Us Enjoys Cost Advantage Over Southwest In Phl

[Jaded]

cwa.net 12/17/03

In the coming "Battle for PHL" US Airways execs have a big passenger service cost advantage over Southwest Airlines...
US Airways execs have a big advantage over Southwest in the Battle for PHL. Southwest passenger service salaries are currently about 6% higher than US Airways', and in the years from now until 2008 they will range from 9% higher to almost 19% higher, depending upon the year. This is an incredible cost advantage for US Airways execs over Southwest.
To put this into perspective, US Airways execs will spend an average of $5,772 less than Southwest per agent, per year, at top rate.
When you multiply that by the entire passenger service workforce (about 6,000 agents and reps) US Airways will be spending an average of $34.6 Million per year less systemwide than Southwest for passenger service salaries at top rate.
The very large advantage in passenger service employee salaries, along with the concessions made by other US Airways employee groups, should allow US Airways executives to devise a business plan that will defeat Southwest at PHL.
The message: We gave our executives the tools to compete - now it's time to produce a winning business plan!
In future bulletins we will outline the other passenger service benefit and workrule advantages US Airways enjoys over Southwest.

 

[jack mama]

and how many are getting paid top rate?

 

[geo1004]

Exactly. Compare the number of top pays.

And what about the work rules!

What a poor attempt to use "statistics" to prove a (invalid) point...

 

[W:EXCH:INVOL]

Exactly. Compare the number of top pays.

And what about the work rules!

What a poor attempt to use "statistics" to prove a (invalid) point...

Do you mean the work rules that have 1 agent working a flight? Or the ones that have 2 agents manning a ticket counter with 4 kiosks and 2 check-in positions? Or the ones that have all my parttimers going from 5.5 hour to 4 hour shifts in 2 weeks? The ones that have CSSs slotted in to agent shifts? Are those the ones?

 

[johnnyfleet]

Exactly. Compare the number of top pays.

And what about the work rules!

What a poor attempt to use "statistics" to prove a (invalid) point...

What work rules are you talking about? There are practically none in the Fleet Service and Customer Service Contracts.

 

[BoeingBoy]

"What a poor attempt to use "statistics" to prove a (invalid) point..."

Looks like the CWA is just taking a page from Dave's playbook. Having an advanced mathmatics degree, he's a master at this.

Jim

 

[tadjr]

Exactly. Compare the number of top pays.

And what about the work rules!

What a poor attempt to use "statistics" to prove a (invalid) point...

IMO, no different than Daves attempt to say that US rez agents make $21 an hour (which they dont) while Jetblue agents are willing to work for $9. Comparing top out to starting pay to make the entire group look overpaid is not a way to win friends in the ranks. I dont believe he used a clarifier either that they were two different "snapshots" in the payscale he was using. Kind of hard to get any topouts at Jetblue unless they top out in 3 years. :down:

If everyone wants to compare us to them, pick a step on the seniority ladder and compare that step. Quit with the 1 yr vs 20 yr comparisons. Yes US has more topouts than the other carriers, but to say 20 year agents are getting paid more in pay and benefits than a 3 year B6 or WN agent is a no brainer. It also doesnt help to convince the ranks that they are "overpaid". It just makes it look like management doesnt know what they are talking about or are trying to use "Statistics" to prove a (invalid) point.

 

[Jaded]

Exactly. Compare the number of top pays.

What a poor attempt to use "statistics" to prove a (invalid) point...

Well to clarify for you in a different perspective.....While we are all topped out , when one of us leaves the company, we are replaced by NOONE!!! So when you take into account the cost of wage and benefits to a new hire at WN vs. the cost of wage and benefits for the NO HIRE at US.....well, in case you still can't do the math...Advantage US. The CWA well is dry.....the pilots are the only cost of labor drain left. <_<

 

[mweiss]

when one of us leaves the company, we are replaced by NOONE!!!

Huh??? :blink: And why is that? And, moreover, if it is true, why then is it advantageous to the company for the high-paid employees to remain?

 

[BoeingBoy]

mweiss,

It isn't necessarily advantageous to the company for the "high paid" (more accurately the most longetivity) employees to stay. It's the effect of the seniority system.

Given that, not replacing attrition is one way to decrease head count. Another is trying to force people onto LTD (lower cost to the company than sick time). Another is using any infraction, no matter how small, to terminate people. And last, tell people to quit if they don't like the upcoming new contract offer - after voting yes, of course.

Jim

ps - for at least my group, there is no advantage to offering an early out package, rather there is a disadvantage. Pilots on furlough are approaching 16 years of longetivity and the payscale tops out at 12 years (other than changing seats/airplanes). If you buy out the senior 500, the pilot group after recalling furloughees would be paid the same and there would be the additional training cost.

 

[Jaded]

Huh??? :blink: And why is that? And, moreover, if it is true, why then is it advantageous to the company for the high-paid employees to remain?

Because there has been absolutely no growth, just shrinkage, the only people that remain are the top senority people. Shrinkage has come from the bottom, where the lower cost of labor is. If US offered some sort of incentive or early out program we might have a little "rotation". Since this has not happened in quite some time, we are left with a small workforce made up almost entirely of topped out agents. For the most part, we hire NOBODY instead of a new hire which costs far less wouldnt you say? While WN has all their low paid new hires around the system to drive down their labor cost, they still can't beat the NO COST of the NO HIRES we practice at US.

 

[mweiss]

Jaded,

That's only true if the work that was done by the leaving employee is being taken on by remaining employees. If not, and it's strictly a reduction in the amount of work being done, in proportion to the number of employees leaving, then on a micro scale the net effect is zero, while on a macro scale the effect is negative (reductions in networking and economies of scale and scope).

 

[Jaded]

Jaded,

That's only true if the work that was done by the leaving employee is being taken on by remaining employees.

mweiss,

Keep in mind we are doing MORE with LESS agents in PHL. Once again, it costs nothing to NOT use an agent that is not there working a flight because the other agents are doing his/her work for nothing more.

 

[BoeingBoy]

mweiss,

In some jobs, what you state is accurate - less people doing the same work is cheaper. However, as some have pointed out, there are some jobs where being shorthanded means additional time required to do the job and the work ends up costing more. But that doesn't show up on a payroll graph.

Sorta like putting up the rafters on a house - put one person at each end of the rafter and another to pass the rafters up from the ground and the work goes smoothly and quickly. Take any one of the three away and the work will take 3-4 times longer and the job costs more. Then the foreman can complain about how unproductive the remaining workers are because it took them so long, but tell his boss how he cut payroll by 1/3.

Jim

 

[tadjr]

In the past 6 months or so we've lost 2 FT and 3 PT agents and none have been replaced. We havent lost any flights (actually gained 2 in Jan to lose 3 in May), but no one was brought on when they added the last flights and we got more 757s and 321s so we're actually processing more people. We're actually only losing 1 flight compared to what we had before the winter additions. They arent replacing the agents so that at some point in the future they can bring in CARS to assist with kiosks. The CWA contract wont allows agent cuts to be replaced with CARS, but they can refuse to fill vacant positions and then fill bringing in the lower paid CARS and/or newhire CARS if no transfers.
Our junior agent has about 13 years. Right before 9/11 we actually HIRED people off the street (8-10 cant remember exactly), but unfortunately they all got cut on 9/12 or there abouts. Since then its been stagnant in this station.