Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Money Talk, UAL Bankruptcy discussion
- Thread starter enigma
- Start date
- Watchers 8
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that before Contract 2000 Ual pilots were working for 1994 wages. Now management and the business community in general want them to return to pre 2000 wages for a period of seven years in order to obtain the ATSB loans. So in effect the Ual pilots would go for a period of 15 years without any significant raises and a bunch of now worthless options. IMHO the business community should be howling over the ineptitude of Ual's top brass for squandering 7 years of concessions and record profits on avolar, internet companies, failed mergers, etc. What would change with the next concessionary contract?
The greatest difference I see between SWA and UAL is that Luv wisely takes labor savings and uses them to shrewdly develop the core business and build an excellent produt while Ual pisses it away on projects they know little about. I think the numerous articles should state that the success of Ual is being stymied by a management team with no vision, not unions.
Also when congress made the emergency loans available to airlines suffering the consequences of 9-11 it did not state that labor must give "deep, broad, and long lasting concessions" in order to qualify. That was added on by the current administration which, not surprisingly, recieved much more in political contributions from the ATA than it did from Alpa, AFA, or IMA.
The greatest difference I see between SWA and UAL is that Luv wisely takes labor savings and uses them to shrewdly develop the core business and build an excellent produt while Ual pisses it away on projects they know little about. I think the numerous articles should state that the success of Ual is being stymied by a management team with no vision, not unions.
Also when congress made the emergency loans available to airlines suffering the consequences of 9-11 it did not state that labor must give "deep, broad, and long lasting concessions" in order to qualify. That was added on by the current administration which, not surprisingly, recieved much more in political contributions from the ATA than it did from Alpa, AFA, or IMA.
publisher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Posts
- 592
nice
Yeah all that is nice.... not constructive but nice. SWA is better managed than United ---- duh!
OK, we have had terrible management, blew money on some really stupid stuff, pissed off all of our customers, have terrible labor relations, an we are adrift at sea. That said,
WHAT DO WE DO NOW?
Yeah all that is nice.... not constructive but nice. SWA is better managed than United ---- duh!
OK, we have had terrible management, blew money on some really stupid stuff, pissed off all of our customers, have terrible labor relations, an we are adrift at sea. That said,
WHAT DO WE DO NOW?
enigma
good ol boy
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 2,279
Re: Enigma
I know that Comair has been successful from the get go. That's not in question, what is in question is whether they would have grown to their success without the DAL codeshare. I maintain that Comair benefited greatly from the pax who bought a ticket on DAL, the pax who didn't know he bought a ticket on DAL connection. Sure, they became successful. Sure, they developed a market niche, or a whole new market. BUT they did it with DAL painted on the side of their aircraft!
Why would a global carrier that flies aircraft that have a more favorable economy of scale not be able to profit at the same cost structure that affords the smaller carrier to be profitable? By your logic, or apparent logic, UAL should have never made money compared to SWA. YET they recorded RECORD profits for a few years in the late ninetys if I remember correctly.
Answer this, could UAL make money if the pilots worked for 50% of current? If they could, would management give themselves a bonus? Da*n right they would, and probably write a book to tout how great they are.
As others have said, the pilots are not the ones who continued to pour profits down the drain, into: Alegis, Avolar, etc.
UAL management has no one to blame but themselves. But I imagine that they will get what they want, the workers will take massive reductions because they have bills to pay, and the managers will show the same gratitude that was shown the last time the workers bailed them out. UAL will go to the well one time too often though, sooner or later the workers will not give in. They will let the company go rather than bail out disengenuous managers again. Like a wise man once said. "Dump on me once, shame on you, Dump on me twice, shame on me"
later
8N
publisher said:
I know that Comair has been successful from the get go. That's not in question, what is in question is whether they would have grown to their success without the DAL codeshare. I maintain that Comair benefited greatly from the pax who bought a ticket on DAL, the pax who didn't know he bought a ticket on DAL connection. Sure, they became successful. Sure, they developed a market niche, or a whole new market. BUT they did it with DAL painted on the side of their aircraft!
Why would a global carrier that flies aircraft that have a more favorable economy of scale not be able to profit at the same cost structure that affords the smaller carrier to be profitable? By your logic, or apparent logic, UAL should have never made money compared to SWA. YET they recorded RECORD profits for a few years in the late ninetys if I remember correctly.
Answer this, could UAL make money if the pilots worked for 50% of current? If they could, would management give themselves a bonus? Da*n right they would, and probably write a book to tout how great they are.
As others have said, the pilots are not the ones who continued to pour profits down the drain, into: Alegis, Avolar, etc.
UAL management has no one to blame but themselves. But I imagine that they will get what they want, the workers will take massive reductions because they have bills to pay, and the managers will show the same gratitude that was shown the last time the workers bailed them out. UAL will go to the well one time too often though, sooner or later the workers will not give in. They will let the company go rather than bail out disengenuous managers again. Like a wise man once said. "Dump on me once, shame on you, Dump on me twice, shame on me"
later
8N
UAL ALPA obviously didn't have enough clout on the board to stop the U fiasco, nor the Avolar abortion. Goodwin managed to throw millions of dollars down the toilet on those stupid moves . . . then gets a real fat bonus for leaving. Sounds like simple extortion . . . . . "give me a big severance, or I'll stick around and screw UAL even more."
