If I hear...

[acaTerry]

...the words "supply and demand" one more time, I'm gonna have a caniption. I hope every one of you who shrug your shoulders, say "supply and demand", and bend over to take it up there have the worst contract you ever imagine. It's time to make "Flying the Line" MANDATORY reading for everyone who wants to fly professionally. You want to go make peanuts for a company that can do you better? Then LEAVE THE AIRLINES! Darn tired of of the whores out there. Let those of us who worked MANY years to get here KEEP WHAT WE GOT!!!

CMR pilots: You're the last of the Mohicans. At least you have some guts. Looks like CHQ is going to hang on too.

 

[46Driver]

Demand and Supply..... It is just not supply and demand of labor vs management, its supply and demand of aircraft seats (capacity) and passengers. Too many aircraft and too many companies driving down revenue. Airline company "X" can't afford to raise ticket prices or they will be undercut and lose to company "Y". Look at the companies in or near bankruptcy (United, USAir, American, - even Delta is losing millions) - why are they there? High labor costs, bad management, and brutal competition.

Finally, what you think you deserve and what the flying public is willing to pay seldom intersect. If you want to claim pay based upon responsibility, then we need to immediately raise taxes and double the checks for policemen, firemen, the military, etc. A widebody captain making more than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the FBI Director, the CIA chief is absurd on a responsibility level.... Or you can base pay upon what your services will bring on the market (tempered by the ability of a union to counterweight management.) Sometimes times are good, now they are bad.

Life's a bitch - and now she's in heat.

 

[Brother Francis]

Counterpoint

"Flying the Line" is definitely required reading.

"Atlas Shrugged" should be as well.

 

[phantom122]

So what then, you're saying supply and demand doesn't exist in the world of aviation? Got news for you, there will forever be a long, long line of fresh grads from flight school willing to work for free. Way more pilots than jobs. Supply and demand.

This isn't to say that those currently working for the airlines shouldn't hold out for proper compensation that they are due. When it comes to negotiaing, the union is in charge. Management will bend over and take it up the hershey highway. It's time to show a little respect for the people who make the companies what they are.

 

[acaTerry]

then we need to immediately raise taxes and double the checks for policemen, firemen, the military, etc.

I agree strongly on this. Unfortunately, we are raising a society that teaches its youngsters that the cops are the bad guys, and that the military is for "those who can't". This is today's modern yuppie way of thinking and it $ucks.

A widebody captain making more than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the FBI Director, the CIA chief is absurd on a responsibility level....

The lifelong benefits and retirement on such positions blows away even DAL's highest paid 777 CA.

Demand and Supply.....
Thanks for the laugh! We needed that

 

[Dash8]

...someone saying 'living the dream' and meaning it.....ugh....strangulation will ensue....

terry's right, the initial blame lies with all the people who believe that delusional statement because all they care about is 'being an airline pilot' those types don't love flying like some of us, they may like it, but their only concern is the "status" of being able to tell people 'Hey, I'm an airline pilot'

you can usually recognize them as they goosestep across the ramp

 

[Airpiraterob]

supply and demand, supply and demand, su

supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand, supply and demand,

yeah ima dick...but i had to do it.

 

[Rottweiller]

Re: Counterpoint

"Flying the Line" is definitely required reading.

"Atlas Shrugged" should be as well.

Add "Hard Landing" to the list.

 

[acaTerry]

Airpiraterob,
You are hilarious! I'd love to fly with you sometime.

Add "Hard Landing" to the list.

I think one of my passengers wrote that after a trip with me!

 

[Flyairjason]

Right on you guys, say it like it is!
In fact, the latest Gallup Poll Survey shows that these are the top five things that people think of when you say: "I'm an airline pilot."

5) I thought I smelled Schlitz Malt Liquer.
4) Betcha he can name the states that don't award alimoney.
3) Nothing you say in public is true.
2) You don't look anything like "Maverick".
1) Marry you and fly for free? But you're broke and a drunk!

 

[Ailerongirl]

Right on you guys, say it like it is!
In fact, the latest Gallup Poll Survey shows that these are the top five things that people think of when you say: "I'm an airline pilot."

5) I thought I smelled Schlitz Malt Liquer.
4) Betcha he can name the states that don't award alimoney.
3) Nothing you say in public is true.
2) You don't look anything like "Maverick".
1) Marry you and fly for free? But you're broke and a drunk!

*LMAO*

 

[acaTerry]

Now THAT"S some good smack!

 

[46Driver]

Terry,
Back to the topic at hand. I'm not happy with the current airline situation anymore than you are. The point I was trying to make is that the supply and demand (or demand and supply - sorry, I couldn't resist last night is not so much there are more pilots than jobs (always has been - always will be....) but rather an excessive supply of seats and a demand that is quite price sensitive.

This large supply of seats is not just concentrated in the hands of a few majors each with their own turf but now spread among the big 6 (bleeding) majors, a plethora of regionals with bigger and better equipment and the new element - the rise of the LCC's. It is the last item that is having the biggest effect. They are now too big for the majors to kill and are able to force down prices (and thus revenue) in an ever-increasing number of destinations for all the airlines.

