I was speaking of the average salary for all L5 and above. Since pay bands for those above L6 are not listed, I'm making a reasonable assumption.
The Plan
- Thread starter DFWCC
- Start date
I was speaking of the average salary for all L5 and above. Since pay bands for those above L6 are not listed, I'm making a reasonable assumption.
Let's see....
F/A cleaning planes
Southwest uses fewer ramp workers to turn the same or similiar size aircraft, even though they can get more freight and mail on the same size plane.
Managers not being able to direct union workers, instead having to go through the crew chief.
AA's unionized lost time percentages are much higher than an average unionized workforce that works under similiar conditions.
There are hundreds of other restrictions and rules that limit AA's productivity.
The airline isn't just maintenance, there are other things going on....
TWAnr
Veteran
The times they are changing.BoeingBoy said:
That may have been true in the past, but nowadays on 90 plus percent of the flights there is no perceptible difference in the level of service between the legacy carriers and the LCCs. More importantly, the vast majority of the flying public is not willing to pay extra to fly the old fashioned so called full service airlines.
AA flight attendants do clean airplanes! It is mostly done on thru trips. It would be impractical for them to clean an A300,767, or 777 which are trashed big time after a long haul flight. I can also tell you for a fact that it is AA that uses less people than Southwest when turning a narrow body domestic flight. SW uses about 8 or 9 people to turn a 737 (I actually counted them) as to where AA uses 4 or 5 to turn a super 80, 737, or even a much larger 757. Additionally, we move massive amounts of freight ;mostly international. AA ramp also has to deal with the fact that the international bags (many of which connect to/from domestic segments) are much heavier than those that SW has to deal with. Also, we have to connect these connecting bags as well as deliver bags to other airlines; Southwest DOES NOT connect bags between their own flights or other airlines. Also, AA can't turn it's airplanes as fast due to US customs and security checks. If AA was a narrow body domestic airline only, we would be twice as efficient as SW as far as ramp is concerned. You have to compare apples to apples; not apples to oranges.Oneflyer said:
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
BoeingBoy, the comparisons of WN and AA (or any other legacy) almost always focus on rates of pay, and you know full well that you can't look at rates of pay without also looking at productivity.
True, until you consider the fact that those 8-9 people at WN work two gates simultaneously. AA normally staffs at least 5 plus a crew chief per gate (that's 12 people for the math challenged).
And if I had a horse, I could ride it to work and get free lawn fertilizer....
Don't you realize that AA is largely a domestic narrowbody airline who flies a few widebodies?
Using October OAG data, 82% of AA's operation is domestic-domestic, and 77% is narrowbodies going domestic-domestic.
aafsc said:
True, until you consider the fact that those 8-9 people at WN work two gates simultaneously. AA normally staffs at least 5 plus a crew chief per gate (that's 12 people for the math challenged).
aafsc said:
And if I had a horse, I could ride it to work and get free lawn fertilizer....
Don't you realize that AA is largely a domestic narrowbody airline who flies a few widebodies?
Using October OAG data, 82% of AA's operation is domestic-domestic, and 77% is narrowbodies going domestic-domestic.
At MIA and at line stations where I worked in the past, AA ramp crews would go from gate to gate. It is only in DFW , where I also worked, that had gate manning. And even there is was one flight right after another (turned 8 aircraft in 8 hours). Also, AA may schedule for a crew chief and 5 but that does not mean that there will be that many on any given day. In MIA and a line city I worked at there would be many days where it would be a crew chief and 3 and sometimes 2 (due to lack of manpower). However, DFW is very good a making sure you have a full crew because of the nature of the operation. And AA flies more than "just a few" widebodies (34 A-300s, 47?-777s, and 80 something 767s). While it is true that we fly a lot of narrowbodies domestically, we ARE a large international operator. AA's scheduling and fleet mix makes it impossible for it to be "just as effiecient as SW". Again, it is "not all labor's fault" as Oneflyer likes to believe.Former ModerAAtor said:
Oneflyer said:
True, but we also need to make some adjustments for comparing CASM costs.
It would be interesting to see the comparisons after adding coach seats to replace F/C. Have one type of aircraft that eliminates huge flight crew staffing and training costs, the associated MX parts supply stock, differences training for FA'S/Mechs and the rampers, adjustments for AA having 3-4 pilot flights, savings by subtracting meals, international security requirements, inefficiencies due to peak hub operations and needed support equipment, subtracting the entire management/worker base for international, elimination of crew training for international. As you said, that's just some of the other things going on. <_<
It would be interesting to see a better comparison than the usual LUV-fest soundbites.
Just on a anecdotal note, most of the brick walls I've run into as a pilot run in the order of company rules, then FAA rules, real safety issues, then Union rules.
Former ModerAAtor,Sep 27 2005, 05:39 PM]
BoeingBoy, the comparisons of WN and AA (or any other legacy) almost always focus on rates of pay, and you know full well that you can't look at rates of pay without also looking at productivity.
Well you also have to include the fact that productivity could be measured many ways. Perhaps the comparasion should be in ton/miles flown, including aircraft and fuel. After all isnt work the product of distance and weight?Before we can debate we have to determine how you are measuring productivity and add in all the other considerations. I think that when the facts are put forward that the difference is not in the union contracts but the business plan.
