Space Wrangler
Registered Offender
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Posts
- 101
Friday
December 31, 2004
Hello Everyone,
Today, the last day of 2004, is a day for reflection. Let's take a look back at the events that unfolded at US Airways.
First, what the hell happened last weekend?
Well, if you went to usairways.com, you would have seen an advisory to travelers that read "Our efforts to recover from the severe weather on Thursday were complicated when some of our employees chose to call in sick at record numbers over the weekend. We are embarrassed by the situation, especially given the holidays and how important travel is to our customers at this time of year."
One thing you can count on from corporate communications is their continual lack of full disclosure. What US Airways had were two problems, baggage and flight cancellations. US Airways said they had to cancel hundreds of flights because of the high number of flight attendant sick calls. What US Airways didn't tell you is that the sick calls for this year, over the Christmas holiday, were almost identical to the number of sick calls they received last year during the same period, when NO flights were cancelled for lack of flight attendants.
So, what happened? Well, US Airways has continued to lose flight attendants through the normal course of attrition and those folks have not been replaced. Therefore, we have to ask the question, "did US Airways do everything in its power to prevent this from happening?"
The answer is a resounding "no."
US Airways could have offered vacation fly-back to its flight attendants. Vacation fly-back allows flight attendants to fly their normal monthly schedule and receive their vacation. Most flight attendants jump at this opportunity, when it is offered, because of the increase in hours. If the company does not offer vacation fly-back, then a flight attendant can only fly up to a point that, when added to the value of their vacation, equals their monthly flying obligation. In other words, the flight attendant is forced, by the company, to fly LESS than they normally would when vacation fly-back is NOT offered.
US Airways flight attendants were not offered vacation fly-back for December ----- until the afternoon of Christmas Day which, by this time, is too little too late.
I sent an email to Chris Chiames ([email protected]), who is the VP of Corporate Development, and has suddenly become the public face of US Airways (nobody can seem to find CEO Bruce Lakefield), and asked him why vacation fly-back was not offered. As you might imagine, he has failed to respond. I believe the company now knows that it made a crucial error in not offering vacation fly-back prior to the beginning of the month, like they normally do when they offer it.
Mr. Lakefield is known for saying "people want to blame me, blame management, but you have to blame the industry." Well folks, the 'industry' is not to blame here. In his special message to employees, Mr. Lakefield said that flight attendant sick calls were almost three times higher than normal. I guess that means three times higher than mid-October. Again, why didn't US Airways say that flight attendant sick calls were in line with the same period last year? Because they don't want you to know that because it makes management, not 'the industry,' look bad. I can't help but laugh when I think how Dave Siegel used to blame Delta and Southwest for all of US Airways' problems and now the current CEO blames "the industry."
Mr. Lakefield said he had seen lots of excuses for why people called in sick, such as "low morale," "poor management," "anger over pay cuts" and "frustration with labor negotiations." Now I have to admit, this is odd. What employee(s) would call in sick and say, "I'm not coming to work today because of poor management" or "I have low morale Charlie, so I won't be in today." I just don't believe this but if someone is so stupid to actually use that excuse when calling in sick, then they should be fired for being stupid - and lying about being sick.
Of course, the events of last weekend prompted some knee-jerk reaction. The AFA representative, Mrs. P. Hayes, wrote, "Sadly, the employees who took this action may ultimately cause the failure of the airline." Gee, I can think of a dozen other items that could possibly cause the failure of the airline but the company getting a similar number of flight attendant sick calls this Christmas, as they did last Christmas, isn't one of them. (And as you all know, I've been one of the few who have consistently said the company is not going to liquidate).
Also, the AFA CLT representative, Mr. M. Flores, said that sick calls "skyrocketed" this Christmas. Huh? Let's examine those days around Christmas, in which US Airways had to cancel so many flights:
On Dec. 23, 2003, there were 249 flight attendant sick calls.
On Dec. 23, 2004, there were 263 flight attendant sick calls. (+14 more sick calls isn't skyrocketing).
On Dec. 24, 2003, there were 261 flight attendant sick calls.
On Dec. 24, 2004, there were 238. (A skyrocketing decrease?)
On Christmas Day 2003, there were 298 flight attendant sick calls.
On Christmas Day 2004, there were 306. "Watch out folks, this number is skyrocketing by eight."
December 26, 2003 -- 265 f/a sick calls
December 26, 2004 -- 311 (+46) more like 'bottle rocket' than skyrocket
As far as the baggage issue is concerned, I don't know if US Airways has a similar agreement with the ramp workers that would allow them to work their normal hours and receive their vacation pay. However, I suspect, as with every other area of the company, that those folks are short-staffed to begin with.
And let's not forgot one other item. The Philadelphia International Airport is the armpit of modern-day aviation. As you know, the airport consistently ranks at or near the bottom of the DOT's monthly Air Travel Consumer Report for on-time arrivals and departures and the baggage system has spoken for itself for years now. In fact, you may recall that just over 10 months ago, February to be exact, US Airways announced that they were going to spend $2.7 million to "upgrade" their baggage facilities at PHL. The carrier said it hoped to start work in early March and have the project completed in time for the peak summer travel season. To this date, the work has not been completed. Hell, I don't even know if it ever started. http://www.usairways.com/about/press/nw_04_0211.htm
One good move that US Airways made was a plea to its non-union workforce to come to PHL and volunteer. I say this is a good move because these folks, the non-union employees, are the ones who took the smallest cut in pay, so I think it would be a nice thing to have them go and work for free and participate in a meet-and-greet with the customers.
