Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:57 am

Quoting EWR757 (Reply 48):
How petty and pathetic Falcon. Grow up.

Like I should REWARD someone like you for screwing around with our future? Riight. 25B looks mighty good for you right now.  Smile
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
ewr757
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2000 8:47 am

RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:06 am

COA764

>>Your forgetting about all other groups that will be impacted by 24 a/c exiting the fleet. Lets say an average days flying equals 5 segments x 24 that is - 120 flights a day. So you might see stations close or the flying pushed to Express that means lots of people (other than pilots) pounding the pavement.<<

My guess, is the aircraft utilization would be increased on the remaining fleet to cover any loss. Unlike Falcon, I can not speak for other employee groups. I was speaking only from a pilot perspective since those were the only facts I have. But again, I have to say, if the aircraft are losing money, they need to go. We are in this business to make money, not provide jobs.

>>Not to mention that the company will come back asking for 800 mil, how much will that cost over over a lifetime? That will all be a moot point if the current T/A is voted down and the company enters bankruptcy because once there they will get what they want one way or another.<<

So if the contracts aren't ratified 1 day later the company needs another $300 million? That doesn't sound fishy to you?

Your second part deals with an 1113 filing. Your one way or another is not entirely correct. You could be invite a work stoppage or something. That is a dangerous game to be played.

>>With all the cuts other companies have been making CO now has one of the higher labor costs out there. <<

Absolutly an incorrect statement.

>>Oh but that is all company BS, a ruse on the part of upper management to dupe us lowly employees so they can get all their secret bonuses in 2006. <<

Nothing secret about it. They have openly told the unions and rank and file they will reinstate their bonus programs in 2006. Reprehensible in my opinion while others are being asked to continue their sacrifice.

>>In fact I bet they are planning and scheming right now about the next round of scare tactics <<

Like yesterdays announcement.

>>and cuts so they can make even more bonus money off the backs of labor.<<

As was in the past? How much of the sweat equity has been repaid to the rank and file?

>>The price of oil is really at 34 bucks a barrel, the ticket prices really are a lot higher, and the money is pouring in. They (managment) have cleaverly been able to hide the truth from everybody, lining thier pockets with your money while you have to take a cut. <<

Maybe you can answer the question smart guy. When costs continue to rise, should the employees continue to subsidze increased costs? Or are you one of the foolish ones that think nothing further will increase?

>>Before you are so quick to jump on the scare tactics bandwagon pick up a paper and read about Bernard Ebbers conviction on all nine counts. <<

Different animal.

>>The day of filing false reports are over. So Mulder what you saying is the following is all a fabrication by the shadow managment lead by smoking man?<<

10K's can say anything they want. The plan for management could change tommorrow and they file an amended one. BFD.
 
ContnlEliteCMH
Posts: 1385
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:19 am

RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:08 am

Quoting EWR757 (Reply 23):
CMH, don't forget that those figures include money for the CPA at XJET. I'd like to see CO's stand alone losses without cash going to XJET to support heir operations (like the fuel subsidy). Also, this period is historically a money losing time of the year anyway. Not that makes it right, but I don't think CO was ever profitable in Feb. or Jan, (along with most other carriers).

I am glad we have kept the amenities on board. I feel it is the little things people remember that will keep them coming back. I think staying on a full service, high class operation will set us apart from the others.

Thank you again for your business. If I remember correctly, you said you were a frequent flier on CO.

I am a frequent flyer. My probable schedule this year will include about 45 round trips between CMH and ATL. As I have noted in other threads, the issue is not how much I'm willing to pay per trip. It's that I'm going to spend between $10k and $15k on airfare this year. The only question is "Who's going to get my money?"

This is the issue I think too many people miss. I fly CO even though I have to transfer, when I could fly Delta with no stops. I fly CO even though it adds at least four full hours to each round trip. So why do I fly them? Because the customer experience is consistently the best out there. I love the full-service model. I love the food in first class, when I get upgraded. I love boarding the plane first. I love the Elite desk. And I love the FF rewards, which are hands-down the richest in the industry. I book my airfare long in advance, and I just pay whatever it costs. THAT'S customer loyalty.

You're right about ExpressJet. I think those guys should be veeeeery nervous when contract time comes around. They have too many RJ's, and are too dependent upon one airline who happens to be the sole reason they are profitable. Think their present fee-for-departure PLUS fuel subsidy will continue? Not on your life. But, that doesn't help CO in the here-and-now.

I agree with you: CO should NOT cut the amenities. And I am still waiting to hear from others how they are going to get savings even worth $1 million per day by "cutting amenities." Know what I think? Not a single one of them will ever come up with such suggestions, because they don't exist. Pillows, food, and magazines indeed! Pah! Mental midgetry at its finest!
Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
 
Falcon84
Posts: 13775
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:52 am

RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:09 am

Nice to see you respond to other, Ewr757. What you say is totally garbage, in my humble opinion, but I'm glad to see you take on the subject.

When you guys turn down this agreement, layoffs WILL come; fleet reduction WILL come, banruptcy MIGHT come; and you WILL, one way or another, have to take a paycut. That's the reality. You can ignore it, and you do a fine job of it, but it's at your own peril, sir.

All that is coming, so better get your head out of the sand real soon.
Work Right, Fly Hard
 
ewr757
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2000 8:47 am

RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:18 am

Falcon

>>Like I should REWARD someone like you for screwing around with our future? Riight. 25B looks mighty good for you right now.<<

It's not a reward. It is a common courtesy. Something you obviuosly do not have the integrity or maturity to understand. But if you want to play games, be sure you provide me with a hard copy of the accuload and pdc. Do not expect to pass anyhting through the window for your on time. Better not close that door before checking with the Captain. I also might add that should I see you walk away from the jetway prior to my push, expect to get written up. How is that? Is this the type of environment you obviously condone?

You have some real personal problems if you think the assignement of a seat is a way to make you feel better. Like I said, get a life.

