enigma
good ol boy
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 2,279
Timebuilder said:I thought that we had already reached Bob's conclusion right here on the forum.
Haven't we decided that the reason that the RJ is proliferating (Comair) is that the labor costs, particularly the crew pay and benefits, are far less costly than for other (for example) planes that Delta owns? Also, the large carriers' mechanics have much higher pay that other A&P types, and all of the large carriers have work rules that keep more bodies on the property, and on the union roster.
Labor may not be UAL's largest cost, but it has be be a large cost. Bob may be technically incorrrect, but he is comparing the cost structure of UAL to Southwest, and it's easy to see a very obvious difference in costs between the two.
Other factors may not be as easy to change as the cost of labor, and when facing bankruptcy labor cost will be the number one target.
As I stated earlier, the point of this string was to expose the blatant anti-worker sentiment of people like Bob Rinker. But, I will attempt to address your statements.
I don't think that there is much comparison between an argument about what's wrong with UAL, and whether or not RJ's are truely cost effective.
For one thing, you can't compare the economics of one aircraft type with the economics of an entire company. The falacy of comparing airplanes to airlines is why I aurgued with Skydiverdriver about the name of the RJDC. It's not the airplane.
UAL is a global carrier, and as such must support the costs of a global structure. Given a comparable structure, an RJ carrier would cost as much or more to operate (considering comparable seat miles) than UAL.
Now, how do we resolve the apparent contradiction between the concept that high labor costs are not UAL's problem and the concept that low labor costs are indeed the RJ's advantage?
By realizing that there is no correlation between the economics of an airpane vs the economics of an airline. The RJ's do fit at the bottom. They are currently displacing narrowbody mainline aircraft because of low wages and reduced demand for travel. I imagine that saying so will disturbe the Comair guys, but the regionals are subsidized by the majors and don't pay the full cost of competing in the marketplace. When regionals attempt to compete without being under the wing of a major partner, they lose. Think of Mesa in Texas during the mid nineties. When the regionals start to pay their share of promotions/marketing/etc, their overall advantage will go away. The way I see it, the RJ's/regional's are like spanish moss. They die without a host tree.
As an aside, UAL's wage structures are the result of the profits of the late ninetys and the labor concessions from earlier in the decade. Inept and greedy management took money from the pilots when time were bad, then refused to reciprocate when times got better, leading to really piss poor labor relations. Consequently, when the latest contract was signed, labor was in no mood for accepting the status quo; and since profits were high(remember the profit levels of the late 90's?), management agreed to a contract that couldn't be sustained when times got worse. At the same time management was mis-managing labor relations and agreeing to high-priced contracts, they were squandering the profits on ventures like the AAA merge, Allegis (?),etc. If you roll back UAL wages to pre-raise levels, they would still be asking for concessions, and they would still have an inefficient structure.
I will stand by the idea that pilot labor rates are not the cause of UAL's troubles. Ask UAL78.
On the other hand, regional wages are the result of too many years of pilots who didn't care about regional wages as long as they could use the regional to gain experience and move up to a major. How times change.