What's your guess?

[BoeingBoy]

Whats your opinion of my post above(# 6) ???

Thanx

NH/BB's

Let's just say that the jury's still out, in my opinion....

PHL is a big problem, both literally and in it's effect on our overall performance ("as PHL goes, so goes US" performance-wise). Unfortunately, I don't see it as a problem that Doug can fix. He can take actions that will improve the situation there, but until the infrastructure is "fixed" (additional runways, concourse limitations, etc) it will always be a problem.

There's also been a string of relatively little negatives where senior management has been "surprised" and shouldn't have been. I interpret that as not having a good sense of what's really happening outside the insular halls of the executive suite.

Jim

 

[careerfurloughee]

I interpret that as not having a good sense of what's really happening outside the insular halls of the executive suite.

Jim

Jim,

You are so diplomatic. I would have said something like they don't have a clue.

 

[BoeingBoy]

I realized one thing from watching successive managements at "old" US - there's a difference between someone being clueless because they're in over their head or because the clues never percolate up to them (mid-level management is doing a little CYA).

In this case, it's not knowing which it is more than being diplomatic....

Jim

 

[barbeetantrums]

I believe that this net loss will give management more impetus to stay the "cost neutral" course. Workgoups will subsidize the failures of hedging and merger/integration costs.

There is talk that if West fleet service pay does not reach parity with East fleet by January, that West fleet will make the rampers in PHL look like happy and productive Japanese workers.

 

[BoeingBoy]

There is talk that if West fleet service pay does not reach parity with East fleet by January, that West fleet will make the rampers in PHL look like happy and productive Japanese workers.

And therein lies a little nugget that Doug either hasn't realized or at least publicly admitted yet - "cost neutral" comes in several flavors.

The company's stance so far seems to be that the total cost of the combined contracts can't be more than the total cost of the separate contracts. That's one flavor of "cost neutral".

On the other hand, the company can be faced with spending $100 - $200 million additional a year somewhere. It can be on such things as fuel, maintenance, baggage claims/delivery, etc, or it can be on the employees. That's also a flavor of "cost neutral" - the money is gonna be spent.

In between those two is another flavor. The company admits that combined contracts are worth about $60 million a year in savings - money that would be spent as long as there are separate contracts. Spending that $60 million on the combined employee contracts is also "cost neutral".

Jim