>>Hey EWR757, stop fixating on me, pal, and read what a fellow employee like 777gk is saying. Stop fixating on me, and look at what elite members like WhiskeyHotel and ContinentalEliteCMH are saying:<<

I have replied to them Unfortunatley for you, your stunning ignorance merits a reply. Speaking of fixating, it is funny that most of your other posts are laced with my name when you try to make another foolish point. I guess you operate under the do as I say not as I do principle right? Who is fixating again?

>>they're saying what I am saying, but you ignore them: that you don't get it; that you are going to be the reason CO could be in trouble-not management, not those of us who may not like the paycuts, but who know their necessary-it's you, and your arrogant, self-centered, short-sighted attitude.<<

777gk is one of my peers. Unlike you, I do not berate him for his opinion. You however are obviously not in the same work group. Yet you continue to mouth off about your opinions on what we should do about OUR contract. Expect further comments from me as long as you continue your smear campaign. Don't like it? Tough.

>>When your pay is cut even further, and, one way or another, it will be, don't bitch to us on here, because, well, we told ya' so<<

I don't recall bitching. However, I do recall you continually bitching. If they decide to cut pay further I feel things would get very ugly around here. Go fly USAIR and see how things are working out over there with that mentality.

Can't answer those questions from before can you? Funny, you have a opinion on everything but the facts.

[Edited 2005-03-16 18:20:31]
 
ContnlEliteCMH
Posts: 1385
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:19 am

RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:20 am

Quoting 777gk (Reply 45):
To put it briefly, our leadership is a group of competent professionals. Cuts to our product would ultimately lead to a loss of the revenue premium and consequentially larger cuts in pay and benefits. I'd rather take something relatively cut-and-dried (i.e. the latest reduction package) than vote no and risk a deteriorating situation demanding even more out of my paycheck further down the road, and worse, the loss of the jobs of my colleagues becoming essential for the carrier's survival.

Right on! I'm going to add you and a few others in this thread to my RR list. This customer thinks that (a) one or majors is going to fold, resulting in a reduction of capacity, and (b) that customer loyalty is the only thing that will help with a return to profitability.

I encourage all of you to do what is necessary, now. I think that this is a particularly stormy period in yield for airlines, and like all "particular" periods, it will change. They always do. CO's return to profitability is predicated upon survival of the present storm and retention of its loyal customer base. Perhaps some of you have trouble seeing that loyal base because you're on the inside, but I can see it just on this forum. You may be on your way to the largest loyal customer base of any airline except maybe AA (which is just so large).

RR's to:

Falcon84: You're a little rough, but I agree with nearly everything you say. You and I share the same philosophies.

EWR757: You're a man of good conscience, and I respect that. I don't agree with many things you say, but I do appreciate your position.

777gk: I think you've got the right spin on this airline. Don't cut the amenities. It's a death sentence because like another poster said, I always take the path of most benefit, and if CO looks like Delta, smells like Delta, and feels like Delta -- I'm going Delta.
Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
 
ewr757
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2000 8:47 am

RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:26 am

CMH

>>EWR757: You're a man of good conscience, and I respect that. I don't agree with many things you say, but I do appreciate your position.<<

Not a problem. I understand and respect another opinion. I appreciate a good discussion to view the other sides of the equation. I don't think I have ever tried to tell what others should do. I am only passing my opinion on my conclusions of what I see.

>>You're right about ExpressJet. I think those guys should be veeeeery nervous when contract time comes around. They have too many RJ's, and are too dependent upon one airline who happens to be the sole reason they are profitable. Think their present fee-for-departure PLUS fuel subsidy will continue? Not on your life. But, that doesn't help CO in the here-and-now. <<

I think it is only a matter of time before the CPA and their CBA are both renegotiated. You're right about the here and now, my point is why throw money at a non labor CASM problem until things like you have very astutely mentioned are fixed? My view is the long term problems are not solved.

>>I agree with you: CO should NOT cut the amenities. And I am still waiting to hear from others how they are going to get savings even worth $1 million per day by "cutting amenities." Know what I think? Not a single one of them will ever come up with such suggestions, because they don't exist. Pillows, food, and magazines indeed! Pah! Mental midgetry at its finest!<<

Agreed. this stuff is small change yet plays big on the class and caliber of my airline. I hope the beancounters don't get to shortsighted here.


>>and I just pay whatever it costs. THAT'S customer loyalty.<<

Again, my thanks for your business. I really mean that. Aside from all this labor/management crap.....the bottom line is you ...the customer.
 
CALMSP
Posts: 3292
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:29 am

were lucky we didnt lay off in OCT/NOV/DEC.....like they had planned....needless to say..and NWAFA....1 hour lunch 2 15min. brakes? are you kidding me? how about no 15 min breaks, and no hour lunch...how about 16 hour days loading 400 bags to LIMA with no break. What do FA's do when they reach the outstation on a turn....they sit in first class seats talking on the phone telling cleaners to hurry up....they wont even think of helping other co-workers fold blankets or put pillows in the overheads. I'm just curious as to what is very demanding of an FA?
 
COEWR787
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 12:35 pm

RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:29 am

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 52):
I am a frequent flyer. My probable schedule this year will include about 45 round trips between CMH and ATL. As I have noted in other threads, the issue is not how much I'm willing to pay per trip. It's that I'm going to spend between $10k and $15k on airfare this year. The only question is "Who's going to get my money?"

That is very well put CMH. When UA downgraded its on board service I moved a considerable part of my business over to CO. If CO downgrades its service I won't have any particular reason to choose CO over UA. I still hold Elite status at UA in addition to being Elite in OnePass. If CO continues with its quality on board service it is very likely that next year I would cease to have Elite status at UA, and that would not be because I will be flying less overall  Smile . OTOH if CO on board service has nothing to differentiate it from UA or the others, CO will most likely not get the balance of my business. I know I am small potatoes and probably will bring only an additional $10K or so (over and above the current $10K or so). But that is $10K more than what would go CO's way if I did not make the changes. So if anyone believes that the on board service provided by CO today does not matter and therefore downgrades them to match UA to save someone's salary, it is very likely that there will be much less of salary to worry about in very short order.
 
wbmech
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 12:02 am

RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:41 am

ANNOYEDFA,

What paycut are FA's taking? I have seen your proposal and your base pay remains the same. The only money being taken that affects everyone is your per diem if 10 cents domestic and 25 cents international. As a mattter of fact you are receiving two 2% raises which mnay may consider a pay raise written into your contract. Seems to me that the FA's got the best deal out of all three unions.
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15747
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:56 am

Not one pilot on the property today would lose their job if they parked the 24 735's.

