asked repeatedly for the reasons you cite. Management says no. They say thier "optimizer" shows more money spent for 1 day trips vs 4 day trips. Period.
Secondly, there are probably still a variety of ways we can work smarter, but for the f/a group, we are at FAA minimums, we clean planes, there is barely any rig that pays out at all, and with the "time balance" reserve system, many f/as will have to give up their days off to exceed their guarantee. MAJOR COST SAVINGS TO THE CO. With the preferential bid system, its entire premise is to have a f/a name connected to trips. More heads will go. And lets not talk about the sick policy that is beyond reality, a concoction that someone dreamed up which literally has folks penalized severly for calling in for a sick , or being placed on Medical Leave if they call in for half the month, which prevents them from bidding primary lines 60 days out.
Lasly, when Pref bid takes place, the bid sheet will have no minimum. Essentially the bid sheet is GONE. trips held then Sicked for the day and Medical leaves awarded for that month will go to reserves.
So, now lets talk about productivity gains again for management, and then convince the majority of the f/as that they must put their co. ahead of all else in their lives, and you will be able to have productivity enhancements above and beyond WHAT WE ALREADY GAVE.
First, here are the facts. In our summer restructuring agreement AFA asked the co. to take the fence down, as it had a cost to keeping it up. THE COMPANY DID NOT WANT THIS, and it never showed up on their counter proposals. The COMPANY said the cost savings was not enough for that item to have any significance. Go figure.
Your "more one day theory", slready been asked repeatedly for the reasons you cite. Management says no. They say thier "optimizer" shows more money spent for 1 day trips vs 4 day trips. Period.
Secondly, there are probably still a variety of ways we can work smarter, but for the f/a group, we are at FAA minimums, we clean planes, there is barely any rig that pays out at all, and with the "time balance" reserve system, many f/as will have to give up their days off to exceed their guarantee. MAJOR COST SAVINGS TO THE CO. With the preferential bid system, its entire premise is to have a f/a name connected to trips. More heads will go. And lets not talk about the sick policy that is beyond reality, a concoction that someone dreamed up which literally has folks penalized severly for calling in for a sick , or being placed on Medical Leave if they call in for half the month, which prevents them from bidding primary lines 60 days out.
Lasly, when Pref bid takes place, the bid sheet will have no minimum. Essentially the bid sheet is GONE. trips held then Sicked for the day and Medical leaves awarded for that month will go to reserves.
So, now lets talk about productivity gains again for management, and then convince the majority of the f/as that they must put their co. ahead of all else in their lives, and you will be able to have productivity enhancements above and beyond WHAT WE ALREADY GAVE.
A few comments on the rolling hub concept
Utilization will also improve at the spokes since the aircraft can turn quickly since they don't have to wait to return to a particular directional bank.
My only concern is the fact that PHL hub is too far to the East. The two hubs that have been converted to rolling hubs are American's Chicago and Dallas/Ft. Worth hubs. Each of these two hubs can funnel flights from the East, West, North and South, creating a tremendous amount of connecting opportunities. I don't work for U, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that most of the connecting passengers at PHL are North-South routings. So I believe that U would need to expand service in the westerly direction in order to create the maximum connecting opportunites needed to make the rolling hub concept work.
Utilization will also improve at the spokes since the aircraft can turn quickly since they don't have to wait to return to a particular directional bank.
My only concern is the fact that PHL hub is too far to the East. The two hubs that have been converted to rolling hubs are American's Chicago and Dallas/Ft. Worth hubs. Each of these two hubs can funnel flights from the East, West, North and South, creating a tremendous amount of connecting opportunities. I don't work for U, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that most of the connecting passengers at PHL are North-South routings. So I believe that U would need to expand service in the westerly direction in order to create the maximum connecting opportunites needed to make the rolling hub concept work.
Pitbull,
I agree with you. All I'm saying is we have ways of making the company more efficient. Leave it to this mangement team to not see the logic in bringing the fence down. They would rather give $300 vouchers to 260 customers on a 330 because they delayed a flight so long for crews coming from CLT or PIT. Amazing!
I am just putting out ideas (i.e me too) but to be honest, no matter what we do, it will never be enough.
