Let's Start an Airline-Hypothetically

[Speedtree]

1. If the airline doesn't make money nobody gets paid. At least not in the long term.

2. Your 2 Captain idea would indeed cost much more because I think it was suggested they get paid the same. Therefore the incremental wage scales would start out much higher. PCs and training costs would be higher. You would have to offset this by lower insurance costs (which I think are probably already about as low as they can be because of the airlines good safety record) and public response (more ticket sales) based on the perceived increase in safety. I don't think most of the public today buys their ticket from ABC airline because they are safer than the next guy. The cockpit issues could be handled by hiring pilots with the correct attitudes and proper training and procedures. (like one of my captains told me... The only reason I'm over here and you're over there is because I was hired first)

3. Enigma is right, QOL is everything. Treat the employees fair but also expect a lot out of them. A profit sharing program would be the best. If the investors of our company would take out a reasonable return and split the rest with the employee group I think you would have some hardworking employees.


4. Hubs and routes would be based on cost. You can't just start flying into an airport. You must have gate space, landing slots, meet all local laws etc. If you could get the slots it might be cost beneficial to fly into ORD or it might be more cost effective to use another airport like SW does. It might not. You would have to look at each proposed destination individually.


This is fun. Thanks for the exercise.

 

[enigma]

Can you imagine the ads that could be run that not only directly educate the flying public on tv and other medias about the 14 to 16 hour days that other carriers require? Do you think the flying public really wants to be in the back of an airplane late at night knowing that the crew is probably on the last leg of a 12+ hour duty day of that crew?

I'm really not trying to be obstructionist, but I have to ask this: why do airlines not advertise their safety advantage? When Alaska augered and MD80 into the water because of pisspoor m/x, did their competitors advertise a safety advantage? They certainly could have, because Alaska had a systemic m/x problem. When Cactus was fined mega-bucks because of m/x problems, did SWA run a big campaign touting SWAs safety advantage?

If I knew definitely, I'd speak up. I don't, although I have some pretty good ideas about the lack of safety advange advertising. What I do know, is that airlines just don't do it.

I would imagine that the FAA wouldn't look upon that kind of advertising in a positive light.

enigma

 

[Astra Guy]

Enigma,

I respect your posts. I know where you are coming from. I would say that no airline shold advertise using the unfortunate circumstances surrounding an accident or incident. There should not be an active ad campaign against some competitior that has had mx related problems. That would be unsound, unprofessional and below the belt.

What I am saying is this. There is statistical data that can support an argument that fatigue has been a factor in X% of accidents. NTSB has brought this to the FAA's attention a number of times. The fact that the FAA is not required to act upon NTSB findings is apparent. In fact there are many examples of because the FAA was not willing to change the rules based on NTSB's findings there continue to be incidents and accidents for the very same reasons, obviously not all fatigue related. You probably know this and I surely do.

The FAA is, to a certain degree, in bed with the carriers' management. The workrules and duty day lengths have been addressed before and the carriers respond to the FAA saying if we reduce the duty days it will put us out of business. Well we all know that in general, pilots are highly skilled, knowledgeable of their circumstances for each and every flight and motivated to arrive alive each and every time. I am not questioning that. I am saying that someone who is not subjected to these lengthy duty days will be sharper and more able to handle whatever problems develop along the way. It does not take many individual carrier accidents to lose consumers faith in their safety. I personally think that as an industry, it is surprising there are not more fatigue related accidents, but they still happen. As in many other situations mx related accidents are preventable. Even when the FAA has been given data to support problems in a particular airframe's design or inspection sequences the FAA has been slow to respond. It is, in many cases reactive rather than proactive.

We all have heard that "the regs are written in blood." No doubt about that. It is like waiting until there are 10 deaths at a particular intersection before a stop sign is erected. Why wait for 10 deaths? Safety is about being proactive and prevention as much as possible.