How do you figure? Please elaborate on this one, since I'm confused about how you arrived at this conclusion.

We're all professionals, here. We're all intelligent people. So let's look at the facts - your reply is:

  • No one wants to take a pay or benefit cut


  • Ok, so assume you don't accept the tentative agreements. CO is forced to shrink, jobs are lost - and they STILL come after you for a cut, but a bigger one this time.


    So assume now that CO is smaller, a few hundred employees have been furloughed, and the company is still coming after you for a cut, but now it's around $800M total. Your reply again, is:

  • No one wants to take a pay or benefit cut


  • Ok - but CO still wants it, and can now show a bankruptcy judge that their existing contracts make it impossible for them to cover expenses going forward.

    They file Chapter 11 - causing some customers to book away from CO, meaning even MORE cuts will be necessary - and STILL come at you for even BIGGER cuts than even the $800M.


    So - the question isn't "Will we accept a paycut?" but "HOW will we accept a paycut - by agreement or by force - and how much will it be?"

    One way or another, this WILL happen. Either give in to $500M now, or a LOT more down the line, taking CO's reputation and a few hundred employees down in the process.

    The choice is yours.
    "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

    Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
     
    CALMSP
    Posts: 3292
    Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 3:01 am

    I for sure was very surprised to hear that the FAs could keep their base pay. They for certain will get the best deal if this is true. Big fricken deal on your per diem.....I dont get a per diem when I work.....its called bring a sack lunch.
    (speaking domestically here, not long hauls)
     
    ContnlEliteCMH
    Posts: 1385
    Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:19 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 3:09 am

    Quoting NWAFA (Reply 20):
    Why should employees take paycuts instead of looking at other ways to save money?

    They shouldn't -- if you can get all the savings you require elsewhere AND the present pay rates for your employees are not substantially higher than what the free market would bear for your job. See, that second part is where I differ with so many pilots and FA's. You want to straddle the fence. You want to avoid the free market through your collective bargaining, but you want to hold your employer to a set of free market standards. You want your pay to be based on some mythical standard that exists only in your mind as to what is "fair" instead of how all the rest of do it: by what the market bears. One standard for you; another for them.

    You can always get another job. This is NOT a cavalier nor cliche statement. It's God's gospel truth. One year ago in April, I quit a perfectly good job because I was fed up and because I thought I was underpaid compared to the free market. *I* made the change and took the risks. Now *I* bear the rewards. By the way, this same courage and action is what will allow me to dump $10k to $15k to Continental's revenue this year. So the selfsame advice I give to you, followed by me, has actually helped to pay all FA's.

    Quoting NWAFA (Reply 20):
    Are you aware, that every time an airline employee that has taken a pay cut, that when passengers board and fly that the EMPLOYEE is paying for that passengers to go to Aunt Dots home in MIA / KMIA), USA - Florida">MIA?

    I wasn't aware of this -- because it's total poppycock. Funny, but I'm not aware of any payment you have made to me for the travel which I purchase on your airline. (I know you work for a competitor; run with me here and pretend that you do.)

    Let's see... My present Q-class round trip is $284.80.

    Amount of $284.80 of Dave's money that went to his ticket: $284.80.
    Amount of $285.80 of YOUR money that went to Dave's ticket: $0.

    Hmmmmm. This isn't looking good for you.

    Percentage of Dave's airfare paid by Dave: 100%.
    Percentage of Dave's airfare paid by you: 0%.

    Oops. It's getting worse.

    Amount of revenue I contribued to your employer's bottom line with this ticket: $284.80.
    Amount of revenue you contributed to your employer's bottom line with this ticket: $0.

    See, you're doing it again. You want customers and your employer to operate in the free market, but you want to be exempt from it. To justify these obviously irreconcilable and contradictory positions, you make up meaningless claptrap like "Do you realize that *I* am paying for YOUR ticket?"

    Do you realize that everytime I buy a ticket on your airline, *I* am paying *your* salary?

    [Edited 2005-03-16 19:12:10]
    Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
     
    ewr757
    Posts: 356
    Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2000 8:47 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 3:37 am

    EA

    >>Please elaborate on this one, since I'm confused about how you arrived at this conclusion<<


    Reply 29: For Falcon

    "But let's talk facts, (even though you will ignore them anyway). 24 735's at a crewing of 6.2 pilots per aircraft works out to 149 pilots. There are 160 retirements for 2005 along with 112 (so far) taking the early out still leaving a short staffing situation on paper. Parking the 735's will have no effect on pilot future staffing. Further, the aircraft they are threateniing to cancel have not been bid on yet. From a staffing perspective, it is not an issue. Not one pilot would lose their job as a result of this."

    Basically due to retirements and very short staffing, not one pilot on property today would be affected with this 735 threat.

    Were the rest directed at me?
     
    User avatar
    EA CO AS
    Posts: 15747
    Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 3:48 am

    Basically due to retirements and very short staffing, not one pilot on property today would be affected with this 735 threat.

    Thanks for the clarification; I'd overlooked your previous post.

    How do you propose avoiding furloughs for the OTHER employees affected by the 735 fleet being sold, though - such as the rampers, agents and flight attendants who will be let go as a result?

    Or are they "collateral damage" in the war to avoid paycuts?
    "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

    Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
     
    ewr757
    Posts: 356
    Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2000 8:47 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 3:53 am

    >>How do you propose avoiding furloughs for the OTHER employees affected by the 735 fleet being sold, though - such as the rampers, agents and flight attendants who will be let go as a result?<<

    Several points I mentioned earlier. I think the time would be absorbed by increasing utilization of other airframes. I also do not believe CO wants to give up market share. That being said however, if the airplanes are too costly and can not make a profit they need to go period. We are not in this business to create jobs, but to make money. Yes, I know that is harsh but making money is the priority.