Do I have an answer - no, I don't. However, once some of the big boys go Chapter 7 (I am not stating that with glee, rather I think it is inevitable) perhaps the industry will return to equilibrium. What do you and everyone else think? Is this a problem of too much cheap labor - or a problem of just too many seats and airlines available?

 

[100LL... Again!]

Sorry ACATerry, I sypathize with your sentiments, but how are you going to combat a low-paying startups that underbid for a major's business. If it ain't scabbin' or alter-ego, there isn't much you can do.

The correct way to deal with this would be to limit supply. How?
The same way doctors and lawyers do... through high standards for entry. Acquiring an ATP for anyone who is remotely proficient can be done for $899, with nearly guaranteed results. Try passing the bar exam in a long weekend for the same effort. Not gonna happen.

If a marginally performing new-hire can be picked up as an FO, then guided through a year or two of flying, then upgraded (which happens all the time), where is the barrier to competition?

Typing in an aircraft to fly for a 121 carrier is not even remotely similar to passing your exams for medecine or law. The PTS spells out the exact areas of operation for testing, and very little is left to guess.

In fact, earning the CFI is a lot more like passing the exams for law or medecine, due to the anything-goes nature of the test.

The items on the ATP PTS are but a microscopic sampling of the knowledge an ATP SHOULD POSSES, but is only assumed to be present.

Sad reality: It is way too easy to get through your training and "earn" (hah!) your certificates to ever really limit the influx of marginal candidates.

If we want to be treated as professionals instead of highly skilled union help, perhaps we should raise the bar on ourselves?

This would, of course, tragically crush the starry-eyed dreams of hundreds of students enrolled in time-building certificate mills. Some of which refer to themselves as 'academies'. What a load. Just like the "Academy of Business" that teachies secretarial skills in a nine-month course.

The fact that sizable numbers of people can go zero-time to airline in about two years is testimony to the fact that something is being missed.

You and I, my friend, are being replaced by an increasingly pilot-proof system that will tolerate even lower standards in the future.
How long until the dog-and-pilot cokpit begins to be take shape?

Never, I hope. Sooner than later, I fear.

I'll meet you for a whiskey when I turn 60, and we can remember the good old days.

 

[WrightAvia]

Excess Capacity is plauging the US econ

Not just the airlines, but manufacturing as well and it was going to happen whether 9/11 happened or not.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030905-075215-1067r

Sept. 11, catalyst for airlines' crisis
By Ian Campbell
UPI Chief Economics Correspondent
Published 9/7/2003 5:38 PM
View printer-friendly version


(This interview is part of UPI's Special Report on the anniversary of the 2001 terror attacks.)

The terrible events of Sept. 11 are often seen as having destroyed America's airlines. In fact Sept. 11 was no more than a catalyst, bringing forward a crisis that was bound to happen.

The industry's structure, the way it has managed its labor relations and finances and the emergence of fresh competitors were all sources of vulnerability. The restructuring that has now begun is a partial one, incomplete because governments are not moving swiftly enough to allow airlines to be the efficient global businesses they should be.

In recent decades most industries have globalized. Ford and Volkswagen and Toyota compete to sell cars around the globe. Consumers benefit. The airline industry, a vehicle of this process, has stood apart from it. National carriers and reserved national markets have survived, protected by governments.

Then, within national industries, there have been other factors. The major airlines built extensive networks in a prestige industry. In the United States and many other countries, too, the airlines' employees were well paid, unionized and, at times, militant.

Long before Sept. 11, the structures of the airline industry were creaking. According to Marc-David Seidel of the University of British Columbia in Canada, "The large major carriers that existed prior to deregulation (of the U.S. domestic market) in 1978 were founded and built for a regulated environment. They never fully restructured to the new deregulated environment."

Snapping at the heels of the old major airlines have been the newer players such as Southwest and Jet Blue. Operating point to point rather than in a spoke around big city hubs, the new airlines have been able to use their staff more productively and to make profits--something which, even in the 1990s boom years for the U.S. economy, the majors have struggled to do.

The downturn in the U.S. economy since 2000 quickly took its toll on airline finances. According to a report by John Heimlich of the Air Transport Association, U.S. airlines were last in profit in the third quarter of 2000 -- a year before the Sept. 11 tragedy. Since 1999, according to Heimlich's report, airline debt has risen by 75 percent as the airlines struggle to stay afloat.

The U.S. government chose to help them to do so, allocating $15 billion in grants and loan guarantees in the wake of the Sept. 11 attack. This was to help compensate for the closure of airports immediately after the attack, for increased security costs, and for the slow return of passengers to air travel. The Air Transport Association estimates the additional security cost to the industry as a result of Sept. 11 at $4.15 billion. Of this total, $1.5 billion came from a controversial new security tax levied on tickets. The industry's insurance costs rose by 232 percent in 2002 from the previous year to $800 million. Just the need to strengthen cockpit doors as a safety measure cost $310 million.