To expect the exact same result as far as rpms or number of aircraft/employee with completely different business plans and equipement is rediculous and just because AA chooses to have several different fleet types and provide multi-class service does not mean that its employees should feel that they should be paid less than their counterparts at SWA. If anything the diveristy thats required in order to deal with multi fleet types should warrant a premium.
True, until you consider the fact that those 8-9 people at WN work two gates simultaneously. AA normally staffs at least 5 plus a crew chief per gate (that's 12 people for the math challenged).
Management determines gate staffing, not the contract or the union.
And if I had a horse, I could ride it to work and get free lawn fertilizer....
And if you stood behind it you wouldnt need a mirror.
Don't you realize that AA is largely a domestic narrowbody airline who flies a few widebodies?
Dont you realize that AA has at least two classes and multiple fleet types?
Using October OAG data, 82% of AA's operation is domestic-domestic, and 77% is narrowbodies going domestic-domestic.
Well the fact is that the productivity of labor at SWA is not due to their labor contracts or the individual workers at SWA. Its due to the way SWA manages their business. Workers should not be expected to subsidize the decisions made by management. Would AA tell Port Authority that they need to pay less to land their plane because they offer multi-class service?
BoeingBoy, the comparisons of WN and AA (or any other legacy) almost always focus on rates of pay, and you know full well that you can't look at rates of pay without also looking at productivity.
Well you also have to include the fact that productivity could be measured many ways. Perhaps the comparasion should be in ton/miles flown, including aircraft and fuel. After all isnt work the product of distance and weight?Before we can debate we have to determine how you are measuring productivity and add in all the other considerations. I think that when the facts are put forward that the difference is not in the union contracts but the business plan.
To expect the exact same result as far as rpms or number of aircraft/employee with completely different business plans and equipement is rediculous and just because AA chooses to have several different fleet types and provide multi-class service does not mean that its employees should feel that they should be paid less than their counterparts at SWA. If anything the diveristy thats required in order to deal with multi fleet types should warrant a premium.
True, until you consider the fact that those 8-9 people at WN work two gates simultaneously. AA normally staffs at least 5 plus a crew chief per gate (that's 12 people for the math challenged).
Management determines gate staffing, not the contract or the union.
And if I had a horse, I could ride it to work and get free lawn fertilizer....
And if you stood behind it you wouldnt need a mirror.
Don't you realize that AA is largely a domestic narrowbody airline who flies a few widebodies?
Dont you realize that AA has at least two classes and multiple fleet types?
Using October OAG data, 82% of AA's operation is domestic-domestic, and 77% is narrowbodies going domestic-domestic.
Well the fact is that the productivity of labor at SWA is not due to their labor contracts or the individual workers at SWA. Its due to the way SWA manages their business. Workers should not be expected to subsidize the decisions made by management. Would AA tell Port Authority that they need to pay less to land their plane because they offer multi-class service?
Oneflyer,Sep 24 2005, 04:16 PM]
Mgmt is less than 10% of the total workforce. Even if you eliminate half of them, it doesn't solve the problem. Most mgmt. employees actually make LESS than the unionized workforce. There are maybe 700 level 5s and above making roughly $100k on average, thats only $70 million a year, its a drop in the damn bucket.
While I do agree that AA can due with less mgmt, it does not solve the problem.
But the fact is that management produces nothing. So the less you can do with the better.
AA's unionized labor force has to become more productive to compete with WN's unionized labor force(I thought I'd add that for clarity)
Why do we have to compete with SWA? From what I';ve seen they carve out their own markets such as ISP-PVD, a service we didnt offer.
it is an undisputable fact that AA is less productive than WN.
Indisputable?
That being said, it is managements responsibility to improve the productivity, either by scheduling and staffing differently or by working with the unions to eliminate counter productive work rules.
Which work rules are you referring to?
Mgmt is less than 10% of the total workforce. Even if you eliminate half of them, it doesn't solve the problem. Most mgmt. employees actually make LESS than the unionized workforce. There are maybe 700 level 5s and above making roughly $100k on average, thats only $70 million a year, its a drop in the damn bucket.
While I do agree that AA can due with less mgmt, it does not solve the problem.
But the fact is that management produces nothing. So the less you can do with the better.
AA's unionized labor force has to become more productive to compete with WN's unionized labor force(I thought I'd add that for clarity)
Why do we have to compete with SWA? From what I';ve seen they carve out their own markets such as ISP-PVD, a service we didnt offer.
it is an undisputable fact that AA is less productive than WN.
Indisputable?
That being said, it is managements responsibility to improve the productivity, either by scheduling and staffing differently or by working with the unions to eliminate counter productive work rules.
Which work rules are you referring to?
- Thread Starter
- #40
Wow all these tit for tat comparisons. It all boils down to the fact that AA blames WN for hedging their air supply for 737 tires. It seems according to a hdq bean counter guru that WN has capture the market on tire air. AA is now forced to pay outrageous prces for S-80 tire air. Thankfully WN has agrred to convert free of charge a portion of its 737 air for use on AA's S-80's tires. AA mngt being a major buyer of S-80 tire air have given WN an exclusise 3yr contract to supply air for AA's S-80 tires. Of course AA mngt happy with their coup, flew all mgrs to AUA for a weekend of fun and a new round of bonus cheques.