    Also, it is not the employees fault management signed leases that make the aircraft unprofitable.

    >>Or are they "collateral damage" in the war to avoid paycuts?<<

    See above.
     
    User avatar
    EA CO AS
    Posts: 15747
    Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 3:55 am

    We are not in this business to create jobs, but to make money. Yes, I know that is harsh but making money is the priority.

    Isn't the tentative agreement a way to do both, however?
    "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

    Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
     
    ANNOYEDFA
    Posts: 441
    Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:16 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:02 am

    CALMSP: You MUST BE KIDDING ME! Aside from not being paid for nearly HALF the damn work we all do! NOW my JOB IS EASY?!?!? Your friend's are just lazy then. I work my a$$ off and to compensate for the time I am not getting paid I usually fly well over 100 hours a month. Probably over 200 hours with your type of job and actually getting paid for everything you do. I would never EVER say one airline job is easier then the other and I am very insulted one of my co-workers would say something like that. I know me and my friend's sitting with me right now couldn't handle the ramp but I bet you couldn't handle the pettiness from the passenger's or even the harassment for one good hour let alone hundreds month after month.  indifferent 

    WBMech: It's everything else that adds up. Such as for training day's where we train for over 8 hours and get paid for 4. Now they want to bring it down to 2.5. It's enough we don't get paid for the whole day now they want us to get paid for half. Cut's from per diem? O.K. And what do we eat then? The per diem doesn't cover the food that I eat SO right there my expense money is not enough. Aside from the fact I don't get paid until the door is closed on the aircraft. Who is boarding, stowing, and serving while the door is open. The Flight Attendant's! When you are at work for a 8 hour shift do you get paid for the full 8 hour's?... YES YOU DO! Guess what? I don't tomorrow I have a 10 hour duty day for which I am getting paid for nearly half. I am not doing the same amount of work for less money. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

    Oh and for everyone to say for us to figure out where the cut's should come from.... Sure! Just pay me to do it. Until then management can do it.  bomb 
    "TWA... One Mission, Yours."
     
    ewr757
    Posts: 356
    Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2000 8:47 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:10 am

    >>Isn't the tentative agreement a way to do both, however?<<

    In that respect are you saying I should cut my pay to hire someone off the street? That would also go against the mantra the compnay claims we are not financing new aircraft. They can't have the argument both ways.
     
    NWAFA
    Posts: 1843
    Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 10:30 pm

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:10 am

    ANNOYEDFA

    Could you imagine CALMSP working on the ramp and NOT get paid, NOPE! We as Flight Attendants give a lot to the company. May I take your coat Mr. Gold, let me help you with your Bag Grandma June, Champaign Ms. Platinum...all FOR FREE. Our pay does not begin until the breaks are released on the aircraft. Door closes, we have done an hours worth of work FOR FREE, and sit at the gate, waiting for the breaks to get released, all for free.

    Your right, CALMSP is insulting to a fellow employee...He doesn't get per diem? Well he sure has heck is getting paid for everything he is doing. The line that he doesn't get a break is just hog wash, both AMFA and IAM have there mandatory breaks, so who is trying to kid who.
    THANK YOU FOR FLYING NORTHWEST AIRLINES, WE TRULY APPRECIATE YOUR BUSINESS!
     
    ContnlEliteCMH
    Posts: 1385
    Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:19 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:22 am

    Quoting ANNOYEDFA (Reply 67):
    Oh and for everyone to say for us to figure out where the cut's should come from.... Sure! Just pay me to do it. Until then management can do it.

    More "pass the buck" from AnnoyedFA. So your (one of five -- you are Borg) position is now crystal clear: (1) You are overworked and underpaid at the job you willingly chose. (2) Your job is difficult (that's a laugher). (3) You don't know what cuts to make. But management does, because they get paid to know and decide, except that you will probably complain about all the cuts you want them to decide upon.

    You're some piece of work. And about your job difficulty: it IS easy. Don't say it's difficult; that's an insult to those who truly have jobs requiring great skill. Most of us could learn your job in a few days, or weeks at most, AND do it quite well. It would take you years to learn mine, the pilot's, or the high-level execs in your company. And don't give me the standard FA bunk about "we are trained safety personnel." Yes, you are trained safety personnel, but that is not exactly difficult knowledge or skills to attain. Heck, I'm trained safety personnel, because if the aircraft goes down, I've got my own neck to worry about just as everybody else does. And unlike the rest of us, you get trained for a skill you hope you never have to use, and probably never will use.

    Is your job important? Goodness, yes! You are the interface with the customer on board the aircraft. Very important!

    Is your job valuable? No. There's a difference, and smart people can tell the difference. It isn't as valuable as the pilot's job. It isn't as valuable as the engineer's job. It isn't as valuable as the mechanics job. It isn't as valuable as the CEO's job. Why? It's not difficult. It has little responsibility with regard to long-term impact on the company's existence. And there are a ton of people with no experience or education who can be easily trained to do it. If you make a mistake, somebody gets angry. If a pilot, mechanic, or CEO makes a mistake, the penalty is much larger.

    Does this mean I, and other customers, don't appreciate what you do? No. But I don't pity you for one second. You CHOOSE your path; you chose to be an FA. But don't confuse necessity with value. They aren't the same. Your job is neither difficult nor high-premium. Deal with it.
    Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
     
    User avatar
    EA CO AS
    Posts: 15747
    Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:23 am

    >>Isn't the tentative agreement a way to do both, however?<<

    In that respect are you saying I should cut my pay to hire someone off the street? That would also go against the mantra the compnay claims we are not financing new aircraft. They can't have the argument both ways.


    No, I'm saying that you - and your co-workers, not just pilots - should take a small paycut to enable OTHER co-workers to keep their existing jobs and help the company grow and succeed.

