The (mis-) management has made an absolute mess of the airline, and then they predictably blame employee costs and a challenging revenue environment. Quite literally, the airline would be far better off if the “Management” had just done nothing, which they finally realized and are currently “doing” now that action is required to fix the mess.
The interesting thing when considering how (w)bankers look at airlines is really the genesis of most of the shocking commentary that passes for analysis.
The consider the 'parts'. Not the whole.
Modern business school practice divides segments/cost centres into segmented units where costs are identified and reduced. Usually tied to performance of individuals 'making decisions'.
The thing to remember is that these 'decision makers' know little of how it all fits together, nor do they care; their bonus oftentimes depends on simply turning inwards and hacking at the cost base.
Emphasis on labour unit cost is easy work, hacking into terms and conditions is child's play.
The problem is for an airline a people centric dynamic team sport is obvious; you piss off a lot of people that ultimately when aggregated keep the whole thing going.
Labour costs are a given and the ex (w)banker authoring the article is trained as (w)bankers are. Value propositions are very much relevant, so are operating margins, but to paraphrase (badly) Herb Kelleher from South West airlines:
You can have the lowest cost airline or the highest revenue airline and still go broke. What matters is the gap between your revenue and your cost.
Real airline people understand the reality, you folk there see it everyday.
Herb built it from the ground up, he understands exactly how it all fits together.
The idiots 'in charge' do not self reflect like professional pilots do, their whole working life is about avoidance of accountability for errors. Whether they work at CX or a telecommunications company their job is unchanged; spread sheets and identify cuts.
Thanks Oasis, summed up eloquently my thinking:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
- Michael Scott