Scope, and why the company want it so badly
- Thread starter AAviator
- Start date
TWU informer
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
- Messages
- 7,550
- Reaction score
- 3,731
I love this statement in the PDF File
If you look at page twelve of the .pdf, why is the reduction in capacity represented as a linear reduction when the years at the bottom of the page indicate that the slope of the reduction is not a year by year presentation?
If you look at the bottom of the graph it follows: '80'87'86'90'84'99'83'88'04'92'85'97'96'00'94'89'93'81'98'95'08'82'07'05'06'91'03'01'02'09
It appears that the data was rearranged to present a downward slope but the years represented show something quite different.
The thrust of the presentation says that regionals were a bubble that is the result of unanticipated consequence of the pursuit of scope protections by organized labor: I'd like to see and hear a conversation between the author of this piece and Bob Mann.
Mann basically said that RJ's were not the cure-all for the majors in his 1999 piece: LINK PROVIDED Robert Mann: the Sky's the Limit
Perhaps the purpose of money loosing, air-space congesting RJ's was nothing more or less than an attempt at breaking scope clauses through a loss leader type concept that would yield future gains through the diminution of wages and career aspirations of union represented workers at the major air carriers?
If you look at the bottom of the graph it follows: '80'87'86'90'84'99'83'88'04'92'85'97'96'00'94'89'93'81'98'95'08'82'07'05'06'91'03'01'02'09
It appears that the data was rearranged to present a downward slope but the years represented show something quite different.
The thrust of the presentation says that regionals were a bubble that is the result of unanticipated consequence of the pursuit of scope protections by organized labor: I'd like to see and hear a conversation between the author of this piece and Bob Mann.
Mann basically said that RJ's were not the cure-all for the majors in his 1999 piece: LINK PROVIDED Robert Mann: the Sky's the Limit
Perhaps the purpose of money loosing, air-space congesting RJ's was nothing more or less than an attempt at breaking scope clauses through a loss leader type concept that would yield future gains through the diminution of wages and career aspirations of union represented workers at the major air carriers?
Good find. I guess some would see MIT and assume that the numbers are reliable and put forward in an honest unbiased way and ignore the fact that the author works for Eclat. ECLAT is the company hired by AA to convince union leaders that we should accept the concessions in 2003.
The fact is while the RJs are better than the turboprops they replaced most still dont like them. If you are sitting aft of the overwing exits there's no other way out in an emergency. So sitting between you and the way out is a wing full of fuel.
Hopeful
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2002
- Messages
- 5,998
- Reaction score
- 347
I think this would be the last thing the company wants. I guess you can consider AE the low cost carrier of AMR..
What would you do in case of a merger? Bring all Eagle employees up to the pay rates and work rules of AA? Or do you bring the much larger AA wages and work rules down to those of AE?
The company would much prefer the latter choice, but NOT gonna happen.
Get Over It Already
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 83
- Reaction score
- 1
i know you and bad news bob think the data is manipulated or flawed but it is not supposed to be a timeline - it ranks the years with the biggest declines/increases in capacity
mann wrote his 1999 piece as a paid consultant for the APA so take it for what it is worth
Get Over It Already
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 83
- Reaction score
- 1
love this quote --
"If labour can’t let go of their memories of what the industry was 20 years ago to focus instead on where it’s going over the next 20 years, then they will have no one to blame but themselves if they fail to help position airlines – and the pilots they represent – for success."
"If labour can’t let go of their memories of what the industry was 20 years ago to focus instead on where it’s going over the next 20 years, then they will have no one to blame but themselves if they fail to help position airlines – and the pilots they represent – for success."
Who are you quoting (labour-someone in England) and what was the context?
Get Over It Already
Member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 83
- Reaction score
- 1
it is in swelbar's blog discussing his presentation
http://www.swelblog.com/articles/mainline-...rmitted-to.html
another quote:
"Let me propose something. That you and pilot union leadership accept that you are as much to blame as the airlines for allowing this current construct to be in place. The talk at the FAA Forecast Conference that was the catalyst for this blog piece, and most things I write, is less about greedy labor and more about forgetting about the way it used to be and the need to reconstruct how pilots work and how they are paid. If you want to continue to work inside a system that only works when there is growth - then accept the consequences."
Swellbar is also a consultant, so should we take this presentation under the same advisement or do you regard Union consultants as a class apart from management consultants? From the bio of the weblog you posted: "Swelbar spent 25 years in the consulting world with a focus on airline labor cost restructuring, regulatory issues governing air transport, communication strategy and support, and air service development on behalf of airports and communities. In his consulting roles, Swelbar has represented airlines, airports, investors, manufacturers, and labor groups. He also currently serves as a member of the Board of Directors of Hawaiian (Airlines) Holdings, Inc.."
With respect to Bob Mann, his opinion was based on a forward look at the data and his personal analysis of the trends in aviation based on measurements of strengths, weaknesses, opprotunities and threats (SWOT) as opposed to the presentation under discussion (based on the reality of Manns' predictions).
As far as a discussion of the data: the heading of the powerpoint slide is, "Domestic Capacity Reduced in 7 of Last 10 Years: Pct Chg ASMs." If you start at the right hand margin, count back ten years. You will see that there are indeed seven reductions in total ASMs that are graphically configured to represent an increasing number of ASM reductions in a linear manner over the ten year period. The problem is that at the bottom of the graph the year of the individual reduction does not match a linear progression.
Was there a failure in editing a presentation from one of the most prestigious Engineering Universities in the world or was the data configured to fit preconceived notions?
I see neither. All I see is that Swelbar wanted to graphically demonstrate the year by year changes in ASM and rank ordered them by the magnitude of the change. And in the last decade, seven years of the ten show a decline in capacity. Granted, it is a somewhat unconventional bar graph style, but some see straw men anywhere they look.
The total .pdf document is 30 ppt slides. In that 30 ppt slides, the author chose to use 15 ppt slides incorporating graphs. Of the 15 ppt slides containing graphs, 12 used a year set point for presenting data. Of the 12 ppt slides using a year set point for data, only 1 used the "unconventional bar graph style."
What you see and what I see are neither the result of straw men or tin foil; I'd chalk it up to a healthy scepticism. And, since the author chose not to annotate his presentation with references to the original data, your guess is as good as mine.