    With the new growth that occurs down the line, more employees will inevitably be hired - but that's incidental. It's not a "take a paycut to hire more people" argument - that's a straw man and I think you know that.
    "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

    Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
     
    CALMSP
    Posts: 3292
    Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:23 am

    what are you talking about breaks? i cant recall the last time i sat down and had a break. you have to admit that for the amount of work that is done as a FA you get paid pretty good. my friend, she makes about 36/hr. at 6 years. i've got 4 and i'm making $12.23/hr. i'd say shes making out like a rich man.
    And ANNOYEDFA.....have you ever told a Platinum, "excuse me, but thats $100 for the extra bag, and a $100 for the changed ticket." Meanwhile, these are NYC pax, and they dont take sh!t from anyone. So you cant say that I ahvent dealt with customer service.
    You brought this argument on yourself, by saying that if you take a paycut you should be expected to do less. So what do you propose that you do? Not have to hand out food?
     
    FlyHoss
    Posts: 534
    Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:20 pm

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:25 am

    "As far as parking the 735's...sounds like a good idea. The company can't make money on them with the ridiculous lease rates in place. This announcement in my opinion is nothing more than a reaction from the company to the feedback to date. Especially with the pilots."

    Time and time again, we've been told about the high cost of these airplanes and their "iron-clad" leases (that last into 2012 and beyond). So just how can we park them? We'll still be required to make the lease payments, no?

    Or is that we don't lease all of the 737-500s? I've researched it a bit in the FAA registry database and found that such is the true case. CO owns some of the -500s; are those the airplanes that would be sold, leased out or parked?

    It seems to me that there is a conflict here. I'd like to see more detailed information, so I can understand the true picture. But to insist that all the -500s are unprofitable due to high leases and then threaten to park them is inconsistent, to say the least. What's the real story? We don't have enough information to know, in my opinion.

    I fly the -500s often and very much enjoy the airplane; I'm sickened that it's getting a "bum rap" due to the cost of the leases. Like many other employees, I wondered why we wanted them (at that time) over more -300s.
    A little bit louder now, a lil bit louder now...
     
    NWAFA
    Posts: 1843
    Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 10:30 pm

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:27 am

    It is always so nice to see people put other people down for their Cont'l Elite in Colmbus makes one better and smarter than anyone else.

    But then, I would never want to tear someone down or make them feel bad about what they do.

    ANNOYEDFA,

    Im guessing a silver, what do you think?

    [Edited 2005-03-16 20:27:28]
    THANK YOU FOR FLYING NORTHWEST AIRLINES, WE TRULY APPRECIATE YOUR BUSINESS!
     
    ewr757
    Posts: 356
    Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2000 8:47 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:28 am

    >>No, I'm saying that you - and your co-workers, not just pilots - should take a small paycut to enable OTHER co-workers to keep their existing jobs and help the company grow and succeed.<<

    The company can not grow and succeed with aircraft that are not cost effective. Management can not expect employees to subsidize non labor CASM costs wether it be oil, leases taxes etc. etc.

    As far as exisiting jobs, do you not agree with increased utilization or market share protection absorbing jobs?

    We're not running a charity here.

    >>that's a straw man and I think you know that.<<

    ???????????
     
    User avatar
    EA CO AS
    Posts: 15747
    Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:30 am

    Flyhoss,

    There is no conflict - CO isn't threatening to park the 735 fleet, but to sublease them to other companies who can make profitable use of them:

    * Subleasing or selling 24 Boeing 737-500 aircraft
    -- As part of its contingency planning, Continental has engaged
    aircraft broker Focus Aviation to market these aircraft.
    -- The 737-500 aircraft has relatively few seats compared to
    Continental's other mainline aircraft and has become less
    attractive to operate in a low-fare environment.


    CO is on the hook for them, but if they sublease them to others who pay enough to cover the leases, CO doesn't lose money - but loses the use of the aircraft.

    Hence job cuts.
    "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

    Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
     
    ewr757
    Posts: 356
    Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2000 8:47 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:34 am

    >>CO is on the hook for them, but if they sublease them to others who pay enough to cover the leases, CO doesn't lose money - but loses the use of the aircraft.<<

    Flawed thinking there. If we can't make money on the lease rates, you're saying another carrier will pay higher rates to us to cover our costs and they can make money?

    Does anybody want to bet CO will replace these with EMB190's converting orders from XJET on the 145's?

    Maybe a little leverage with GE about future engine orders. People, think outside the box here!!
     
    FlyHoss
    Posts: 534
    Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:20 pm

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:44 am

    EA CO AS
    Thanks for the response. I don't think I made my point with you, though, so I'll try again.
    By "park" I meant that CO would not fly the airplanes, sort of a generic term for just not using them anymore. But you're right that I could have been clearer about that point.
    However, I've been told, on many occasions, that our -500s are on "iron-clad" leases and that includes a prohibition against sub-leasing those airplanes to other operators. I haven't ever seen one of our leases (to verify that) but I was told that by more than one CO Officer.
    Furthermore, if those leases really are so high, what operator would want to, or could afford to, sub-lease them?
    So, we would eliminate the owned 737-500s, leaving us with the high-cost leased airplanes. Wouldn't this action raise the average cost of the 737 fleet? That seems counterproductive to me.
    If we can't make money flying 737-500s, ultimately we must get rid of them. It's just another aspect of trying to stay in business. Perhaps it would be prudent to replace them with something else, like ERJ-170s or -190s.
    A little bit louder now, a lil bit louder now...
     
    CALMSP
    Posts: 3292
    Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:46 am

    i would like to see the 170s come aboard. although i heard that the nickname is "180"....everytime they leave the gate they havbe to come back for some sort of MX
     
    n757kw
    Posts: 448
    Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 3:08 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 4:59 am

    What I find interesting is that not much has been provided on what CO or any other carrier can do to make a profit.

    It seems that every airline management wants it's employees to make $8 an hour.

    So, may real question here is, over time how can an airline make a profit? Remember you can not raise prices because you just can't do that unless all other carriers go along with your rate increase

    I have no real solutions other than raise fares. I think it is high time for CEOs to start looking outside of the box.