As for educating the public without pointing fingers at a particular competitor I think it is in everyone best interests to change the rules, with the exception of pilots who have been operating under these rules for years or decades. The flying public deserves the best we can offer, particularly in terms of safety. Holding to the 14-16 hour rule or nap lines is not in the flying public's best interests, IMHO.

I do appreciate your input and the banter. I think whether one is right or wrong that everyone can put more of their gray matter to the topic at hand and come to their own conclusions. And as we all know our conclusion today may change when proven innaccurate. It is similar to zeroing in on the target.

 

[Astra Guy]

B1900,

I feel for you, my comrade. I know where the cynicism is coming from. Fight the good fight and if it is in the cards you will be where you want to be...Good luck to you. Fly Safely, Always.

Speedtree,

No doubt about point 1.

Point 2. Well, that may not be altogether true. I would say that the pay would be commensurate with experience, testing and weighing all of that would determine how one would be reimbursed. Their would be a range that would be created that might compensate those with lesser experience or poorer test results with a lesser starting amount. For those who were at the top of the experience curve and also reaped the highest scores on the tests would be offered the highest possible salary. This system would not allow each to know exactly what the other was making. Bottom line is that no one would be bottom feeding. The best performers would reap the highest annual increases. It is a one on one thing.

3. A profit sharing program would be in place. After all no realistic management team should expect to reap all of the rewards for their associates' efforts. There would be a much better division of the spoils, as it were, than has existed in many of the legacy carriers' managements' teams in the past.

4. Point taken and already thought of. Part of the non employees' portion of the board would be directly involved in determining the system, negotiating gate fees, which I know can be huge. They would also be involved in having someone specifically assigned to fuel hedging. Tens of millions of savings can be reaped or lost with the fluctuations of fuel in today's environment.

There have been many good points brought out so far. We have just scratched the surface. This venture, like any good business that has been developed does not happen with "Hey, I've got some money..I think I will start a business!" There are lots and lots of factors to consider. But you know I think we have the expertise, the talent and the out of the box type of thinking to put something viable together....as a model. And again, I am not doing this for my own benefit. I just like exercising the brain sometimes. All thinkers do.

I have noted Bart and Publishers' posts. I wish they would join and see if they can't provide input from their perspectives. We still have three open vacancies. The folks that want to provide their input regardless of the board commitment are encouraged to provide their input. Heck, one of the board members might not get paid on time and bail, anyway! LOL

 

[bobbysamd]

Treat your employees right

I love the way Bobby says he reluctantly agrees with me on the profit issue. The base philosophy of any corporate entity is that it was born and nutured to make a profit . . . .

Of course. And you need executives who know how to make a profit. But not using payroll, or lack thereof, as the profit center.

You have to treat people right. When I say "right" I mean fairly. People will want to work for you if you pay them decently and treat them fairly. If you treat people fairly, there is no need for unions. We had that discussion about two years ago; here's a link to that discussion (which, curiously, involves some of the same participants in this discussion). Unfortunately, not all businesses and managers treat employees fairly.

[M]y supposed unfriendliness on pilot issues is that there is so little recognizing by that group of the others that are key elements in the program. As a group, they make the most, whine the most, and tend to cause problems the most. Individually they are great people. The fact is that from a business perspective, they are drivers of the bus. Yes, that is a critical function in producing the product, but in the bigger scheme of things, not very critical to the corporate success that defines our airline. That is not to demean them or say they do not play a part.

(emphasis added)

I would take partial exception. Was it not the mechanics whose caterwauling in large part led to Eastern's demise? Of course, Uncle Frank had a lot to do with that.

It isn't only the pilots who complain. But they seem to be the ones who receive the most publicity.

I haven't read everything in detail yet, but this is an excellent discussion.

 

[Publishers]

Enigma

Enigma, I do not begrudge you the fact that you want to get your time in during the shortest period.

