The cutbacks are starting!

[luvthe9]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06116/685012-28.stm

 

[coolflyingfool]

I don't see in that article where the cuts are going to be. If they do end up selling 2 to 5 A320s but end up adding 10 E190s, it is a wash. just my thoughts......

 

[767jetz]

I don't see in that article where the cuts are going to be. If they do end up selling 2 to 5 A320s but end up adding 10 E190s, it is a wash. just my thoughts......

Not really. Those 10 E190's were coming anyway, in addition to the 320's. No matter how you slice it, defering 320's and sellin 2-5 more is a major cut back.

Remember, staffing levels always precede any increase in fleet size. You don't buy airplanes and then let them sit while you train crews. There could be up to a 6 month lead time. Perhaps by better utilization they can make up for the smaller fleet size and avoid labor cut backs. I don't know.

But they certainly have to stop/slow hiring. This is a big problem because part of the way a company like B6 keeps costs low is by diluting employee costs by expanding and bringing in new blood at the bottom. As soon as hiring stops, costs start to rise. Slowly perhaps, but still in the wrong direction.

For pilots it also means stagnation. Something B6 pilots are not used to. I know many who accepted jobs at B6 with lower wages, knowing that the upgrade time was short and the income would rise quickly. With E190's on the property, and stagnation setting in, I guarantee moral will be affected. Trust me, one of the biggest factors for a pilot's job satisfaction is career progression. When moral declines, the property becomes ripe for unionism. Eventually there will be talk of organizing, if it hasn't happened already.

 

[SoftLanding]

For pilots it also means stagnation. Something B6 pilots are not used to. I know many who accepted jobs at B6 with lower wages, knowing that the upgrade time was short and the income would rise quickly. With E190's on the property, and stagnation setting in, I guarantee moral will be affected. Trust me, one of the biggest factors for a pilot's job satisfaction is career progression. When moral declines, the property becomes ripe for unionism. Eventually there will be talk of organizing, if it hasn't happened already.

So voting in ALPA to represent the pilots is going to return growth?

Look at US Airways, just about all employees are represented, and that surely have got us...huh...where? 😉

A matter of fact, they are still expanding, adding several cities this year.

SoftLanding

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

So voting in ALPA to represent the pilots is going to return growth?

SoftLanding

You know, I'm not sure it is going to matter a whole lot to the employees whether or not their embrace of collective bargaining in their workplace slows or accelerates growth.

This is human nature.

I have been working for a company for x length of time and have contributed my blood, sweat, and tears. Management sits up there and makes good decisions and bad decisions and they are well compensated regardless.

I've put a lot of effort into making this outfit what it is, dammit, and I want a slice of the pie as my reward.

Neeleman sitting there in his office could, if he so desired, chop the pay of every JetBlue pilot to 10 bucks an hour effective May the 1st. (Note: I don't think he will, but there is nothing to stop him)

JetBlue is already firing FAs for allegedly falling asleep on the jumpseat we used to refer to as "fourth hostess" on transcon turnarounds that are abysmally late.

Unions need not kill a company, hold it hostage for higher wages than it can pay, or unilaterally impose work rules that destroy productivity.

But a collective bargaining organization can keep management honest.

And after listening to a CEO crow about his ability to make a profit with 70 buck a bbl oil, then watch as the black ink turns to red and the common stock chocolate bar transforms in to a dog turd....maybe it is about time someone did mount an effort to keep 'em honest.

 

[SoftLanding]

You know, I'm not sure it is going to matter a whole lot to the employees whether or not their embrace of collective bargaining in their workplace slows or accelerates growth.

This is human nature.

I have been working for a company for x length of time and have contributed my blood, sweat, and tears. Management sits up there and makes good decisions and bad decisions and they are well compensated regardless.

I've put a lot of effort into making this outfit what it is, dammit, and I want a slice of the pie as my reward.

Neeleman sitting there in his office could, if he so desired, chop the pay of every JetBlue pilot to 10 bucks an hour effective May the 1st. (Note: I don't think he will, but there is nothing to stop him)

JetBlue is already firing FAs for allegedly falling asleep on the jumpseat we used to refer to as "fourth hostess" on transcon turnarounds that are abysmally late.

Unions need not kill a company, hold it hostage for higher wages than it can pay, or unilaterally impose work rules that destroy productivity.

But a collective bargaining organization can keep management honest.

And after listening to a CEO crow about his ability to make a profit with 70 buck a bbl oil, then watch as the black ink turns to red and the common stock chocolate bar transforms in to a dog turd....maybe it is about time someone did mount an effort to keep 'em honest.

Agree with most of your points.

