Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
United To Axe Aussie Jobs  
User currently offlineAerohottie From Australia, joined Mar 2004, 802 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5115 times:

United Airlines are planning to axe 100 staff in Australia to reduce costs.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=3&ObjectID=10372921

The union sounds a tad unrealistic, don't you think?


What?
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12114 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4972 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Why don't UA do what NZ and QF do, where NZ check-in and dispatch all QF flights in and out of new zealand and QF check-in and dispatch all NZ flights out of Australia?

User currently offlineRamprat74 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1531 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4883 times:

We have 149 employees in SYD, and 30 in MEL. I wonder how many are former Pan Am?

User currently offlinePlanetime From Singapore, joined Mar 2006, 719 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4823 times:

Any plans on UA as far as the schedule or the number of flight down under? Are they planning on increasing the number of flights or decreasing it?

User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4825 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4676 times:

Quoting 777ER (Reply 1):
Why don't UA do what NZ and QF do, where NZ check-in and dispatch all QF flights in and out of new zealand and QF check-in and dispatch all NZ flights out of Australia?

Thats a really good idea actually! It works well for NZ and QF. Perhaps competition regulators might have something to say about it since atm its only UA and QF flying AU-US? once AC and VS start doing it though I don't see a problem! transtasman there are other competitors to NZ and QF of course.



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4515 times:

Hmm, I wonder if we will see UA back in AKL in the near future with all the handling being undertaken by NZ???

User currently offlineTu154 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 375 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4473 times:

I remember pass riding out of SYD not too long ago.....Those ground agents were NASTY to pass riding employees! It was a fight to get FICL when it was only half full, telling all standbys that they did not have to put us in FICL as this was reserved for paying customers and they were doing us a favour! One agent said for the price we were paying we should be in coach! (at UA we pay a fee for our passes.) I told one agent we, as employees, are always offered FICL at a higher price or free if we go on a lower boarding priority...as if I had to explain it to her. She came back with, "we do things differently in SYD." I guess they don't work for the same company the rest of us do.


FIRST ON THE ATLANTIC.....FIRST ON THE PACIFIC.....FIRST IN LATIN AMERICA...FIRST 'ROUND THE WORLD.....PAN AM!!
User currently offlineJetfixer From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4356 times:

Quoting Tu154 (Reply 6):
I remember pass riding out of SYD not too long ago.....Those ground agents were NASTY to pass riding employees! It was a fight to get FICL when it was only half full, telling all standbys that they did not have to put us in FICL as this was reserved for paying customers and they were doing us a favour! One agent said for the price we were paying we should be in coach! (at UA we pay a fee for our passes.) I told one agent we, as employees, are always offered FICL at a higher price or free if we go on a lower boarding priority...as if I had to explain it to her. She came back with, "we do things differently in SYD." I guess they don't work for the same company the rest of us do.

Every United CS agent or Res agent I have had to deal with in Australia has been a complete bitch or a$$hole. You're the 4th or 5th person I have heard who has said the same thing about SYD doing things differently. Everthing you said above is true. I hope ground handling goes to someone else.


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7569 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4328 times:

Not clear if the aircraft was half full or First Class was?.

User currently offlineTu154 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 375 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4291 times:

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 8):
Not clear if the aircraft was half full or First Class was?.

FICL was only half full.



FIRST ON THE ATLANTIC.....FIRST ON THE PACIFIC.....FIRST IN LATIN AMERICA...FIRST 'ROUND THE WORLD.....PAN AM!!
User currently offlineTinkerBelle From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3961 times:

"And at that meeting they'll make decisions about whether they will continue to allow United Airlines to fly out of Sydney," he said.

Is this not a little over the top? They cannot prevent UA from flying out of SYD, can they?


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7569 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3906 times:

If the flight was still then this seems fair, however they could always upgrade once it had closed.

There again, who do you upgrade first, fare paying Business/Economy passengers or Non Rev.

IMO, you upgrade fare paying passengers.


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4825 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3787 times:

Quoting UAL777UK (Reply 5):
Hmm, I wonder if we will see UA back in AKL in the near future with all the handling being undertaken by NZ???

Highly unlikely... basically NZ and UA did a swap, UA pulled out of AKL-LAX and NZ pulled out of SYD-LAX. Both Star Alliance, so NZ looks after AKL-LAX. UA would struggle as NZ has a much better product. (More leg room, better interiors, better IFE, and many would say better service).



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineOz777 From Australia, joined Jun 2000, 521 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3722 times:

Quoting Tu154 (Reply 6):
I remember pass riding out of SYD not too long ago.....Those ground agents were NASTY to pass riding employees!

Trust me – it is not only the staff they used to pull the ‘bitchiness’ stunt on.

One recent event. I am SA Gold elite, and had a Premium Economy seat booked. Spoke to the concierge as I was entering the check-in and he directed me to the F check-in area. The battleaxe behind the counter had apoplexy ‘you are an economy passenger – you are in the wrong queue’. Mentioned quietly to her that as a Star Elite pax I had some entitlements to be greeted with “that’s on Air New Zealand, not United”.

Allocated seat was 57E. One of the worst trips I can recall (acft was full), but with a word in the right ear on return to OZ, it cost UA a FOC J class return SYD-LAX.

So to a certain extent I am ambivalent about the staff losing their jobs, when you consider they have put up with a whole series of issues while UA trundled through Chapter 11. Now that the airline has emerged, it’s “thanks staff for helping us – good bye”…… hardly a good message to send out to the rest of the organization is it.

But in some respects there may now be a bit more respect shown for the passenger, as the CUTE agents at SYD are under contract, and if there is a pattern of complaints about a particular agent, they get the DCM.

OZ777


User currently offlineLUFTI5525 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3540 times:

I REMEMBER TRAVELING TO SYD YEARS AGO. THE AGENT WAS A COMPETE
IDIOT. IF I WERE TO BE OFFERED A FREE TIX, I WOULD NOT GO TO SYD AGAIN. WHY GET THE HASSLE WHEN THE THAIS ARE SO MUCH MORE CORDIAL.


User currently offlineMymiles2go From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 207 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3095 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 12):
Highly unlikely... basically NZ and UA did a swap, UA pulled out of AKL-LAX and NZ pulled out of SYD-LAX. Both Star Alliance, so NZ looks after AKL-LAX. UA would struggle as NZ has a much better product. (More leg room, better interiors, better IFE, and many would say better service).

Actually, more likely than you may realize. The real reason they pulled out of AKL was because of staff costs (very similiar in size actually to the staff just cut at SYD). The only way to get rid of them was to shed the base. Coming back to AKL they could do it much much cheaper - potentially making money on it.


User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12114 posts, RR: 18
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2927 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 4):
Quoting 777ER (Reply 1):
Why don't UA do what NZ and QF do, where NZ check-in and dispatch all QF flights in and out of new zealand and QF check-in and dispatch all NZ flights out of Australia?

Thats a really good idea actually! It works well for NZ and QF. Perhaps competition regulators might have something to say about it since atm its only UA and QF flying AU-US? once AC and VS start doing it though I don't see a problem! transtasman there are other competitors to NZ and QF of course.

Or how about SQ or AC do the check-in and dispatch etc (thats if they have staff there thou)

Quoting UAL777UK (Reply 5):
Hmm, I wonder if we will see UA back in AKL in the near future with all the handling being undertaken by NZ???



Quoting Mymiles2go (Reply 15):
Actually, more likely than you may realize. The real reason they pulled out of AKL was because of staff costs (very similiar in size actually to the staff just cut at SYD). The only way to get rid of them was to shed the base. Coming back to AKL they could do it much much cheaper - potentially making money on it.

I can't see why UA would want to return thou, because NZ now has SFO and LAX on its network, and I don't think NZ would want to gove up its good routes or number of flights. Wasn't another reason UA pulled out cause of poor passenger numbers even thou UA swapped a B744 for a B772?


User currently onlineZK-NBT From New Zealand, joined Oct 2000, 5320 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2854 times:

Quoting 777ER (Reply 16):
. Wasn't another reason UA pulled out cause of poor passenger numbers even thou UA swapped a B744 for a B772?

That wasn't the case, UA were choka out of AKL, they cut it mainly due to them being in Bankrupcy, and then the other things on top of that like 96 staff in AKL for 1 daily flight. And rising fuel prices were a small reason but mainly due to chapter 11.


User currently offlineMymiles2go From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 207 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2715 times:

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 17):
That wasn't the case, UA were choka out of AKL, they cut it mainly due to them being in Bankrupcy, and then the other things on top of that like 96 staff in AKL for 1 daily flight. And rising fuel prices were a small reason but mainly due to chapter 11.

Fuel prices weren't rising as high as now at that time. It was basically staff costs. Roughly 100 people for one flight makes it basically impossible to make it profitable. Ch11 really had nothing per se to do with it, it just gave them an excuse to cut the route. The point of Ch11 is to be able to cut things that cost you money - this particular route with the associated staffing cost them money. Now that they've offloaded that baggage (so to speak), it's plausible they could return. Not at all saying that they will, just saying it makes it plausible.

United doesn't really sit around with competitors (AirNZ is both a partner and a competitor, like all Star Alliance airlines) and discuss who can serve a given route. If United can determine that a given route will be profitible on a long term basis (and more profitable that the route that currently is using the aircraft it would have to pull from), then United will likely serve that route. It's not exactly rocket science.


User currently offlineFLYACYYZ From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 1914 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2698 times:

Quoting 777ER (Reply 16):
Or how about SQ or AC do the check-in and dispatch etc (thats if they have staff there thou)

Might be difficult for AC to do the check-in, as UA does AC's check in at SYD. AC has uniformed & concierge staff overseeing activities, but all ground handling is carried out by UA. I supposed if UA staff are let go, that contract will have to be renegotiated.



Above and Beyond
User currently offlineMalaysia From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 3344 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2679 times:

The UA staff are probably not nice in SYD cause they can only fly free on one route.... and thats back to the USA, not anywhere locally. I get the same attitude from NW staff in BKK, they have no where else to go plus no visas to Tokyo or USA. so they get a bit up when handling non-rev pax.


There Are Those Who Believe That There May Yet Be Other Airlines Who Even Now Fight To Survive Beyond The Heavens
User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2553 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 12):
Highly unlikely... basically NZ and UA did a swap, UA pulled out of AKL-LAX and NZ pulled out of SYD-LAX. Both Star Alliance, so NZ looks after AKL-LAX. UA would struggle as NZ has a much better product. (More leg room, better interiors, better IFE, and many would say better service).

That will all change when UA upgrade their international product. UA to AKL was always a full flight but they struggled with yields, plus they had a ridiculous amount of staff there, it was losing money all the time but things have changed...we'll see.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26444 posts, RR: 75
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2533 times:

Quoting TinkerBelle (Reply 10):
Is this not a little over the top? They cannot prevent UA from flying out of SYD, can they?

No, they can't

Quoting 777ER (Reply 1):
Why don't UA do what NZ and QF do, where NZ check-in and dispatch all QF flights in and out of new zealand and QF check-in and dispatch all NZ flights out of Australia?

That would not work logistically, certainly not in Los Angeles. Additionally, it wouldn't be an even flight swap.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 12):
Highly unlikely... basically NZ and UA did a swap, UA pulled out of AKL-LAX and NZ pulled out of SYD-LAX. Both Star Alliance, so NZ looks after AKL-LAX. UA would struggle as NZ has a much better product. (More leg room, better interiors, better IFE, and many would say better service).

NZ's non-refurbished aircraft actually have inferior IFE to UA's planes. They don't offer Economy Plus in the same way United does, their mileage benefits aren't as good and they no longer offer a full First.

Quoting Mymiles2go (Reply 15):
Actually, more likely than you may realize. The real reason they pulled out of AKL was because of staff costs (very similiar in size actually to the staff just cut at SYD). The only way to get rid of them was to shed the base. Coming back to AKL they could do it much much cheaper - potentially making money on it.

United could have made the station work if they could have filled a 744 or if they had 656,000 pound 777-200ERs. The problem was that they couldn't take a full load on their 648,000 pound 772ERs



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
United To Create 4,000 Jobs In 2006 posted Fri Mar 31 2006 22:20:14 by KarlB737
Qantas Maintenance To Axe 480 Jobs! posted Thu Mar 9 2006 05:04:52 by KiwiTEAL
AA To Axe MX Jobs At MCI posted Thu Apr 7 2005 20:57:03 by DAYflyer
Aer Lingus To Axe 1300 Jobs posted Mon Jul 26 2004 16:50:11 by 7LBAC111
United To Cut Up To 825 Jobs posted Sat Dec 4 2004 00:01:32 by KarlB737
United To Increase Mainline BIL - DEN posted Sat Nov 11 2006 23:30:07 by Stapleton
United To Fly BZN - ORD Daily Year Round posted Thu Nov 9 2006 02:16:25 by Stapleton
Airbus Plan To Axe German Plant Sparks Crisis Talk posted Tue Oct 3 2006 03:10:19 by Osiris30
United To Kuwait posted Thu Sep 7 2006 06:55:01 by NWDC10
Judge Declines Airbus' Effort To Axe Boeing Lawyer posted Tue Sep 5 2006 02:21:21 by Clickhappy