|Quoting Orfsurfer (Thread starter):|
Why do airlines have workers stationed at airports? Wouldn't it be easier for each airport to hire workers independent of the airlines, not to include mx, to be gate agents, rampers, baggage handlers etc? This would seem like it would help offset airlines costs. The airport could pay for these workers with a small increase in landing fees. It just seems like one way the airlines can get out from under the strong-arm of the unions.
Every airline has different standards. In terms of customer service, etc...what an airline deems as acceptable may not be the case for another airline. It would be very hard to find a compromise.
Furthermore, I think it would cost a lot more to airlines if such option is taken. Should an airline the size of UAL, DL
, etc. service 300 destinations, for example, then each company will have to deal with the likes of 300 different employee groups. It's much more headache than having one single workforce.
Furthermore, in consideration of a union's influence/strength, I believe that one single union is likely to be formed. That is, employees from all airports will be under one union. Not to say that the gate agents will be coupled with the baggage handlers, but all gate agents will be unionized as will be all baggage handlers. Should they threat a strike, the entire airline industry would be crippled, not a good thought
Furthermore, from another cost-efficient standpoint, should airports hire their own personnel, you have to imagine that they would add a premium to their services in order to make profits, however marginal they are. So, I think that may be more expensive.
I've shared my thoughts