    N757KW
    "What we've got here, is failure to communicate." from Cool Hand Luke
     
    wbmech
    Posts: 121
    Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 12:02 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 5:08 am

    ANNOYED FA,

    You and all the flight attendants get paid for the time you are on the plane. Why do you think your hourly pay rate is so high? Your 5 hours pay for a 10 hour duty day comes out to be appr. $250, $25/hr for people who punch a clock. You are still well compensated for what you do and are responsible for. Perhaps you should get paid from check-in to checkout, punch a clock on both ends and take a 75% cut in pay. Then you will paid like any other employee. Exactly what you are worth, around $15 to $20 an hour. If you itemize deductions you can itemize the difference of our per diem to what the gov't prints for the per diem rates at the cities you stay at. This gives you a big tax break making up for any decrease in per diem pay. Also you go to recurrent training 2 day per year, that is a very small cut.
     
    sprxUSA
    Posts: 421
    Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 5:17 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 5:11 am

    Didn't look thru all replies, but here's my twocents :

    1. Where is Frank Lorenzo when you need him?  sarcastic 
    2. How much is the management team at CO willing to give back?

    As has been mentioned, I hope it is scare tactics that all airlines seem to have a proficiency in.
    Gem State Airlines..."we have a gem of an airline"
     
    User avatar
    EA CO AS
    Posts: 15747
    Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 5:16 am

    >>CO is on the hook for them, but if they sublease them to others who pay enough to cover the leases, CO doesn't lose money - but loses the use of the aircraft.<<

    Flawed thinking there. If we can't make money on the lease rates, you're saying another carrier will pay higher rates to us to cover our costs and they can make money?


    This isn't about covering the costs entirely, but minimizing the loss.

    Assume the lease rate is $100K/mo, just for sake of argument - but CO only makes $50K a month in revenue for those flights. Big loss, right?

    Well if they can find a company willing to take the planes for a lease rate of $85K a month, it's still a loss for CO, but a far SMALLER one than they would have otherwise absorbed - just $15K vs. $50K.
    "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

    Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
     
    User avatar
    EA CO AS
    Posts: 15747
    Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 5:27 am

    So, we would eliminate the owned 737-500s, leaving us with the high-cost leased airplanes. Wouldn't this action raise the average cost of the 737 fleet?

    Not when you consider that the remaining leased aircraft have a much higher average utilization, lower overall CASM and actually make money for the company.

    So it's actually the other way around - the 735 fleet actually acts like an anchor, dragging down the overall CASM of the total narrowbody fleet.
    "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

    Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
     
    FlyHoss
    Posts: 534
    Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:20 pm

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 5:42 am

    N757KW wrote, "So, may real question here is, over time how can an airline make a profit?" An excellent question and most appropriate.
    Southwest (WN) is the most consistently profitable carrier out there, so let's examine their cost structure, shall we?
    However, other than the pilot pay, I don't really know what they are! Are they competitive?
    The top pilot pay rate is $178/hr, considerably more than CO pays for the same airplanes (737-300, -500, -700) today, before concessions ($158.25/hr for the small narrow body Boeings (-300, -500, -700).
    That's just one example, but how does WN do it? Far less "overhead" for one, I believe.
    But CO has more fleet types and wide spread international operations, so a direct comparison isn't totally valid, either.
    I do think CO needs to keep looking within for more cuts. I've suggested several cost reductions, yet none have been implemented. I think much of the anger stems from just that; when announcing the concessions request, CO said that they had already exhausted the non-labor cost savings, and that's very clearly NOT the case.
    A little bit louder now, a lil bit louder now...
     
    FlyHoss
    Posts: 534
    Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 12:20 pm

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 5:55 am

    EA CO AS,
    "Not when you consider that the remaining leased aircraft have a much higher average utilization, lower overall CASM and actually make money for the company."
    So if CO eliminates 38% of the -500 fleet, they'll increase the flying with other 737s to cover that fleet loss? Then with that increased utilization, where are the job losses? Increased utilization means more and/or longer flights, meaning more maintenance is required, more pilots, more FAs, more dispatchers, etc. More flights means more ramp and gate agents, too. If the "lost" planes are covered with flying done by the rest of the fleet, the job losses would be negligible.
    And if that can be done (and done profitably), why not do it anyway?
    Sorry, but you're way off here, when you wrote, "So it's actually the other way around - the 735 fleet actually acts like an anchor, dragging down the overall CASM of the total narrowbody fleet." Wrong, wrong, wrong - at least according to Gordon Bethune who told me that the -500s have the HIGHEST CASM in the fleet. That follows with the general rule of thumb, too - the larger the plane, the lower the CASM.
    A little bit louder now, a lil bit louder now...
     
    User avatar
    EA CO AS
    Posts: 15747
    Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:17 am

    So if CO eliminates 38% of the -500 fleet, they'll increase the flying with other 737s to cover that fleet loss? Then with that increased utilization, where are the job losses?

    I think you misunderstood what I wrote. The other 737s already HAVE increased utilization than the 735 fleet does - the 735s fly lower amounts of block hours per day on average than the rest of the fleet does, meaning they're already less productive on a unit-for-unit basis.

    Then when you factor in the disproportionately high lease rates vs. other narrowbodies in the fleet, along with the much smaller number of seats on the 735 - well, you get the idea. It's NOT a productivity machine.

    Sorry, but you're way off here, when you wrote, "So it's actually the other way around - the 735 fleet actually acts like an anchor, dragging down the overall CASM of the total narrowbody fleet." Wrong, wrong, wrong - at least according to Gordon Bethune who told me that the -500s have the HIGHEST CASM in the fleet.

    Sorry about that; when I said "drags down" I meant that it has a negative effect on overall CASM - in other words, it makes CASM go up. I probably should have used different verbiage, as I can see where it sounded wrong the way I'd phrased it.

