The problems with the Airline Industry

[Publishers]

they do

Actually history says that they do--- at the next contract. Now I would agree when the fall off is subtle and management does not respond, OK.

The thing about 9/11 was that it was obvious that this was an event ouside the box and it needed some outside the box thinking. This is where things should have happened immediately not like the prolonged mess at United.

 

[yaks]

Publishers

Frankly if unions were any good at all, they would look independantly at the situation, walk in to the companies and sya let us make a change to our contract.

As it is, they wait til the company proves it is in distress. Sort of a stupid concept if you think about it. Let's wait til our healthy patient is on the death bed rather than fix him when we see the first sign trouble is coming. Let's wait til the dike breaks rather than fix that little leak.

Funny you should mention it. For as many years as I can remember pilots have been asking management for access to the companies books so as to make an informed contract proposal. Without exception the pilots have been turned down until the company was either in bankruptcy court (in which case they are now opened up to the relevant parties) or on the verge of bankruptcy as in our (AA) recently negotiated deal. Please don't think this us the unions fault. If management had any intention of dealing with us on the up and up it would never get that far.

 

[General Lee]

Publishers,

Can we not prosper in the good times too? At Delta in '96 all of the employees gave 5% of their pay back to help the airline. Then management, led by Ron Allen, decided that everyone except the pilots should get their 5% back. When Leo Mullin came onboard, in reality to smooth over labor relations after Ron Allen, the pilots asked Leo if we also could have our 5% back since we were now turning profits. He said, "A contract is a contract." If you don't think that something like that would spook us again---you're drinking too much management kool-aid.

46drvr,

Everyone likes to use that percentage with regards to the United pilots and the amount of hours they fly on "average." It is flawed because United has a lot of different types of planes, and there are always a lot of pilots in training. Those guys will spend 6-8 weeks in training--averaging zero hours in those months. When you add that to the normal flying of line pilots, your "average" is a lot lower. There really aren't that many pilots just sitting around doing nothing. Sitting on short call reserve isn't very relaxing either.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[46Driver]

General Lee,
I know its an average and you know its an average - but the results are still the same. How do you explain to the public why you have a system where so many pilots are in training - especially when these are the taxpayers footing your bailout?

 

[Publishers]

right

I am not saying your wrong. The fact is that Delta had the thinking that it was never going to do better by unions than they did by thier non union employees. I came from a comapny with that same philosophy.

That said, the fact is that Delta is not the one we are talking about here. It si the show me the books bull. I do not believe personally that they owe anyone to show you the books anymore than any shareholder.

My point was that this is obvious that a major thing was going on and that it was going to have a negative effect. If you need to see the books then, you are part of the problem not the solution.

 

[General Lee]

Publisher,

I agree with you, and I wish it was like it used to be, "a handshake would solve everything." There used to be trust, and that is obviously lacking now. I understand the problems we are having, and would love to contribute to make sure I still have a job in the future. But, I fear that when good times eventually return, we won't get any of it back, and the management types will get it back, in the form of bonuses.

46drvr,

Do you expect United to furlough people off of the 777 if they are getting rid of some of them? No. They will be bumped, and that means a lot of training involved for a lot of people down the list. That is not how this industry works, and United and the other airlines do not have to show the tax payers what they use the money for---otherwise we wouldn't be able to by peanuts, pretzels, etc--because the public would say, "Don't use our money for that...." The reason I responded to you was to show you that an airline like Southwest, with one aircraft type and one or two total "long schools", cannot be compared to an airline with more than one aircraft type with respect to productivity. People in school are not productive in terms of flying hours---because they don't fly any during training. That brings down the average for all of the pilots in that airline. Delta has many types of aircraft, and I know some guys that have been bumped 2-3 times in one year, going to new 6 week schools each time. That might not be productive, but it is called seniority and following the contract.

Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[46Driver]

General,
You don't have to explain it to me - believe it or not, I kind of figured it out on my own.... However, this is the public relations problem pilots and ALPA have with the public. "United and the others don't have to show the tax payers what they use the money for??????" Try telling that to the taxpayer who is bailing out a bankrupt company..... He will say fine, I'll keep my money and you figure out how to do it without me.

Maybe the taxpayers will say your system is screwed up and inefficient - use a system like UPS or Alaska - pilots get paid according to seat and longevity - and thus reduce the number of pilots moving up and down. Don't like it, too bad, you are in bankruptcy. Once again, this argument is what I hear non-aviation types say (as well as what I hear from the other pilots at my squadron) - they do have a point.

 

[FDJ2]

46driver, pardon me for jumping in on your discussion with General Lee, but perhaps this might help the tax payer understand why you can't compare UAL to SWA.

