[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/5/2003 10:59:47 AM TomBascom wrote:
On 2/5/2003 8:46:08 AM X-U wrote:
[blockquote]
------------
Tom and Bob
You both get on here and say what a great job the employees are doing, you fly U only because of the employyes.
[/blockquote]
I didn't say "only". The employees are certainly a large part of what keeps me coming back. But they aren't the whole story.
[blockquote]
------------
Then you turn around and say they need to bite the bullet on pay, benefits and pensions, otherwise U won't survive. Why? Because U's costs are higher than their revenues.
[/blockquote]
Feel free to provide a citation. You're putting words in my mouth.
None the less -- costs must be reduced, if you're still disbelieving that I don't know what to say.
There are many ways to reduce costs. We've both been strong advocates of improving productivity through simplification -- especially in the area of fare rules and restrictions. That sort of approach does not necessarily imply a cut in pay or benefits. It does likely lead to lower staffing levels unless there is offsetting growth in travel.
[blockquote]
------------
You say you don't want to pay a higher fare, thus the revenue side of the equation can't be raised leaving the only alternative to cut costs.
[/blockquote]
You haven't been paying attention. While it's true that I don't especially "want" to pay any more than I have to (who does?) I have gone into quite a bit of detail about how I'm more than willing to pay the absolute lowest fare, would in fact welcome an opportunity to do so and do spend quite a lot of effort looking for alternative fares. Nor am I alone in that position.
Like most business travelers I'm willing to pay a reasonable fare for reasonable value. I think that the service that I want is worth more than $99. Management thinks it's worth $1,000. The market is telling management that they're wrong. Management's response is to lower the $99 fares to $89 and raise the $1,000 fares to $1,250. I suspect that I'd be pretty darned happy at around $250 (in this made up example...) and I really don't care if the lowest fare goes down to $29 or up to $200 because if there's a $250 option that brings the right value I'll buy that (assuming that someone can figure out how to offer it to me and let me buy it -- which is another thread...)
[blockquote]
------------
But when the cost cutting hits you, you refuse to give anything, so it all gets dumped on the employees.
[/blockquote]
This is also untrue. We have in fact taken substantial cuts in service.
[blockquote]
------------
So who gets stuck with the bills? Don't come on here and say how much you appreciate the employees when you aren't willing to pay them for the work they do. "Attaboys" are great, and are surely appreciated, but they don't pay the mortgage and living expenses.
[/blockquote]
It's a business not a charity.
Differentiating yourself by asking your customers to sacrifice will have very predictable results. Just as it does in any business. The "WalMart with higher prices and surly management" strategy has been tried. So far it hasn't stopped WalMart anywhere that I know of...
----------------
[/blockquote]
You want a citation regarding your true appreciation of the service that employees provide to you, then you give a fine example in the very same message:"It's a business not a charity." That's true, and the employees are not volunteers. It will be quite interesting to watch this country as the middle class evaporates and there will be no consumers left to purchase much of anything, including whatever product or service you yourself provide. I'm afraid this discussion is going nowhere. Maybe when the service you say you value is eliminated from the entire industry, you will remark how you would be willing to pay more for better service.
The Golden Age of Airline travel, with gourmet meals for all passengers on every flight served on fine china and linen disappeared with deregulation. The "Silver Age" is coming to a close. You personally say you are willing to pay more, a middle ground between the sublime and the ridiculous, for a flight. Why don't the cockroaches make a public statement, USA Today, WSJ, CNN, Fox, advocating this idea?