December 31, 2004
Hello Everyone,
Today, the last day of 2004, is a day for reflection. Let's take a look back at the events that unfolded at US Airways.
First, what the hell happened last weekend?
Well, if you went to usairways.com, you would have seen an advisory to travelers that read "Our efforts to recover from the severe weather on Thursday were complicated when some of our employees chose to call in sick at record numbers over the weekend. We are embarrassed by the situation, especially given the holidays and how important travel is to our customers at this time of year."
One thing you can count on from corporate communications is their continual lack of full disclosure. What US Airways had were two problems, baggage and flight cancellations. US Airways said they had to cancel hundreds of flights because of the high number of flight attendant sick calls. What US Airways didn't tell you is that the sick calls for this year, over the Christmas holiday, were almost identical to the number of sick calls they received last year during the same period, when NO flights were cancelled for lack of flight attendants.
So, what happened? Well, US Airways has continued to lose flight attendants through the normal course of attrition and those folks have not been replaced. Therefore, we have to ask the question, "did US Airways do everything in its power to prevent this from happening?"
The answer is a resounding "no."
US Airways could have offered vacation fly-back to its flight attendants. Vacation fly-back allows flight attendants to fly their normal monthly schedule and receive their vacation. Most flight attendants jump at this opportunity, when it is offered, because of the increase in hours. If the company does not offer vacation fly-back, then a flight attendant can only fly up to a point that, when added to the value of their vacation, equals their monthly flying obligation. In other words, the flight attendant is forced, by the company, to fly LESS than they normally would when vacation fly-back is NOT offered.
US Airways flight attendants were not offered vacation fly-back for December ----- until the afternoon of Christmas Day which, by this time, is too little too late.
I sent an email to Chris Chiames ([email protected]), who is the VP of Corporate Development, and has suddenly become the public face of US Airways (nobody can seem to find CEO Bruce Lakefield), and asked him why vacation fly-back was not offered. As you might imagine, he has failed to respond. I believe the company now knows that it made a crucial error in not offering vacation fly-back prior to the beginning of the month, like they normally do when they offer it.
Mr. Lakefield is known for saying "people want to blame me, blame management, but you have to blame the industry." Well folks, the 'industry' is not to blame here. In his special message to employees, Mr. Lakefield said that flight attendant sick calls were almost three times higher than normal. I guess that means three times higher than mid-October. Again, why didn't US Airways say that flight attendant sick calls were in line with the same period last year? Because they don't want you to know that because it makes management, not 'the industry,' look bad. I can't help but laugh when I think how Dave Siegel used to blame Delta and Southwest for all of US Airways' problems and now the current CEO blames "the industry."
Mr. Lakefield said he had seen lots of excuses for why people called in sick, such as "low morale," "poor management," "anger over pay cuts" and "frustration with labor negotiations." Now I have to admit, this is odd. What employee(s) would call in sick and say, "I'm not coming to work today because of poor management" or "I have low morale Charlie, so I won't be in today." I just don't believe this but if someone is so stupid to actually use that excuse when calling in sick, then they should be fired for being stupid - and lying about being sick.
Of course, the events of last weekend prompted some knee-jerk reaction. The AFA representative, Mrs. P. Hayes, wrote, "Sadly, the employees who took this action may ultimately cause the failure of the airline." Gee, I can think of a dozen other items that could possibly cause the failure of the airline but the company getting a similar number of flight attendant sick calls this Christmas, as they did last Christmas, isn't one of them. (And as you all know, I've been one of the few who have consistently said the company is not going to liquidate).
Also, the AFA CLT representative, Mr. M. Flores, said that sick calls "skyrocketed" this Christmas. Huh? Let's examine those days around Christmas, in which US Airways had to cancel so many flights:
On Dec. 23, 2003, there were 249 flight attendant sick calls.
On Dec. 23, 2004, there were 263 flight attendant sick calls. (+14 more sick calls isn't skyrocketing).
On Dec. 24, 2003, there were 261 flight attendant sick calls.
On Dec. 24, 2004, there were 238. (A skyrocketing decrease?)
On Christmas Day 2003, there were 298 flight attendant sick calls.
On Christmas Day 2004, there were 306. "Watch out folks, this number is skyrocketing by eight."
December 26, 2003 -- 265 f/a sick calls
December 26, 2004 -- 311 (+46) more like 'bottle rocket' than skyrocket
As far as the baggage issue is concerned, I don't know if US Airways has a similar agreement with the ramp workers that would allow them to work their normal hours and receive their vacation pay. However, I suspect, as with every other area of the company, that those folks are short-staffed to begin with.
And let's not forgot one other item. The Philadelphia International Airport is the armpit of modern-day aviation. As you know, the airport consistently ranks at or near the bottom of the DOT's monthly Air Travel Consumer Report for on-time arrivals and departures and the baggage system has spoken for itself for years now. In fact, you may recall that just over 10 months ago, February to be exact, US Airways announced that they were going to spend $2.7 million to "upgrade" their baggage facilities at PHL. The carrier said it hoped to start work in early March and have the project completed in time for the peak summer travel season. To this date, the work has not been completed. Hell, I don't even know if it ever started. http://www.usairways.com/about/press/nw_04_0211.htm
One good move that US Airways made was a plea to its non-union workforce to come to PHL and volunteer. I say this is a good move because these folks, the non-union employees, are the ones who took the smallest cut in pay, so I think it would be a nice thing to have them go and work for free and participate in a meet-and-greet with the customers.