However, in your last paragraph, are you trying to say that having a union would stop the stock from sliding down?

I wish we had a union at US Airways in the past 😉 LOL


SoftLanding

 

[767jetz]

But a collective bargaining organization can keep management honest.

This is exactly my point. I did not say ALPA would bring higher pay and benefits. But strong unity does have other advantages, like protecting what you do have, keeping management from imposing work rules and pay at will when times get tough, defending against unfair or unwarranted terminations, and defending your contract when it is violated by the company.

It's the big picture I'm talking about. Sure it's easy to keep the peace and improve moral when times are good, profit sharing checks are generous, and advancement is forthcoming. But when that all stops, it is human nature for moral to suffer, and people to start thinking about strength in numbers.

 

[ELP_WN_Psgr]

Agree with most of your points.

However, in your last paragraph, are you trying to say that having a union would stop the stock from sliding down?

I wish we had a union at US Airways in the past 😉 LOL
SoftLanding

Nope, having a union would do nothing for the stock. Sorry if I was unclear.

However, having a union might have resulted in the company providing some compensation other than the stock which is now of much lower value than at the time they got it.

(Note- I'm not too sure as to how B6 worked their stock to the employees deal - whether that was their profit sharing, or was it in the form of options which now have zero value, or something else.)

 

[SoftLanding]

of much lower value than at the time they got it.

(Note- I'm not too sure as to how B6 worked their stock to the employees deal - whether that was their profit sharing, or was it in the form of options which now have zero value, or something else.)

Maybe a JetBlue employee would talk about options?

At Southwest, (I believe), employees cannot sell their stock before the leave/retire...Similar at JetBlue?

If so, a pilot should have nothing to worry about, as long as the company stays around. And the hick-up over the last couple of quarters is basically a gift as the long timers are adding more shares at lower prices. A look at a LUV chart would show this. Obviously not saying that the JBLU stock will do the same.

But the doom predicted might be a little premature.

SoftLanding

 

[Ch. 12]

However, having a union might have resulted in the company providing some compensation other than the stock which is now of much lower value than at the time they got it.

You mean adding to costs? Sure...sounds logical given the status of today's industry. 🙄

 

[B6Busdriver]

From 767Jetz:
Not really. Those 10 E190's were coming anyway, in addition to the 320's. No matter how you slice it, defering 320's and sellin 2-5 more is a major cut back.
We're talking 22% vs. 30% growth. I've always thought 30 plus percent was out of control

Perhaps by better utilization they can make up for the smaller fleet size and avoid labor cut backs. I don't know.
Mgmt has reiterated no furloughs. I'm a skeptic though....I've been furloughed with a no furlough clause
But they certainly have to stop/slow hiring. This is a big problem because part of the way a company like B6 keeps costs low is by diluting employee costs by expanding and bringing in new blood at the bottom. As soon as hiring stops, costs start to rise. Slowly perhaps, but still in the wrong directionHiring is not stopping. Slowing yes. But growth is still north of 20%.

For pilots it also means stagnation. Something B6 pilots are not used to. I know many who accepted jobs at B6 with lower wages, knowing that the upgrade time was short and the income would rise quickly.
Well, as one of about 600 hundred or more furloughed pilots I know ALL about stagnation. If you haven't experienced it in this business then welcome to aviation.

Eventually there will be talk of organizing, if it hasn't happened already.
I think there has been rumblings of that for years. As my mom used to say: "we shall see".

 

[767jetz]

Hiring is not stopping. Slowing yes. But growth is still north of 20%.

I just heard 2 days ago from an internal UA industry update, that B6 has put a freeze on all hiring.

Is this not true??

 

[ManDachine]

Not true. The A-320 hiring will stop afeter May 15th until the fall and the 190 stays on track

 

[767jetz]

Not true. The A-320 hiring will stop afeter May 15th until the fall and the 190 stays on track

This from AP:
article
"JetBlue's plan calls for "labor efficiencies" -- which Neeleman defined as "growing at a slower rate as we add airplanes and becoming more efficient." The company has no plans to lay off workers, he said. However, those hired this year are considered "unbudgeted," and new positions will be reviewed going forward."

This from WSJ:
article
"On the cost side, the company hopes to improve fuel conservation, cut the ground time of its planes and reduce the number of employees per aircraft -- not through layoffs but restrained hiring, he said."

 

[B6Busdriver]

article[/url]
"On the cost side, the company hopes to improve fuel conservation, cut the ground time of its planes and reduce the number of employees per aircraft -- not through layoffs but restrained hiring, he said."

Restrained perhaps but NOT stopped...yet There are still 8 or so 320's coming and 14 more 190's this. These will require bodies, therefore hiring.