Capt.Underpants
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Posts
- 30
The poor performance here has nothing to do with labor costs. AA has been competing with these low labor costs for a long long time now.
There were actually making good money back in 2007, and that is with the labor difference they still posses.
What has changed since then?
1) DL/NWA Merged
2) CAL/UA Merged
3) SWA/AT Merged
4) Everyone else dumped their fuel guzzlers- AA did not
5) AA Management has failed to adapt.
Labor is only one variable in the piece of the pie. When you read their rhetoric, you'd think that AA is paying 3 times the labor cost of its competitors. If you look at the facts at the MIT airline data project website, you'll see that the AA cost for its pilot is at best 10% higher than other legacies and "even steven" when compared with SWA. You don't get the productivity out of AA guys like you could, but AA could get that if they gave APA a contract.
Look at the #1 cost of all the airlines, GAS.
If you look at 1 figure, gas of AAs SNB fleet, the data shows that AAs fleet burns an average of 37% more gas per hour than CAL, which has the most efficient SNB fleet (961 gal vs 697 gal per block hr).
If you compare this with Delta, they are only 6% less efficient.
Get rid of the gas guzzling airplanes.
Labor isn't the issue, management of AA is.
You can operate a gas guzzling fleet if you own the airplanes versus a competitor making payments on a new fleet. But if you've traded your old dogs for a high interest credit line you are hosed. Even more so when fuel prices climb.