My point, if I have one, is that as a manager, youare constantly managing a wide breath of issues, critical decisions that need to be made, information gathered.

If you read the thread on A wish for Leadership, you will get a better feel on how I think about management without me having to copy it all.

All that said, the pilot corp are necessary to performance but far from the aspect that will keep the company going. In the end, the fact that is how most managers think and is also why pilots get upset with their managment. They feel they are the chief cog in the wheel.

 

[enigma]

Re: Enigma

Enigma, I do not begrudge you the fact that you want to get your time in during the shortest period.

Thank you, BTW, that desire is an ideal. I am aware that schedules can't always be written to allow me to fly exactly 8 hours in day.

All that said, the pilot corp are necessary to performance but far from the aspect that will keep the company going. In the end, the fact that is how most managers think and is also why pilots get upset with their managment. They feel they are the chief cog in the wheel.

I know very few pilots who believe that they are the chief cog in the wheel. Some do, but not the majority.

Pilots get upset with management for stuff like: forcing you to train on your off days, having crew schedulers interrupt your rest and then justify it by saying that the pilot was not required to answer the phone, forcing a pilot to ride the jumpseat to get from base to training, Junior assigning pilots in the jetway, waiting to notify you that your number came up for a randon drug screen until the last landing of a five day trip, changing your reserve period after the fact, refusing to release reserve pilots until their reserve period is completely over even though the reserve was on his sixth day and could not possibly be used, allowing stations to place delay responsibility on the crew without the crews knowledge, payroll discrepancies that always favor the company, and much much more. The worst one is the manager who says, "I don't care what your contract says, fly it now, grieve it later; I really don't care if it's not proper".

There really is more to this than pilots being primadonnas.

regards,
enigma

 

[Astra Guy]

I think Bobbysamd hit the nail on the head. Pay your people well and treat them fairly. The formula works in almost any line of work. Some jobs don't necessarily pay well but if when it is all said and done the associates are all treated fairly then you have a much better chance at success. Associates may leave due to the lower than standard pay but they will not have a bridge to burn over their treatment.

What, in my mind, makes this developing model unique is that the people management is done by other "working associates." It is not being done by the guys in the Ivory tower. Much better to be evaluated by folks that know what you are going through day by day. Each can empathize and evaluate on aspects that really matter.

Thanks for all of the input so far.

 

[Astra Guy]

Shadow,

Thanks for doing some leg work. Once we have some numbers maybe a 757 type might chime in to give us the real world numbers, as well.

I know there are lurkers in the shadows that have peeked at our thread but don't want to get involved since our developing model is kind of "out there" to them. For those I would say that this is not about pilot/management/union bashing. It is just another method to arrive at the same goal for everyone, fairly. It is doable, IMHO.

 

[bobbysamd]

H.R.

I still haven't read the entire discussion word for word, so, I apologize if the following point has been hit already.

The airline will need a competent H.R. function. The individuals who comprise the department should have a good measure of common sense and life experience to go along with their ability to read resumes and applications and evaluate them against our airline's model of the ideal applicant. They should possess the ability to see where a not-completely-round peg would be a grateful, dedicated and loyal employee.

A major fault of aviation hiring is its inability to see the person behind the resume. Aviation hiring tends to take the path of least resistance by bringing in saints ahead of others because the saints are available. (I know Hugh Jorgan will argue with me strenously about this point.) This would go a long way toward having a diverse culture in the company. And, it very well may avert exposure to EEOC, ADA and ADEA actions.

Once more, excellent discussion.

 

[Astra Guy]

With some behind the scenes negotiations I am pleased to announce that Bobbysamd will be joining the board. His primary role will be to develop our training program, evaluate and select our Check Airmen and other instructors.

Bobbysamd has been a major contributor to this message board and he brings with him the attitude, background and expertise to be a real contributor. We will all be much better off with his contributions in the coming days.