I agree with you. All I'm saying is we have ways of making the company more efficient. Leave it to this mangement team to not see the logic in bringing the fence down. They would rather give $300 vouchers to 260 customers on a 330 because they delayed a flight so long for crews coming from CLT or PIT. Amazing!
I am just putting out ideas (i.e me too) but to be honest, no matter what we do, it will never be enough.
- Thread Starter
- #21
PitBull -
I said, "I would imagine that there would be an uplift in morale solely based on the fact that we are trying to do something different." Uplift being the key word. I am not claiming that all of the morale problems would be solved. It would take much more then that.
Regarding the expressing of mainline stations: I am not a fan of this new business tactic that they have taken to in CCY, but the sad reality is, it will happen whether you like it or not. We will not see significant mainline growth for many years because we have no new mainline airplanes coming. But by making PHL a rolling hub we could increase block hours and aircraft utilization without adding more airplanes. It is utilizing what we have more effectively. AA and HP recently announced a similar effort and said they could increase flying without adding additional airplanes, thus lowering costs. Isn't that what they are looking for in CCY?
You questioned the the business factor of my idea. You asked why would we want to replace mainline flying with regional jets? I agree that I would love to keep mainline flying mainline. There is no doubt in my mind that with the right revamped fare structure, we would be able to compete with the LCC's and fill the 733's and 319's. In all honesty, I don't think that the revamped fare structure will be implimented to all markets that we fly to. I think that if there is a revamped fare structure it will be in markets only where we compete with LCC's and not system wide. Again, these are just my theories. So, lets say we are going to a rolling hub in PHL and WN has service to MDW, MCO, PHX and TPA to start. I would rather that we deploy additional assets to ORD, MCO, TPA and PHX to compete and deploy the RJ's into markets like PHL-ALB, SYR and ORF. If each of these markets currently has 4 mainline flights with an average of 120 seats, then we offer 480 seats a day in each market. If we went to a higher frequency of flights and utilized the 70 seat RJ's 8 times a day then we offer 560 seats in the market, we will offer a more competitive schedule with greater opportunities for connections and convenience for customers, especially business customers. If we follow your theory then we could just as easily replace the 4 733 flights with 2 A330's, not have a reduction in service, but still offer the same seats in the market.
Ask any frequent flier what is important to them when making their travel plans and they will tell you they want frequent convenient choices, reasonable fare, safe and reliable transportation, freindly service would rank as the top 5.
Again, I do not claim to have all the answers, and there are always positive and negatives to each idea. I stand by my idea because it offers to reduce costs, increases productivity, addresses operational issues and challenges specific to PHL and above all else, if offers a growth plan for mainline and express. We can't continue to shrink, we need to grow. Making a better use of the assets we have now will hopefully help to lead to additional mainline airplanes as we establish better fare structures, stimulating traffic and then we can replace the express jets with new mainline jets. Bottomline is we have to make plans to use what we have and what we have coming and use the effectively. A banking hub in PHL will not do that for us.
I still haven't heard a reason why the rolling hub wouldn't work in PHL if it is coupled with the right fare structure. CCY, can anyone give me legitimate reasons?
I said, "I would imagine that there would be an uplift in morale solely based on the fact that we are trying to do something different." Uplift being the key word. I am not claiming that all of the morale problems would be solved. It would take much more then that.
Regarding the expressing of mainline stations: I am not a fan of this new business tactic that they have taken to in CCY, but the sad reality is, it will happen whether you like it or not. We will not see significant mainline growth for many years because we have no new mainline airplanes coming. But by making PHL a rolling hub we could increase block hours and aircraft utilization without adding more airplanes. It is utilizing what we have more effectively. AA and HP recently announced a similar effort and said they could increase flying without adding additional airplanes, thus lowering costs. Isn't that what they are looking for in CCY?
