What's new

Turnover Rate?

That is not the purpose of a business! And if that is what you want go work for Apple or some other type company. Or better yet get together with like minded individuals and start an airline that really "Cares". What does that mean anyway? My guess is they could "respect you more and improve working conditions" and it would never be enough.
It might not be the purpose of a business to treat their workers with respect and dignity, but the overall product delivered to the consumer IS that much better when it is genuine. For the posters on this thread who endorse Doug's comment that gate agent and ramp work is not a "career path," please realize that statement in and of itself is anti-productive and demoralizing to those that perform in that capacity. It means he is satisfied with mediocrity and does not support his front line employees 100%. Take Gary Kelly, CEO at Southwest, he would not make those kind of statements about or towards ANY of the employees there. One can clearly see the difference in the culture, performance, teamwork, and morale produced by a leader that is behind his most precious asset, his employees. There are many business models to follow in a corporate society, but I feel that the minute you sacrifice your human resources, your overall product will suffer against the competition.
 
Some people take pride in there work. Whether it's digging a ditch, loading an aircraft, or running a company. What's wrong with working hard for someone, and expecting a little respect in return for the job you do for them?

Any butthole can be a manager, (Upanaway), but how many are leaders. What have you done at USAirways that was creative and inventive?

I wouldn't wish you choke on fruit bread, but I'd like to see you pop off to some rampers in PHL, and watch them shove that fruit bread right up your condescending arse.
 
Bagchucker,
I don't disagree with anything you said and he was probably dumb to say it but it was refreshingly honest. You mention Kelly notice how he keeps harping on cost now with every utterance. They have lost their advantage and as their workforce grows older without any new growth to keep feeding the pipeline with younger/cheaper people they too will start looking for ways to replace older workers with younger ones. I also do not doubt that they will do it in a "kinder gentler" manor. But none of that is the point. The point is the company pays what it is willing to pay and we all work for what we are willing to work. To complain is not only pointless but in the end counter productive as we end up with a large % of bitter angry people who should understand economic and their role in it and be looking for more value elsewhere. It is the old N.E. Union Mentality that you are owed something for being that I disagree with.
 
I agree completely and they obviously do treat us well enough for those of us still here.

While I'm heartened that that you agree, do you not also agree that to date US Airways has done a piss poor job of emulating the culture of either Continental or Southwest?

When you have a company that has to resort to tricks and gimmickry (Ancillary Fees) in order to post a profit might it be time to begin to look at the non spreadsheet answers to the revenue/profit problem?
 
It is clear we all have our own take on this whole topic, and for what is worth, no matter where you fall in the pecking order, whether high up in the chain of command or low in the rank and file.... remember this samll premise and it's implications: "You are either part of the solution, or part of the problem."
 
It is clear we all have our own take on this whole topic, and for what is worth, no matter where you fall in the pecking order, whether high up in the chain of command or low in the rank and file.... remember this samll premise and it's implications: "You are either part of the solution, or part of the problem."
Well if you are looking to boil it all down, then acceptance of free-market economics is the solution and those who kick against the goads of free-market economics are the problem. Simple enough.
 
Well if you are looking to boil it all down, then acceptance of free-market economics is the solution and those who kick against the goads of free-market economics are the problem. Simple enough.

Which School of Economics? Keynesian? Austrian or Chicago School of of Economics?
 
Which School of Economics? Keynesian? Austrian or Chicago School of of Economics?
Why would you even think Keynesian would apply to me? Where have you ever discerned in any of my posts that I would even remotely subscribe to the foolish and destructive views of Keynesian economics?

Although I'm sure there are points of disagreement a variety of their views, I would be much more in the camp of Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and Walter E. Williams. Free markets, non-government intervention, and a strict adherence to the enumerated powers of the Constitution are all tenets of sound economic and social policy in America IMO. Of course you already know that but I guess you just want to stir the pot because I reject the legitimacy of organized labor in America and support the rights of stockholders and boards of directors hiring the management team of their choice.
 
Keynesian was discredited when I was in school in the 70's. Only socialist cling to any version of central control of our economy and with the predictable disastrous results. Freedom is the only answer.
 
Why would you even think Keynesian would apply to me? Where have you ever discerned in any of my posts that I would even remotely subscribe to the foolish and destructive views of Keynesian economics?

Although I'm sure there are points of disagreement a variety of their views, I would be much more in the camp of Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and Walter E. Williams. Free markets, non-government intervention, and a strict adherence to the enumerated powers of the Constitution are all tenets of sound economic and social policy in America IMO. Of course you already know that but I guess you just want to stir the pot because I reject the legitimacy of organized labor in America and support the rights of stockholders and boards of directors hiring the management team of their choice.

LOL! I threw in John Maynard Keynes to see if you were paying attention. rejecting the rights of individuals to form groups to represent & boost their unique and specific interests is to also denounce the American Medical Association, the Airline Transport Association and every lobbying group operating within the USA. Trade unionism traces its roots to the craft guilds of medieval times. Being originally from the Printing Industry the Allied Printers and Lithographers roots go back to at least the days of Johannes Gutenberg and his invention of moveable type right straight through to Steve Jobs and the Mac.