    [Edited 2005-03-16 22:20:16]
    "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

    Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
     
    ContnlEliteCMH
    Posts: 1385
    Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:19 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:21 am

    Quoting NWAFA (Reply 74):
    It is always so nice to see people put other people down for their Cont'l Elite in Colmbus makes one better and smarter than anyone else.

    But then, I would never want to tear someone down or make them feel bad about what they do.

    ANNOYEDFA,

    Im guessing a silver, what do you think?

    Nice try. If my assessment of the skills and value of a flight attendants makes you "feel bad," then perhaps you should work on your ability to separate head from heart. If getting shown that your statements are tomfoolery makes you "feel bad," then perhaps you should put a bit more thought into them before you make them. I have found that people who want others to think their largely unskilled job is difficult have never really done anything difficult, because when you have, you know the difference.

    Do you have any *substantive* objections to what I've said? If so, I'm pleased to hear them. If you can prove that I'm wrong, please do so.

    What you fail to realize is that those of us making large sums of money didn't always make large sums of money. My first job was frying chicken in a KFC competitor. I made $3.35/hour, and I worked a looooot harder than you do as an FA, I guarantee. The work was nasty, the environment was hostile, and you went home every day tired and wet. I did that for three summers, and all of that money went toward my college tuition. Fast food is, by far, the hardest work I have ever done, in terms of the job intensity.

    I have flipped burgers at McDonald's. I have made sandwiches at Subway. I have tutored calculus students at tOSU. I have worked union labor in a steel mill (a job which paid 3x what the fried chicken job did, but the work was much, much easier but more highly skilled). I spent three years setting up computer training classrooms, installing software and crawling around on the floor to keep the facilities working. I have been an employee as a consulting software engineer. Now I own the consulting company doing the same thing.

    AT NO TIME did I *ever* complain that I was "underpaid" or that my job was "difficult." I knew better. Frying chicken is not difficult because it requires no skill and you can be trained to do it in two days. I made a fraction of what the manager made, who made a fraction of what the owner pulled down. Was this unjust? No. Did I "feel bad" because I made less money and realized my job was easier? Of course not.

    I said to myself, "Self, you don't make much money because you don't have any skills, and because your job is easy." It was true then; it's true now. I also said, "Self, you need to work hard to increase your skill to tackle more difficult work, and focus on work with much higher value."

    Guess what? I'm not nearly the highest-paid consultant on the floor at my client. Not even close. Is what I do important? Yup, probably as important as what the top dollar guy does. Is it as valuable? Hardly. Do I "feel bad" because of what I do? No. It's a matter of correct perspective.

    Grow up. Feel free to tell me what it is about an FA that is so skilled, because I fail to see it.

    Oh, and I've flown nearly 100 segments on Continental since last October. You do the math, if it's not too much work.
    Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
     
    ewr757
    Posts: 356
    Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2000 8:47 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:51 am

    EA

    >>This isn't about covering the costs entirely, but minimizing the loss.<<

    We should increase utilization on them

    >>Assume the lease rate is $100K/mo, just for sake of argument - but CO only makes $50K a month in revenue for those flights. Big loss, right?

    Well if they can find a company willing to take the planes for a lease rate of $85K a month, it's still a loss for CO, but a far SMALLER one than they would have otherwise absorbed - just $15K vs. $50K.<<

    I see what you are saying but by not having access to the exact numbers or the deal we could talk about this until the cows come home. I have heard that CO pays $175K per month for the aircraft. Nearly double than other carriers. Honestly, it is not my problem they are making someone rich by a lease deal that couldn't make mney from day 1.

    I think there is more going on behind the scenes than presented. Blaming the employees is a very handy way to brow beat people into this TA. Post 31 by Tommyboy is an extremely accurate view this entire announcement. One viewed by many people.
     
    ContnlEliteCMH
    Posts: 1385
    Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:19 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:56 am

    Quoting EWR757 (Reply 89):
    I think there is more going on behind the scenes than presented.

    What, exactly, do you think this is?
    Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
     
    User avatar
    EA CO AS
    Posts: 15747
    Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:18 am

    >>This isn't about covering the costs entirely, but minimizing the loss.<<

    We should increase utilization on them.


    Ok, fine - meaning fly more segments per day with them - but that means hiring more people, and CO can't afford to if costs remain the same.

    So we're back to square one. CO needs some cuts to keep the fleet and/or expand.

    Yes, it sucks, but the tentative agreement option sucks less than the other two - shrinking or getting cuts via Chapter 11.
    "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

    Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
     
    ewr757
    Posts: 356
    Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2000 8:47 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:28 am

    CMH

    >>What, exactly, do you think this is?<<


    I could only guess there is pressure being applied to GE about future engine orders as compared to keeping the leases presently on these. I would bet there is some talking going on about converting 145 ordes for 190's and pressuring the leaseholders to make a deal. All specualtion but there have been a lot of rumors floating around.

    >>Ok, fine - meaning fly more segments per day with them - but that means hiring more people, and CO can't afford to if costs remain the same.<<

    I disagree. The cost of poor utilization far outweighs a few added personnel compared to the revenue the aircraft would generate. All of your ground support people are already there. The true direct increase is in flight crews. Again the offset from the revenue increase would negate that.


    >>Yes, it sucks, but the tentative agreement option sucks less than the other two - shrinking or getting cuts via Chapter 11.<<

    An 1113 process through the bankruptcy courts is a very dangerous thing. Do you want morale to sink like it is at USAIR? Have you flown on them lately? I have. It is not a pretty picture. Don't forget that cuts in BK is not an automatic process. Up to now, no group has pulled the strike trigger from the abbrogation of their contracts.
     
    User avatar
    EA CO AS
    Posts: 15747
    Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:59 am

    An 1113 process through the bankruptcy courts is a very dangerous thing.

    I couldn't agree more! I just hope you realize that without the VOLUNTARY cuts CO wants from these tentative agreements, they'll attempt to get them INVOLUNTARILY.

    I guess that's the rub, here; you haven't yet accepted that paycuts, in one form or another, are inevitable.
    "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

    Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
     
    ewr757
    Posts: 356
    Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2000 8:47 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 8:14 am

    >>guess that's the rub, here; you haven't yet accepted that paycuts, in one form or another, are inevitable.<<

    But the masses staying on the job is not an automatic guarantee through an 1113 i.e. involintary process.