You questioned the the business factor of my idea. You asked why would we want to replace mainline flying with regional jets? I agree that I would love to keep mainline flying mainline. There is no doubt in my mind that with the right revamped fare structure, we would be able to compete with the LCC's and fill the 733's and 319's. In all honesty, I don't think that the revamped fare structure will be implimented to all markets that we fly to. I think that if there is a revamped fare structure it will be in markets only where we compete with LCC's and not system wide. Again, these are just my theories. So, lets say we are going to a rolling hub in PHL and WN has service to MDW, MCO, PHX and TPA to start. I would rather that we deploy additional assets to ORD, MCO, TPA and PHX to compete and deploy the RJ's into markets like PHL-ALB, SYR and ORF. If each of these markets currently has 4 mainline flights with an average of 120 seats, then we offer 480 seats a day in each market. If we went to a higher frequency of flights and utilized the 70 seat RJ's 8 times a day then we offer 560 seats in the market, we will offer a more competitive schedule with greater opportunities for connections and convenience for customers, especially business customers. If we follow your theory then we could just as easily replace the 4 733 flights with 2 A330's, not have a reduction in service, but still offer the same seats in the market.
Ask any frequent flier what is important to them when making their travel plans and they will tell you they want frequent convenient choices, reasonable fare, safe and reliable transportation, freindly service would rank as the top 5.
Again, I do not claim to have all the answers, and there are always positive and negatives to each idea. I stand by my idea because it offers to reduce costs, increases productivity, addresses operational issues and challenges specific to PHL and above all else, if offers a growth plan for mainline and express. We can't continue to shrink, we need to grow. Making a better use of the assets we have now will hopefully help to lead to additional mainline airplanes as we establish better fare structures, stimulating traffic and then we can replace the express jets with new mainline jets. Bottomline is we have to make plans to use what we have and what we have coming and use the effectively. A banking hub in PHL will not do that for us.
I still haven't heard a reason why the rolling hub wouldn't work in PHL if it is coupled with the right fare structure. CCY, can anyone give me legitimate reasons?
ClueByFour
Veteran
You forgot "not jammed into an RJ."MarkMyWords said:
And before anybody says it, half of the jets US is planning on getting are not the new EMBs with the nice FC and whatnot. And the existing jets at the contract carriers are not either.
I agree with Mark's analysis, but I'd try real hard to make PHL work with 737s and Dash's and not rjs. Here's why:
You don't want your excess gates to occur in A, B, or C. Have your excess gates resulting from rolling hub efficiencies to come out of F. If the Embraer can hook up to gates in A,B and C, then fine, but take the capacity out of the contract carriers at PHL.
I understand that basically 'southwestifying' PHL would be problematic for system yield elsewhere, so don't quite match WN's fares.
This might help with labor relations creating LESS disruption. They'll be plenty of flying for contract carriers elsewhere in the system.
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, labor would be so amazed at this approach, they might be willing to grease the skids a little with some reasonable assistance. (please don't make all your responses about your prior sacrifice, so you extinguish all the good ideas that have been expressed in this thread... not including mine.)
Again, the internet should be about ideas and not only about self-promotion. JUST AN IDEA.
You don't want your excess gates to occur in A, B, or C. Have your excess gates resulting from rolling hub efficiencies to come out of F. If the Embraer can hook up to gates in A,B and C, then fine, but take the capacity out of the contract carriers at PHL.
I understand that basically 'southwestifying' PHL would be problematic for system yield elsewhere, so don't quite match WN's fares.
This might help with labor relations creating LESS disruption. They'll be plenty of flying for contract carriers elsewhere in the system.
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, labor would be so amazed at this approach, they might be willing to grease the skids a little with some reasonable assistance. (please don't make all your responses about your prior sacrifice, so you extinguish all the good ideas that have been expressed in this thread... not including mine.)
Again, the internet should be about ideas and not only about self-promotion. JUST AN IDEA.
- Thread Starter
- #24
RowUnderDCA -RowUnderDCA said:
I was giving the gate utilization issue a lot of thought today. The rolling hub would definitly create a need for less gates. I agree that the last thing we want to do is give away or not utilize gate space. The last thing we want is to invite additional LCC's or give WN even more room to grow. I like your idea of using some of the mainline gates for the RJ/SJ's. Bring them in closer to the mainline operation. We could maximize the usage of our gates on A, B and C while leaving the props on F. If we can take a gate that is utilized 6-7 times a day and use it 9-10 times a day, with mainline and express, then we will be getting more bang for our buck.