And besides all of this I have yet to read anything he has posted that was the least bit belittling to anyone. He works from "the high ground" and that is exactly where we want to be.

Thanks in advance, Bobby.

 

[bobbysamd]

It'll be great . . . .

With some behind the scenes negotiations I am pleased to announce that Bobbysamd will be joining the board. His primary role will be to develop our training program, evaluate and select our Check Airmen and other instructors.

Bobbysamd has been a major contributor to this message board and he brings with him the attitude, background and expertise to be a real contributor. We will all be much better off with his contributions in the coming days.

And besides all of this I have yet to read anything he has posted that was the least bit belittling to anyone. He works from "the high ground" and that is exactly where we want to be.

Maybe I can still achieve aviation success and fulfillment of my goals, in a virtual sense!

I'm still available to Legal and Media Relations. To that end, I have a hiring recommendation (consider this an LOR). Our long-time member, Timebuilder, has excellent media experience in major-market radio, and has done talent work. Of course, he's a pilot and flight instructor. Maybe he'd entertain an offer.

 

[Astra Guy]

Bobby,

I think the Legal and Media Relations background would help us immensely, as well. It is great for folks who have several talents to volunteer their other talents.

Time,

If you are reading this do you have any interest? You come well reccomended.

 

[Publishers]

Enigma

I have reviewed your points and they are well taken.

From my perspective, the people responsible for most of the items you mentioned would fall more under the supervisory manager than excutive management.

What then is the difference. The difference is one of policy and course, versus actually steering the wheel.

The points that I have been trying to make from a pure managment perspective is that if I make a poor choice on the route structure and frequencies, how my pilots are will not save the company.

If I make a poor equipment choice for the routes and passenger loads, it will not save the company.

If I hedge the fuel wrong or set up bad maintenance contracts or facilities, it will not save the company.

In short, there are a large number of decisions and critical moves that need to work out right or the pilot and flight crews will not matter.

You have people in your hypothetical airline making equipment choices, seating choices, pilot contract issues, etc., when your board is not even set. Wrong set of priorities.

You set the board first and their job is to study the possible routes and potential profits based on equipment and frequncies that you serve it with, competitive factors, available resources and financing, insurance costs, cost to certificate. avialable gates, maintenance issues, cost and availability of a reservations system, code shares, etc, etc, etc, .

Then, after that is done, you put in place HR and the policies and guidelines for recruiting people that fit what you are doing.

To give you an example, Bobby is off on the hiring issue because it has been his gig on this board all along. He did not get hired when he thought he should. It is an important issue to him. Great but does not qualifiy him to be on the board of anything.

You need to concentrate on getting a board together that has demonstrated their ability to make money, to deal with the tough decisions, who have vision of a route structure, who understand contribution margins and revenue yields.

Yes you wnat to treat employees fair, yes you want to pay reasonable wages for the return, yes all the issues you bring up need addressed. Just much later.

 

[Astra Guy]

Publishers,

No doubt we are putting the cart before the horse. You bring up some very valid points. There is no doubt that much of the business end of things would have been determined before we decide to launch an endeavor. My intention here is to go from the known to the unknown. We build a people management basis which we have some background in and then start dealing with the really tough part....route structure, competition, fees associated with starting things up...all factors which many here do not have a positive grounding in. These factors, or as many as our knowledge base has, will be put into the final equation.

Since we started in this vain then we should lay the groundwork for the people side and then start digging into the details, one by one.

What you say is very true and we are starting in a non real world way. However, as we go along and more ideas come to us then we will have gained more knowledge than before. It can be an undaunting task but may, in the end, result in increasing everyone's knowledge. Some views will change when they see the big picture. That is what this is about.

There is no doubt that the market is saturated in some areas. Makes it tough to jump into the fray. I think we can do some research on what areas are underserved or not completely overserved. Once we have that info then we can proceed down the road making and probably changing decisions before the launch date.

I, for one, appreciate your input.