    [Edited 2005-03-17 00:15:00]
     
    CXA340
    Posts: 81
    Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 3:38 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 8:23 am

    CMH - you are now going on my respected list, because you have stated the facts quite clearly.

    I fly CO almost exclusively, I have elite status this year with them, and plan on keeping it next year. This being said, I am obviously the customer, and although AnnoyedFA and many of CO's employees that I come into contact with as a passenger seem to be unable to rationalize it, as the customer I get to dictate the yields, because I decide when to buy the ticket and at what price. What many of the airline employees posting on this forum fail to realize is that their salaries must be reasonable enough so that the average American with a median income of only aprox 25K can afford the ticket. Sorry, but that is the simple truth of the matter. If the average passenger cannot pay for enough flights to generate enough revenue to meet the company's expenses, then obviously the company's expenses are too high, and if labor is one of the few large expenses that the company can control, then changes must be made. In this case, there must be wage cuts, that's the simple truth.

    What Annoyed and a few of these employees should be asking themselves is "if I were to quite my job because the salary is to low - would someone else be willing to take it?" If the answer is yes, and the person taking the job is as equally qualified (education/experience) to perform the necessary duties of the job, then the free-market has already decided that your salary is too large. When the majority of these airport jobs do not require a four year college degree, the number of Americans able and willing to take such work becomes swelled by the millions (remember the median income is only 25k). This is what is really determining the value of your work, as important as you may want to make your role in the company seem. Except for those awful management types you love to blame, who's jobs do require college degrees and advanced professional training (and who's jobs are not as easily replaced since few managers/analysts/accountants etc are willing to work in an unstable industry such as airlines when they can find constant gainful employment elsewhere) the pilot is the only person I am going to come into contact with as a passenger who needs advanced training, displays a specialty skill, and cannot be easily replaced by another person with just a few weeks notice. The average customer service rep that you speak with over the phone has as much training time as does an airline FA or ticket agent.

    As a passenger I want to see CO make it, I have a personal vested interest in their success so I do not loose all of my miles/upgrades/privileges. However, as the passenger, I am telling you I think you make too much money, because I am not willing to buy a ticket right now at the fares offered - therefore you need to take a wage concession. If I were alone in this motto you could easily tell me to go to hell, however I am not. When you need to fill over 80% of your plane to make money, I am in the majority, and even though you may not listen to me grumble when my plane is delayed, my baggage lost, my seat dirty, or my in-flight meal non-existent, you do have to listen to me when I'm not at the airport at all, because I stayed home.
     
    User avatar
    EA CO AS
    Posts: 15747
    Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 8:42 am

    as the passenger, I am telling you I think you make too much money, because I am not willing to buy a ticket right now at the fares offered - therefore you need to take a wage concession

    Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present a textbook example of how NOT to get people to understand CO's plight and simply enrage their employees...  stirthepot 

    CXA340, no offense but you might want to consider just being a spectator in this debate, m'kay?  sarcastic 
    "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

    Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
     
    CXA340
    Posts: 81
    Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 3:38 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 8:53 am

    EA CO AS - I'm not trying "to get people to understand CO's plight", I am trying to get CO's employees understand the actions/concerns/opinions of their customers who provide for their paycheck. My concern is that CO is not profitable, and thus they need to decrease their expenses. If they can do this through means other than wage concessions that is acceptable, but it appears very tough to find $800 million in other expenses when labor is the airline's largest expense other than fuel/aircraft. If I am not willing to pay more for the ticket (and I am in the majority opinion, which it appears I am since if I wasn't CO would be profitable) then it is up to CO and its employees to either convince me to pay a higher fare, or cut their costs down low enough so they can offer me a product at a fare I am willing to pay.
     
    User avatar
    EA CO AS
    Posts: 15747
    Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:07 am

    You make the mistake of assuming that the fares are what they are solely as a result of employee pay levels, and follow that by telling their employees that "I think you make too much money."

    How would you feel if someone said that to you? Personally, I'd tell you to  censored  off.

    This isn't about telling people they make too much - it's about the fact that right now CO needs some concessions from employees to grow its way out of the problems they face currently, and attempting to get people to understand the situation.

    Telling these people they make too much money is downright insulting, and don't be surprised when some CO employees on this board - many of whom agree with the paycuts - tell you where to go and what you can do when you get there.
    "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

    Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
     
    Lemurs
    Posts: 1320
    Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:13 am

    RE: CO's Situation Without The Concessions

    Thu Mar 17, 2005 9:29 am

    I feel bad that the demands of work have kept me from joining this fray. At the same time, I feel like ContnlEliteCMH has said everything I feel and would have said myself, and better in most instances, so that's one for the Respected User list.

    I'll add this:

    I do think that workers should earn a fair share of the revenue of any corporate venture, if not even part ownership.
    I don't think executives should be rewarded unduly for simply running a company, even if they do it well. Business skills are important, but not at the cost of the health of the company you run.
    I do think that the finances should be as open as possible, so that employees and investors both can see where money is going.
    I don't think Unions always have the best long term interest for their constituents in mind. They often look more at immediate impact that could cause a Union shakeup than what is truly healthy for people's careers in the long term.
    I do think employees need to acknowledge when their part of the cost equation is harmful to their own long term interests, and accept that they need to sacrifice if they want jobs, and want their coworkers to have jobs.
    I don't think those concessions should be used for anything other than growing the business and employing more union workers, and better compensating the ones who are there.

    Finally, I do think that anyone who is unhappy with a customer service job should take responsibility for their own lives and happiness, instead of pretending it's everyone else's fault.

    What a frustrating year. Die hard NHL and CO fan...one already has fallen off the deep end, the other is barreling in that direction, and it's entirely possible neither will survive.
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.

    Popular Searches On Airliners.net

    Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

    Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

    Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

    Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

    Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

    Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

    Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

    Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

    Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

    Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

    Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

    Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

    Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

    Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

    Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos