|Quoting r2rho (Reply 1):|
Surprised this thread has zero replies, maybe because nobody read the link and you didn't detail the interesting points in the release, which are:
I was curious about the union matters so I didn't elaborate. You're right there is much more to the link than what I specified. Thanks for expanding on that.
|Quoting PhxA340 (Reply 2):|
I feel like this takes me back to the time of Song and Ted with Delta and United. Instead of creating new airlines within an airline I just feel like it creates too much customer confusion. Why not just bring your domestic costs in line with your competitors if possible ?
I think a big part of the reason for the failures of an "airline within an airline" are costs and customer perception/confusion. Every employee that comes in contact with the low-cost operation needs to be low-cost as well. If you have regular F/A's or agents working the flights that make the same pay and benefits as regular personnel you lose a lot of the cost reductions. At DL
Express, only the pilots made less and worked more. We (F/A's) and gate agents were the same as mainline and we would/could work both.
At Song, the F/A's were on a different payscale and work rules, but the same benefit package. Another problem with Song was that the service and amenities were often better than mainline in order to compete with jetBlue. Passengers never really understood that discrepancy.
At United, TED was equally confusing. We often substituted the TED 320's for mainline and people didn't understand the lack of FC. Also, the IFE I believe was better. More Econ+ seats. And no full can of soda (unless asked). Plus, again, F/A's and agents made the same. I'm not even sure that pilots were paid less or on different work rules.
From the world's largest airline-to the world's largest airline. Delta2ual