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

Why USAir may have melted down over Christmas

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

FDJ2

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2003
Posts
3,908
By KEVIN DONOVAN
Published on: 12/31/04 A recent behavioral study demonstrated that animals understand and react to the concept of fairness. In the study, monkeys were given unequal rewards for completing equal tasks. The result was groundbreaking. The monkey receiving the lesser of the two rewards ceased participation in the activity after observing the unfair treatment.

The implications for the corporate world are noteworthy, especially for those who are unable to connect the dots between the value of fairness and the consequences encountered by many thousands of holiday travelers when US Airways was forced to cancel hundreds of flights.

The struggle of executives to "transform" their enterprises into viable businesses rarely grasps the importance of fairness as an essential component of their transformation.

It must first be pointed out that there is a critical difference between loyal employees and lifelong employees. Whereas the latter have only a financial stake in the company and may fill out their days to retirement by just showing up, loyal employees have a personal stake and will do everything in their limited power to help the corporation succeed.

Most workers have a deep and sincere desire to like who they work for, to be aligned with the goals of their company and to ward off any dissonance between why they get up to go to work every morning and what they want out of life. If the condition of fairness is eliminated, the unseen erosion of loyalty will be set in motion, and because fairness is a dichotomous concept — something is either fair or unfair and nothing in between — this erosion can occur rather swiftly.

Consider almost any front-line worker in the commercial airline industry. In a service industry such as this, each employee makes many hundreds of unsupervised, seemingly minor decisions each day on behalf of their company and each decision is in small part a projection of their relationship with their company.

For instance, if I am a lifelong baggage handler who normally unloads a 4:30 p.m. flight before I leave work at 5 p.m., I will not be there if the flight is late and arrives at 5:05 p.m. But if I am a loyal baggage handler, my personal stake transcends my financial stake and I will be there to finish the job because I care about my company and its customers (which, by extension of my stake in the company, become my customers).

If executives are getting paid bonuses independent of tangible performance (i.e. profitability), and baggage handlers are being laid off even when they exhibit loyal behavior that is above and beyond the call of duty, it is not a stretch for the worker to believe that exemplary performance on his part is more likely to reward the executive than the baggage handler. Add to that the realization that their CEO is probably getting paid around 400 times more than the baggage handler and it suddenly becomes very hard to stay past 5 p.m.

In the case of US Airways, hundreds of employees made an unsupervised decision to call in sick on Christmas Day — a decision that they were legally entitled to make but one that reveals the destruction of their personal stake in the success of their company or a belief in its long-term viability. The Trojan horse of severed loyalty arrived in Philadelphia right behind Santa and his reindeer.

What to do? It is very simple: Align the objectives of your highest-level worker (i.e. your CEO) with that of your lowest-level worker (i.e. your baggage handler), and your company will succeed. Cap executive compensation at a reasonable multiple of the average employee salary and tie it to that through thick and thin.

If one gets a pay cut, they all get a pay cut. If one gets a bonus, they all get a bonus. It is not just profit sharing — it is loss sharing as well. Flush out the perks (stock options, helicopter rides, corporate apartments, etc.) and build them into the visible total compensation so that everybody shares both the pain and the wealth. Pep rallies, sloganeering and silly morale building initiatives will not do it; there must be substantial and perceived fairness, in the simple form of a shared stake in the success or failure of the corporation.

Difficult? Oh, yes. This is challenging and some would say unrealistic. But it is not impossible, and in fact for some companies it will be the only alternative to the once unrealistic option of bankruptcy.

The recent proclivity of corporate leaders to move in lock step has imposed a thick wall of inertia against change, but done correctly, this simple act of mandating fairness will change the DNA of the company, inoculating the enterprise against the insidious effects of lost loyalty. More importantly, it is a tangible demonstration of long-term investment, something the holy triad of stakeholders — customers, employees and investors — all desire now more than ever.

Even the monkeys would approve.
__________________
Kevin Donovan, a former Delta Air Lines manager, lives in Decatur.
 
Maybe now people will understand the "magic" of JetBlue. The leaders are regularly working on holidays ("holiday helpers"). Some outside folks may not like that pilots help clean planes, but when the CEO and President do too, it makes you realize that when everyone pulls on the same end of the rope, magic happens. Additionally, the top pay scale for management at the company, including President and CEO, is $200,000 and they have never had a raise. True, many have stock (or stock options), but stock only has value if the airline is successful over the long run, since most of their stock cannot be sold all at once (just like the pilot's stock options). In fact, David Neeleman has never sold any of his stock. Leadership leads (not manages) because they want to run an airline, not because of a get rich quick scheme or some golden parachute plans.

When you read the comments of the author above, the JetBlue style is exactly what he espouses. I believe it is a similar philosophy at Southwest.

Skirt
 
Last edited:
Yeah, this theory applies to lots of areas. The Vietnam war, for example, was run by many who were thousands of miles away who may have never spent time on the battefield.
There is a huge difference between 'leader' and 'manager'.
How can a manager "lead" (and not manage) when he knows not what it means to be on the line? They rely on those below them to 'translate' what is happening, leading to the wool being pulled over their eyes even if they do care.
 
skirt said:
When you read the comments of the author above, the JetBlue style is exactly what he espouses. I believe it is a similar philosophy at Southwest.

Skirt
I might add, that it was also the philosophy of DAL, pre Ron Allen of course.
 
FDJ2 said:
I might add, that it was also the philosophy of DAL, pre Ron Allen of course.
I have many friends who are long time pilots at Delta and they agree with you. Once the management attitude shifted from "we" to "us vs. them" (Ron Allen started it) then the slippery slope began.

Sadly, you have to go even farther back at United to find the "we" in management (the Pat Patterson days, in the 60's). I am not sure about USAirways, but it seems to me that the Piedmont guys had a "we" management, but it was lost in the merger (I'm not as familiar with USAirways, so someone might correct me on this). Southwest has always had it. Granted there was a bit of testiness between Parker and the F/A's, but then Parker didn't last did he?

Meanwhile, the boom and profits in cargo flying has helped UPS (and to some extent FedEx) avoid the nasty confrontations that might impact Customers, since there has definitely been an "us vs. them" attitude going on off and on over the years. However, there is enough money to spread around to keep both management and labor from vetting their frustrations in the public and "killing the golden goose". Unlike some of the current passenger airlines.

Skirt
 
Excellent Post FDJ. I personally feel the same way about the USAIR problems.

You can't let Siegal get his 5 million and run after a little over a year running the show with absolutely no results. Then the employees have to take pay cut after pay cut after pay cut. The employees will never respect something like that.

So starts the vicious circle... you.. me... you ... me

The "We" is gone
 
skirt said:
I believe it is a similar philosophy at Southwest.

Skirt

As it has been for 33 years. A record in this industry.
 
Thanks guys,
That is great and all, and I do agree on how it should be. But, how are you going to take these words and make them work? How do you change the you and me to "we"? I am still new to the whole 121 world. I want to know how to fix all of these things. I want to know how to believe in the company that I work for even though noone else does. Not even the execs. When they jump ship after a year or two, it gives you the idea that this ship might really be going down!

What do you think, How can I fix these things?
 
HanSolo said:
Thanks guys,
What do you think, How can I fix these things?
You can't. As much as pilots love to be in control.... they don't run airlines...

SWA... started from scratch... by Egalitarians.....

jB.. started from scratch..... by an Egalitarian

If you have opportunity to be in control of an existing airline it will take years to redirect the culture. Imagine Herb taking over USAIR. It would be years before the trust would take hold....

And that is it.... The legacy carriers will die, because they can't match the productivity of SWA. The way to get such productivity is through positive culture.

What has a better chance of happening first; USAIR or UAL get a positive culture and productivity close to SWA thus making them able to compete or they liquidate?

Adapt or die....









:D
 
Rez O. Lewshun said:
The legacy carriers will die, because they can't match the productivity of SWA. The way to get such productivity is through positive culture.
As for SWA's productivity, a positive culture is great, but a single type aircraft at SWA helps too.

SWA and JBLU are bnenefitting from a management team that cares about it's airline, much the same as some legacy carriers once enjoyed. The problems begin when your benevolent management team leaves, retires, passes on, etc. and the "carpet baggers", for lack of a better word, take charge. The new breed of CEO cares less about the long term health of the corporation and employees and more about maximizing short term share holder value, the next quarters results and of course his bonuses and stock options. Egalitarianism and leadership are concepts that they don't even recognize. Just hope that such a CEO doesn't one day take the helm of your airline.
 

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top