Still waiting for a reason why it won't work from Hawk, Do-it-for-Dave or one of those other CCY executives in the know.
i know bringing some of the RJ's to B/C sounds like a good idea, but some of the gates at B/C might not be able to be as low as they are at F, not that its too much of an inconvience to walk on the tarmac for a few seconds. Another point, US has already warned that terminal F has not been as crowded as they projected and the club was experiencing very low usage. Taking more flights away from F with will ultimately result in the closure of the club at F. I think if you were to start a rolling hub at PHL, i would try to keep most of the EMB 170's at B/C and all the other RJ's and props at F.
MarkMyWords-
First off, you have hit on a very critical item that is wrong with
US Airways, that being productivity. Your concept of a rolling hub
is very similar to what Southwest does, take the focus off connecting
traffic and focus on frequency and dependablity on markets that
have a hight O/D. US Airways has three main hubs, a few
secondary hubs and all are located geographically close. To me this
is caniblizing from yourself.
One or two hubs should be ultilized for connecting traffic from the small
cities that would normally not have service and the BOS/LGA/PHL
should be more point-point flying, with less focus on connections, more
on having the flights at the right time with a "fair" fare.
The fixed costs appear to be our issue, so more flying is the answer to
lowering those costs, cutting and furloughing is not an effective business
plan.
As for the company, I was with other carriers and what US lacks
is a clear identity, partly to blame is both Mgt and the employees.
Management has done a terrible job of communicating the true state
of the company and what it will take to make it work, thereby not
rallying the employees towards that goal. The employees are at fault
for not wanting to accept that this industry has change, FOREVER and
that now is the final chance we have to make this work.
The fundamental basics are missing and I really had hoped that Mr. Siegel
would have addressed the Middle Mgt issues, starting with certain
VP that does not have the customer in mind and has no effective way or
desire to change the culture of US Airways. Mr. Siegel should not have
to do the communicating, that should come from his support staff,
the VP down to Directors to Manangers etc........ There has been no
change to how that group is aligned, same people doing business the
same way.
Mr. Siegel has gotten us to this point, I truly believe we would all be
unemployed months ago if it were not for him. Does he need to
do more, he sure does. He needs to staff this airline with forward
thinking individuals and he needs to do it soon. We have to stop
fighting within ourselves and starting by reinventing the airline and
forget about the last 40 plus years, things have changed, get over
it and move forward, be a leader instead of a follower.
US Airways has great employees but we lack direction at this time.
We can look back on this sometime in the future and realize that
US Airways is a new company doing things that meet the needs
of our customers and that does not always mean china in FC.
- A safe Airline above all else
- Reliable
- Fair Fares so more fly (Don't depend on that handful of business people)
- Freq to the cities customers want to fly to
- Friendly service
- Clean planes that leave on-time
Questions-
On Domestic, do we really have to have FC? (Except Transcon and International)
Markmywords, your always looking for ways to make it work, that is
what this board should be about, not the finger pointing and name calling.
Nice post MMW.
AT
PITbull
Veteran
Analyze this,
I think you are very short sighted if you think the emploees of U and this industry haven't got the idea that the "Industry has changed" forever, after all that has ensued. I think we all get, so don't insult us!
The real issue with the employees is that we don't know where we fit into the business plan equation. No sir, we don't feel like part of any team. WE feel more like victims.
So now that you have analyzed what needs to be done on the business end of the problem,
Do you have a clue on any forward movement on changing the Corporate mind set and focusing on the need for the "human value" of the equation, or do you also think you can just "will it" to be?
I think you are very short sighted if you think the emploees of U and this industry haven't got the idea that the "Industry has changed" forever, after all that has ensued. I think we all get, so don't insult us!
The real issue with the employees is that we don't know where we fit into the business plan equation. No sir, we don't feel like part of any team. WE feel more like victims.
So now that you have analyzed what needs to be done on the business end of the problem,
Do you have a clue on any forward movement on changing the Corporate mind set and focusing on the need for the "human value" of the equation, or do you also think you can just "will it" to be?
Some better signage might help. I couldn't find the darned Club the first time through F and I knew it was there... The second time through I found it but spent quite a lot of time figuring out how to get to it.usairways85 said:
Pit Bull
There was no insult in my post, I rarely post because of people like you.