After over thirty years of existance, SWA now serves approximately 58 cities. That's it. With a single aircraft type, the SWA model is only effective in about 25% of the domestic market. The hub spoke system is the most efficient means of connecting the other 75% of the country to the world. For a hub-spoke system to be effective you need to connect large markets to small markets and long haul flights to short haul flights. That necessitates several different aircraft types with different capacities and capabilities. If every airline were to be a point to point operation with only one aircraft type, 75% of the country would have no air service and you could not get from Flint Michigan to Narita, Japan on SWA.

When a pilot is sitting in a hub for two hours waiting for his next turn he isn't flying, but he's still at work, meanwhile the SWA pilot has bagged an extra 1 to 1.5 hours. A UAL pilot logging 40 hours a month may have actually been at work the same amount of time as a SWA pilot who flew 80 hours. In general, a hub-spoke pilot might get 5 hours of flying in a 10 hour duty day, while the SWA pilot might have flown 8 hours in that same duty day.

At the end of the day, if 75% of the country wants affordable air service, the only operation that can supply it is the hub-spoke system.

 

[46Driver]

FDJ2,
No worries. I understand the difference. One of the problems is ALPA is not getting this out to the general public.

Another factor is that moving up and down on different equipment is inefficient. If you are making money, who cares - but if you are in bankruptcy, you best be looking at a paradigm change. Having had United use the BAIN corporation against us in a brutal but highly effective manner, I am surprised they haven't come down on mainline with something similiar.

Also, how many "hub and spoke" carriers can this nation support - what do we have now? Delta, United, USAir, Northwest, Continental, and American - that might be too many. Also, who says an LCC can't be hub and spoke - look at AirTran.

Finally, Southwest would only have to get you to a west coast gateway - they hand you off to a foreign carrier ala "Skyteam" or "Star Alliance" to handle the overseas stuff - as if the majors didn't have enough to worry about......

 

[FDJ2]

Originally posted by Splert
"Isn't that all about to change?

I have heard that SWA plans on doubling the fleet within the next 8 years. That will be somewhere in the 'hood of 700 aircraft."

They can double their fleet, but not necessarily double destinations. SWA will undoubtedly serve a few more cities, but probably most of the growth will go into increased frequency between the same city pairs or different city pairs between cities they already serve.


"Who is a better long-term buy UALAQ.OB @ 106 pennies or LUV @ 1770 pennies?"

That depends on your risk tolerance, certainly investing in a company in or near bankruptcy is risky, but you also stand a better chance of doubling, trippling or quadrupling your money. If you think UAL will emerge from bankruptcy they would be a better short term investment. In the last few months, AMR has been a much better investment than any airline. Long term airline investments are a huge crap shoot. All airlines, including SWA, are only one bad management team away from potential bankruptcy.

 

[doh]

boeingman, right on! Pubs, you are partly right too. But, Leo Mullin is the one who told the pilots "a contract is a contract" when he was restoring pay rates for every one else. The company was wildly profitable and he told them to take a hike. Now that he could use a little help, they are essentially telling him "a contract is a contract." He was short sighted and caused his own problem. General, correct me if I am wrong here, but Leo was the man when that took place, right?

 

[Publishers]

contract

A contract is a contract,,,,,, but then again, contracts are renegotiated all the time by everyone.

The points remain the same.... in the case of national disasters or other events= labor and management have to find a way to deal with it before a ton of that companies assets are pissed away.

In the case of United, the assets that were being pissed away were the shareholders like ----- AH! the United Employees.

Compare that with like Air Tran or Southwest, or anyone else that had the good sense to come up with a plan and had decent labor negotiations.

What has to be continually reminded about is that companies survive because of shareholders and not management or pilots. To have the shareholders get shafted and watch while you fail to adapt to a new situation is irresponsible and you deserve what you get. Ask some of that 90% of all airlines that bought Boeing airplanes that are not here anymore.

 

[Tim47SIP]

Clarification

General and Doh-

Just to clear something up. The reason "A contract is a contract" was even stated was because it was first used by DALPA in 93. In 93, Delta went to ALL of it's employees and asked for a 5% reduction in pay. All but one group agreed. The pilots group said NO, "A contract is a contract". Then in 95 when Delta reinstated original pay rates to those individuals that took the cut, DALPA said Hey, "me to!". This is when management stated "A contract is a contract" since DALPA never took the 5% reduction to help out the company.

Not that management doen't deserve a lot of critisism as they deffinitley do and many times untrustable. I just hear this term brought up quite a bit as a defense, when it is an invalid defense.