Re: Re: Enigma
You're right of course that the codeshare with Delta was extremely beneficial to Comair and also, incidentally to Delta. Statistically, at its peak as an independent, 60% of Comair passengers never set foot on a Delta airplane (not so today). However, I don't know how many would have ever gotten on Comair to begin with, were it not for the ticketing arrangement. The relationship was symbiotic.
This is anecdotal, but what got my attention was your reference to the Delta paint. Up until Comair bought its first jet (1993) there was never one drop of Delta paint on a Comair airplane. Before the jet was delivered the Comair livery had been chosen, the big models were everywhere in our stations and the billboards hung around town in Comair livery. The paint itself had actually been ordered and delivered and the first airplane masked at the factory. At the 11th hour, and directly at Delta's instigation, the shoot was canceled and converted to the Delta livery. It caused a delay in the ceremonies and a big suprise in the Comair rank and file when the airplane turned up with Delta colors. All the models had to be recovered and repainted and the ads revised.
The peons at Comair didn't cotton to the "change" or the surprise, but the protests and the disappointment fell on deaf ears. Management (marketing) had cut a deal.
It all means nothing, just a little nostalgia from an old Comair peon who wishes some things had never happened. Life goes on.
enigma said:
You're right of course that the codeshare with Delta was extremely beneficial to Comair and also, incidentally to Delta. Statistically, at its peak as an independent, 60% of Comair passengers never set foot on a Delta airplane (not so today). However, I don't know how many would have ever gotten on Comair to begin with, were it not for the ticketing arrangement. The relationship was symbiotic.
This is anecdotal, but what got my attention was your reference to the Delta paint. Up until Comair bought its first jet (1993) there was never one drop of Delta paint on a Comair airplane. Before the jet was delivered the Comair livery had been chosen, the big models were everywhere in our stations and the billboards hung around town in Comair livery. The paint itself had actually been ordered and delivered and the first airplane masked at the factory. At the 11th hour, and directly at Delta's instigation, the shoot was canceled and converted to the Delta livery. It caused a delay in the ceremonies and a big suprise in the Comair rank and file when the airplane turned up with Delta colors. All the models had to be recovered and repainted and the ads revised.
The peons at Comair didn't cotton to the "change" or the surprise, but the protests and the disappointment fell on deaf ears. Management (marketing) had cut a deal.
It all means nothing, just a little nostalgia from an old Comair peon who wishes some things had never happened. Life goes on.
publisher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Posts
- 592
profits
Without getting into a great debate on the subject,
record profits? Are we talking $ or % of profit or ROI or what.
My guess even before research is that United did not produce even close to SWA numbers except on $. By the real judges, % to sales, ROI or ROA, I am taking SWA.
Having the connection helped, well of course it helped immensely. Good management though was why Delta was attracted.
Without getting into a great debate on the subject,
record profits? Are we talking $ or % of profit or ROI or what.
My guess even before research is that United did not produce even close to SWA numbers except on $. By the real judges, % to sales, ROI or ROA, I am taking SWA.
Having the connection helped, well of course it helped immensely. Good management though was why Delta was attracted.
enigma
good ol boy
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 2,279
However,
Surplus1, you know "I luv ya man", but were not clicking here. You said, "However, I don't know how many would have ever gotten on Comair to begin with, were it not for the ticketing arrangement."
That is exactly my point. However, I did ask for proof that Comair had succeeded on its own, and I will back down on that one. I was wrong. My apologies. Next time I will try to be more careful when I frame my argument, so that I don't end up getting into areas where I shouldn't be.
Please understand that this thread was started as a defense of the worker and not as a debate about Comair. I'm not trying to attack Comair. Next time I'll pick on Mesa.
regards
8N
Surplus1, you know "I luv ya man", but were not clicking here. You said, "However, I don't know how many would have ever gotten on Comair to begin with, were it not for the ticketing arrangement."
That is exactly my point. However, I did ask for proof that Comair had succeeded on its own, and I will back down on that one. I was wrong. My apologies. Next time I will try to be more careful when I frame my argument, so that I don't end up getting into areas where I shouldn't be.
Please understand that this thread was started as a defense of the worker and not as a debate about Comair. I'm not trying to attack Comair. Next time I'll pick on Mesa.
regards
8N
Re: However,
I realize you're not trying to attack Comair and I don't think I implied or said that you were. All I did was refute some of your claims re Comair's success and I think appropirately. Don't attribute everything we did to "mother Delta" because that's off base. Popular with mother Delta's people, but off base just the same.