You picked out one line, turned it around and made it negative.
I read most posts and your always there, never have I seen a positive
post from you with solutions, only picking apart everyone elses post.
Your the reason I don't post, to darn negative. I was simply commenting
on MMW post and how the rolling hub concept he proposed was a good
start to using our assets more to cover the fixed costs which are there
regardless of if we use them so why not fly another flight and generate
revenue.
I did not mean to "insult" the employees of US, I am one and it's taken
me some time to get over the "way it used to be" and the "way it is".
There was no mean intent there.
So, enough of that, there is plenty of that on the board, my question
to you:
What do you think US should do to remake itself so that we can maintain
and grow our careers? I am very serious in the fact I would like to know
your thoughts. From my little station I don't have the whole picture, but
twenty plus years I know enough that we just can't continue to mull over
ideas, we need to have a solid plan, communicate it to the groups and
how they play a part, and have a solid mgt team that can/wants to make
the changes.
That's all Pit Bull, sorry if I came across wrong in my post. B)
AT
There was no insult in my post, I rarely post because of people like you.
You picked out one line, turned it around and made it negative.
I read most posts and your always there, never have I seen a positive
post from you with solutions, only picking apart everyone elses post.
Your the reason I don't post, to darn negative. I was simply commenting
on MMW post and how the rolling hub concept he proposed was a good
start to using our assets more to cover the fixed costs which are there
regardless of if we use them so why not fly another flight and generate
revenue.
I did not mean to "insult" the employees of US, I am one and it's taken
me some time to get over the "way it used to be" and the "way it is".
There was no mean intent there.
So, enough of that, there is plenty of that on the board, my question
to you:
What do you think US should do to remake itself so that we can maintain
and grow our careers? I am very serious in the fact I would like to know
your thoughts. From my little station I don't have the whole picture, but
twenty plus years I know enough that we just can't continue to mull over
ideas, we need to have a solid plan, communicate it to the groups and
how they play a part, and have a solid mgt team that can/wants to make
the changes.
That's all Pit Bull, sorry if I came across wrong in my post. B)
AT
PITbull
Veteran
Analyze,
Ok.
If you have been reading these posts, then if you look on the "Negative Air" topic that was by Harleyman, MMW posed that question to me and I answered at length. I provided 16 suggestions. This was sometime in May or June. If you look PITbull posts replied, you will probably find it.
No. I am not always negative. I care for our company because I believe the company in total is the employees ( we provide the product and the service, which this industry is all about), I have been employed here for almost 23 years. I personally have much at stake and much invested. Most of senior mangement has been here only for approx. 18 months.
What is their vested long term interest here is the question?
If you have been reading my posts all along you will know that I believe the employees of U ARE THE COMPANY, and management, is but a small part of the "whole".
My negativity comes in with this particular management style we have been infected with. And I am relentless. We demand compliance of our contracts that this mangement wrote and gave us with no negotiations, no exceptions, just bargaining...take it , or no job was the "bargain".
Now, they have to live with it as well, and we will not let them steal more than what was ratified. One Case in point: Attempts in outsourcing of the IAM heavy maintentance work.
Ok.
If you have been reading these posts, then if you look on the "Negative Air" topic that was by Harleyman, MMW posed that question to me and I answered at length. I provided 16 suggestions. This was sometime in May or June. If you look PITbull posts replied, you will probably find it.
No. I am not always negative. I care for our company because I believe the company in total is the employees ( we provide the product and the service, which this industry is all about), I have been employed here for almost 23 years. I personally have much at stake and much invested. Most of senior mangement has been here only for approx. 18 months.
What is their vested long term interest here is the question?
If you have been reading my posts all along you will know that I believe the employees of U ARE THE COMPANY, and management, is but a small part of the "whole".
My negativity comes in with this particular management style we have been infected with. And I am relentless. We demand compliance of our contracts that this mangement wrote and gave us with no negotiations, no exceptions, just bargaining...take it , or no job was the "bargain".
Now, they have to live with it as well, and we will not let them steal more than what was ratified. One Case in point: Attempts in outsourcing of the IAM heavy maintentance work.