Granted, organized Labor inflates the cost of of said labor. However only until the free market renders it's often harsh verdict. The collapse of the USSR would be a prime example of an extreme free market verdict. This is the portion that Unions don't understand. Free markets will always have the final say. It may take 70 years as it did with the USSR but ultimately the Free Market will render a verdict, just as it is in Europe and here with our latest recession.

In a free and open society that values and protects the rights of the individual over all else demands that those individuals are able to form unions. What it does NOT or should not guarantee is government intervention into the relationship between a company and its work force.

The role of government is to promote and protect individual Freedom & Liberty
 
LOL! I threw in John Maynard Keynes to see if you were paying attention. rejecting the rights of individuals to form groups to represent & boost their unique and specific interests is to also denounce the American Medical Association, the Airline Transport Association and every lobbying group operating within the USA. Trade unionism traces its roots to the craft guilds of medieval times. Being originally from the Printing Industry the Allied Printers and Lithographers roots go back to at least the days of Johannes Gutenberg and his invention of moveable type right straight through to Steve Jobs and the Mac.

Granted, organized Labor inflates the cost of of said labor. However only until the free market renders it's often harsh verdict. The collapse of the USSR would be a prime example of an extreme free market verdict. This is the portion that Unions don't understand. Free markets will always have the final say. It may take 70 years as it did with the USSR but ultimately the Free Market will render a verdict, just as it is in Europe and here with our latest recession.

In a free and open society that values and protects the rights of the individual over all else demands that those individuals are able to form unions. What it does NOT or should not guarantee is government intervention into the relationship between a company and its work force.

The role of government is to promote and protect individual Freedom & Liberty
I don't hold a view that would oppose the AMA the ATA or any other group that citizens or businesses want to join so long as government compliance and regulation isn't in any part of the equation. If doctors want to form an association then more power to them. However, if the AMA tries to tell my doctor what or what not to do and uses the ubiquitous power of the federal government to enforce their views on my doctor, then I would certainly have a problem with that.

From a federal constitutional perspective I'm also for allowing states to decide if they want to pass laws that support or reject the notion of organized labor. Again, so long as the Feds stay completely out of the process then states that want to attract businesses by having pro-union policies can attempt to do just that. Likewise I would support states offering no government support to labor unions if the legislatures of those states believe they can attract more businesses by ensuring corporations that no entity will interfere with the employee-employer relationship. If that were in place today, I wonder where Boeing would be building aircraft? Would Washington State or South Carolina win that battle for Boeing's business?
 
I don't hold a view that would oppose the AMA the ATA or any other group that citizens or businesses want to join so long as government compliance and regulation isn't in any part of the equation. If doctors want to form an association then more power to them. However, if the AMA tries to tell my doctor what or what not to do and uses the ubiquitous power of the federal government to enforce their views on my doctor, then I would certainly have a problem with that.

From a federal constitutional perspective I'm also for allowing states to decide if they want to pass laws that support or reject the notion of organized labor. Again, so long as the Feds stay completely out of the process then states that want to attract businesses by having pro-union policies can attempt to do just that. Likewise I would support states offering no government support to labor unions if the legislatures of those states believe they can attract more businesses by ensuring corporations that no entity will interfere with the employee-employer relationship. If that were in place today, I wonder where Boeing would be building aircraft? Would Washington State or South Carolina win that battle for Boeing's business?

The AMA and ATA are in effect the same as a union. From this there can be no escape. What is different is how Unions are and Lobbyists are regulated. In a true free market both would be allowed to operate as they see fit, subject to the marketplace. When you get to big Labor and things like the RLA, NMB, NLRB, Right to work, secondary strikes etc, you start the slide down the slippery slope to an engineered economy as opposed to a free market one and the same hold rt has today. Workers and company held hostage by government.
 
Hey UPNAWAY... you can think and feel how you want on this board and hide as an anonymous writer, I bet you'd change your tune if you had to address your sentiments in person to the gate agents and rampers you belittle. Remember, they are the ones who issue your boarding passes and load your bags when you fly. If we "knew" you, perhaps you would always get assigned that awful seat next to the lav that doesn't recline or find that your bags were always sent to another destination than your intended one. Tread lightly on your "co-workers". If your signature of HP/US Proud is true, then perhaps you might humble yourself to include the other 31,999 employees at this company! Remember, "It is not WHAT you say, it is HOW you say it." If you truly despise the "menial" workers here, then perhaps YOU should move on to a form of self-employment where you can call all the shots and be as condescending as you wish without reprisal, just bear in mind that not too many people would patronize you with your attitude. Signed, an "illiterate" baggage handler.


He might find eye drops in his coffee too, He sounds like an arrogant sexist Oink....!
 
Back
Top