These burdens were heavy. But given the industry's structural flaws, was it wise for the U.S. government to be so generous in its support? According to Jody Hoffer Gittell of Brandeis University in Massachusetts, the federal money was "corporate welfare rather than being given with requirements." In her view changes in relationships between airlines and their employees were essential. The Bush administration's help for the industry, though understandable given the catastrophic circumstances post-Sept. 11, may only have served to delay necessary change.

Even with the help, the airlines have struggled. The war in Iraq and high oil prices have not helped them. Passenger revenues are running this year below 1995 levels. Layoffs have been essential. According to the Air Transport Association the number of full-time employees has dropped from 623,000 in August 2001 to 521,000 in May 2003. Negotiations between airline management and staff have produced some concessions on the part of the unions.

But the staff of some airlines claim management exploited Sept. 11. According to a forthcoming paper by Hoffer Gittell, "airlines attempted to use clauses in their labor contracts about national emergencies or extraordinary circumstances to avoid making severance payments, including both American Airlines and Northwest Airlines."

For Hoffer Gittell poor relationships between management and unions helps to explain why the airlines are in crisis. She is critical of airlines' readiness to cut jobs in a downturn and of their accounting. Airlines followed Wall Street's advice in indebting themselves and maintaining low cash reserves, she argues. But this has left them with debt problems and an inability to weather a crisis. Only Southwest took a markedly different approach, keeping its debt low and cash reserves high. It has consequently been able to avoid slashing jobs. But of course it is helped too by its size and structure. It is a young competitor, not one of the old majors.

Despite the emergency measures taken by most airlines the sector as a whole "remains mired in its worst crisis ever," according to Reno Bianchi of Citigroup's corporate research team. The bonds of all the major airlines with the exception of Southwest have dropped to junk status. US Airways has passed though bankruptcy proceedings; United has entered them. According to Bianchi, no quick solution is in sight. The airlines "are far from being in a position to pare down the incremental debt incurred over the past two years...massively under-funded pension plans most likely will absorb a significant portion of any eventual excess cash flow." American Airlines and United are his "greatest credit concerns."

What is the route ahead?

Bankruptcies are going to clear some of the excess capacity among the majors. At least one of the big U.S. names is going to disappear. More job losses seem inevitable. Yet this restructuring will be partial and interim.

To improve its service and its competitiveness, cutting both its costs and ticket prices, airlines need to become global players. Seidel points out that "carriers such as Qantas fly from Los Angeles to New York, but are not allowed to pick up new passengers in Los Angeles. If they were allowed to compete, we should see an improvement of service from the U.S. majors."

Crucial, too, is opening up of the lucrative trans-Atlantic routes. Early in June, European Union member states gave the European Commission in Brussels authority to negotiate aviation agreements on their behalf. Previously the United States had negotiated separately with individual European countries. Now there is a chance of more rapid trans-Atlantic regulatory change: the so-called Open Skies.

"Code-sharing" between airlines and alliances such as Sky Team are intimations of the future trans-national mergers that might enable efficiencies of operation and scale in the industry. But many of the U.S. majors are less than keen to see that change, wanting to protect the huge U.S. market from European carriers. And the politicians are moving slowly.

At least a decade on from the Sept. 11 tragedy that threw the industry into crisis, the airlines may still be restructuring painfully. Of that slow-burning crisis, consumers are the victims.

Comments to [email protected]
Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International

 

[Flechas]

100LL is 100% right, no more needs to be said!

 

[acaTerry]

Flechas,
I'll say to you again what everyone else has been telling you in your other posts....shut up until you are experienceing these issues first hand. You have no ground to stand on when you tell us your uneducated and outsiders opinion. If you want to LEARN something, we're all too glad to answer you. But in your under 1000 hour not-in-the-airlines-yet mind, you should listen. Again, less transmitter and more reciever. You reek of the type coming in today and giving everything up. I would like to thank you and all the other jellyfish for not even attempting to understand things. I'll bet you'll never cast a "no" vote in your life.

100LL. As my dad, an MD of over 35 years experience puts it "a doctor can only kill one person at a time". We can do much worse. Of course, even the doctors world is whittling away, as his malpractice insurance is over 70,000 bucks per year. And he hasn't a blemish in his practicing history! Sucks, don't it?
Anyway, let's have that whiskey now. I'll buy the first bottle, 'cos man do I need a drink tonight!
Come to think of it, I got on board ACA when 2500 hrs and 350 multi would get you a "thanks but no thanks" letter. This kind of makes a good point for your idea of raising standards to fly for an airline. Because the mins to get a job at ACA were so high, we HAD a tight, no nonsense group of pilots. But like you said, the joke is on us because the trend is for newer kids with little time. This is a MGT dream because these newer guys fall for anything and will stand for nothing.
Where does it put us and what can be done? Right where you said: we're screwed so let's have a drink. It was good while it lasted wasn't it?

 

[Simon Says]

A must read "Confessions of a Union Buster"