Usps Dumps Aa Domestic Mail

[Mach85ER]

Amusing it may be, but if it costs $50M in expenses to get $50M in revenue, it's probably not worth the trouble. Worse, mail revenue has been declining steadily for the past four years, so at some point, it's pretty likely that the expenses will start to exceed revenue.

[post="249539"][/post]​

FM, I would agree with you if we were doing an analysis of the issue for the future, but it is irrresponsible to gloss over the incompetence and failure to perform contractually which embarrassed this company national scale. The fact that Arpey rushed to meet the USPS says it's more of an issue of AA's incompetence than our unilaterally breaching a contract because we don't like the P&L numbers.

regards

 

[TIME FOR CHANGE]

Just got this e-mail for all concerened

American’s Mail Recovery Plan

Dear Brothers and Sisters:

The TWU met with AA Senior Management today to review American’s Mail Recovery Plan. The chronology of events, which lead to the Postal Service suspending AA’s capacity from their domestic routing, was discussed as well.

The plan is both ambitious and challenging. The USPS service level expectation is lofty and will require concerted effort to achieve and maintain.

The current manning associated with cargo and airport services mail handling represents 481 jobs system wide. At this time, American does not intend to reduce the TWU headcount. However, the implementation of this plan and its success are in our members’ best interest.

Sincerely and fraternally,

John M. Conley
International Representative

Dont really see how this affects the AMT maybe someone could enlighten me.

 

[eolesen]

It is irrresponsible to gloss over the incompetence and failure to perform contractually which embarrassed this company national scale. The fact that Arpey rushed to meet the USPS says it's more of an issue of AA's incompetence than our unilaterally breaching a contract because we don't like the P&L numbers.

[post="249575"][/post]​

M85ER, it's equally irresponsible to sit in the cockpit and make wild accusations in a public forum without knowing all the facts...

AA didn't breach the contract -- we didn't meet the performance standards. A technicality, perhaps, but it's not like we simply refused to take what was sent our way. THAT would be a breach of contract....

Nobody is glossing over the issue, but understand that it would be fiscally irresponsible -NOT- to look at the P&L implications.

Let's change gears a bit.... Imagine we have an AD come out on the A300. We'd be fiscally irresponsible not to do the analysis as to whether or not to do the repairs or ground the fleet. It would be fiscally irresponsible to just do the repairs at any cost.

BTW, that's exactly what happened with the F100 fleet -- there was a time driven AD concerning the engines, and the cost of performing the AD was big enough that we elected to sell the owned aircraft, ride out the leases on a few leased aircraft that we couldn't return early, and let the new buyers or the lessors perform the AD at their expense.

Back to the USPS....

There were at least seven points of failure that AA was responsible for. Three of those points are pure compliance with procedures, i.e. failing to scan the mail when it was tendered, when it was transferred (if connecting), and when it was delivered to the USPS ramp. Another huge failure point is flights not operating on schedule, be it due to weather, ATC, or company flow control. And yes, some of it was probably due to sick calls or deliberate understaffing.

The other points of failure are with how the USPS is measuring the performance, and the fact that they don't communicate how much mail to expect, if any.

Fixing any one of those problems will cost money. We either add more heads to fix staffing issues, hire more supervision to ensure compliance with scanning, or build more time into the schedule to recover when things go bad. None of those fixes are a sure thing, but it's worth looking at it from all sides, which is what folks in my area are obligated to do on an ongoing basis.

TFC, not sure why that would be sending to anyone except FSC's, aside from the fact that as Mach85ER said it is a high profile issue with a fair number of jobs tied to it. Over-communicating beats not communicating at all...

 

[Boomer]

Just got this e-mail for all concerened
Dont really see how this affects the AMT maybe someone could enlighten me.

[post="249619"][/post]​

-------------------------------------

We gave up 17.5% of our pay and a % or our work rules based on the theory that AA could project earning the revenue from their operations they currently enjoyed: but, derive a premium on that revenue which would YIELD a 30% premium over the same seats sold by an LCC throughout their system leading to profitability.

Jim Little and the TWU ratified, without further ratification, an agreement that held that principle as a material fact. The head of ECLAT, the econometric aviation financial consulting group retained by both American Airlines and the TWU, stated that the 30% yield in revenue premium was unlikely to occur during an interview held less than thirty days following consumation of the concessions.

Was ECLAT telling the truth when AMR and the TWU "relied" on the 30%, or, did AMR restrain ECLAT in disgorging the totality of their material knowledge, or, did the TWU refrain from publishing the totality of their material knowledge to their Membership prior to the concessions raification balloting?

What are the metrics of some variable interchange between the above possibilities and how are those metrics usefull in assessing financial culpability?

How much were we lied to, and, how much could it be worth?

No one is saying that anyone wants to hurt the Company, but we need to know the extent to which we were decieved.

We must do whatever is necessary to bring a deceptive culture, between the company and the unions, against the Employees into a legal framework which forces transparency into the dues transaction.

Mail and freight are a component of that 30% yield premium. Depriving our aircarft of that capacity increases the cost per available seat mile and decreases the revenue per available seat mile further decreasing our chances at yielding the 30% premium and increasing the opportunities for further concessions to maintain viability outside BK and the Sect. 1113 process.

The bottom line is that numerous CSMs from the Line have jumped at the chance to get off the line and go to cargo. They left because the job gained them a payraise even though you and I will never see a breakout for how much the mail and freight increased the baseline for any individual AA station. You and I will never see the figures involved in costing the damage to aircraft structures, panels, pods and trays versus the revenue involved in completing the shipments or readying the aircraft to shipment out of station.

That is big picture stuff, we have our 8"x10"'s.

 

[Oneflyer]

Was ECLAT telling the truth when AMR and the TWU "relied" on the 30%, or, did AMR restrain ECLAT in disgorging the totality of their material knowledge, or, did the TWU refrain from publishing the totality of their material knowledge to their Membership prior to the concessions raification balloting?

What are the metrics of some variable interchange between the above possibilities and how are those metrics usefull in assessing financial culpability?

How much were we lied to, and, how much could it be worth?

No one is saying that anyone wants to hurt the Company, but we need to know the extent to which we were decieved.

Your logic is reversed. If AA and the consultants had agreed that the revenue premium would be 20% instead of 30%, the cuts would have been worse. The company had no reason to lie to keep the number higher, if anything, they should have low balled the number even more.

 

[eolesen]

Your logic is reversed. If AA and the consultants had agreed that the revenue premium would be 20% instead of 30%, the cuts would have been worse.

[post="250377"][/post]​

Good point.