Go ahead and pick on Mesa if you want to, just don't compare Comair to Mesa. The only thing we've ever had in common is that both companies operate aircraft. Otherwise, Mesa is as different from Comair as Spirit is from Delta.
I'm all for defending the worker when the defense is justified. When "the worker is a pilot" the problem is a bit more difficult than in other types. The airlines that empoy pilots are so different from each other that it is hard to apply a "standard" with respect to what a pilot should earn or what an airline can afford to pay.
I could easily defend that you are somewhat underpaid for what you do at Spirit, but I am hard pressed to defend that a UAL or DAL pilot is not overpaid for what he/she does at their respective airlines.
Since I'm a pilot myself, I'm hardly against pilots being fairly compensated for their work, but fair is a difficult term to define. Is it "fair" for a copilot with a few years service in a Fokker to be paid over 100 K? Is it fair that a DAL triple-seven Captain can make 285K but a Delta 737 Captain can make 230K? Where exactly does fair end and unfair begin?
No doubt I'll be crucified for intimating that some compensation levels may be unjustified because they are too high, and praised for stating that others are too low. Popularity may not be in the offing for me, but the evidence, if viewed objectively on both counts, suggests that I just might be right.
I don't think that UAL's problems are caused solely by overcompensation of UAL pilots and agree with you on that. Last time I looked, there were many more UAL employees that are not pilots than those that are. We pilots often seem to take positions that appear to indicate we believe that no one else works for our airline besides us. That may satisfy our egos but it isn't true.
Like it or not, labor costs are the highest single expense at every airline, small, large, rich, poor. As the biggest single expense they have the biggest impact on the bottom line. When the chips are down and the crunch is on, as it is today, debates about what is nice to have or not have, who caused it or who didn't are really not very relevant. Costs must be lowered. ALL of them, and that natuarally will include labor costs.
Where we seem to have the real problem is that management has a short memory and always "forgets" to restore labor's contribution in bad times, when the good times roll around once more. The top managers also seem to think that their own costs are not to be included in the "expensive labor" equation and that it's OK for them to walk away with the big bucks while the rest of us pay the price of their indescretions. That rubs all of labor the wrong way, self included.
I don't pretend to have the answers to these big problems, but I sure hope somebody does.
Take care and I hope you guys can improve your lot at Spirit. The timing is unfortunately less than ideal.
enigma said:
Please understand that this thread was started as a defense of the worker and not as a debate about Comair. I'm not trying to attack Comair. Next time I'll pick on Mesa.
regards
8N
I realize you're not trying to attack Comair and I don't think I implied or said that you were. All I did was refute some of your claims re Comair's success and I think appropirately. Don't attribute everything we did to "mother Delta" because that's off base. Popular with mother Delta's people, but off base just the same.
Go ahead and pick on Mesa if you want to, just don't compare Comair to Mesa. The only thing we've ever had in common is that both companies operate aircraft. Otherwise, Mesa is as different from Comair as Spirit is from Delta.
I'm all for defending the worker when the defense is justified. When "the worker is a pilot" the problem is a bit more difficult than in other types. The airlines that empoy pilots are so different from each other that it is hard to apply a "standard" with respect to what a pilot should earn or what an airline can afford to pay.
I could easily defend that you are somewhat underpaid for what you do at Spirit, but I am hard pressed to defend that a UAL or DAL pilot is not overpaid for what he/she does at their respective airlines.
Since I'm a pilot myself, I'm hardly against pilots being fairly compensated for their work, but fair is a difficult term to define. Is it "fair" for a copilot with a few years service in a Fokker to be paid over 100 K? Is it fair that a DAL triple-seven Captain can make 285K but a Delta 737 Captain can make 230K? Where exactly does fair end and unfair begin?
No doubt I'll be crucified for intimating that some compensation levels may be unjustified because they are too high, and praised for stating that others are too low. Popularity may not be in the offing for me, but the evidence, if viewed objectively on both counts, suggests that I just might be right.
I don't think that UAL's problems are caused solely by overcompensation of UAL pilots and agree with you on that. Last time I looked, there were many more UAL employees that are not pilots than those that are. We pilots often seem to take positions that appear to indicate we believe that no one else works for our airline besides us. That may satisfy our egos but it isn't true.
Like it or not, labor costs are the highest single expense at every airline, small, large, rich, poor. As the biggest single expense they have the biggest impact on the bottom line. When the chips are down and the crunch is on, as it is today, debates about what is nice to have or not have, who caused it or who didn't are really not very relevant. Costs must be lowered. ALL of them, and that natuarally will include labor costs.
Where we seem to have the real problem is that management has a short memory and always "forgets" to restore labor's contribution in bad times, when the good times roll around once more. The top managers also seem to think that their own costs are not to be included in the "expensive labor" equation and that it's OK for them to walk away with the big bucks while the rest of us pay the price of their indescretions. That rubs all of labor the wrong way, self included.
I don't pretend to have the answers to these big problems, but I sure hope somebody does.
Take care and I hope you guys can improve your lot at Spirit. The timing is unfortunately less than ideal.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
