Morale a make or break issue for airlines
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morale a make or break issue for airlines
This has already been posted in another thread by Al E. Vator, but it is just too important not to have its own thread.
Source: The Australian
GREG Bamber has a simple and often ignored message for airline executives: treat your people well and it will pay dividends.
The director of research at Monash University's Department of Management argues that airlines that engage with their workers provide a better return to investors, as well as higher quality and more reliable services.
He is today releasing a book examining airline employment practices in North America, Asia, Australia and Europe.
Professor Bamber and his co-authors -- Jody Hoffer Gitell, Thomas A.Kochan and Andrew von Nordenflycht -- looked at legacy and low-cost carriers in researching Up In the Air: How Airlines Can Improve Performance by Engaging their Employees.
Teams of people based at universities around the world made case studies about airlines during the research.
"We've ... had a lot of quantitative data. We've been able to draw material from the international civil aviation authority, for example, much of which has been unpublished or not analysed in the past," Professor Bamber said.
The researchers found that where airline staff and customers reported high and rising frustration about the way they were treated this often resulted in cuts to services and staff.
Falling morale led to increased problems, such as flight delays and baggage loss, that undermined a carrier's viability.
Professor Bamber believes too many airline executives and unionists assume that adversarial industrial relations are inevitable.
He advocates instead a "virtuous circle" where more can be achieved with co-operative industrial relations.
"It's an appropriate strategy for airlines to get into and, indeed, other businesses, particularly those involved in serving customers, as many enterprises do," he said.
The Melbourne academic argues that employee relations in legacy airlines often stem from their origins.
He notes that many were founded by pilots who had been demobilised after World War I and run on military principles. He points to Lufthansa and Continental Airlines as examples of legacy carriers that have benefited from good or improving employee relations.
"Continental was very lean and mean and nasty to its employees under a previous regime and we include some detail of its transformation," he says.
"It went into bankruptcy and was relaunched with a new approach that aims to be much more engaging with its staff. It's working with its staff rather than hitting them with a battering ram and it's been much more successful in its new incarnation.
"Similarly, in Europe, Lufthansa has been more successful than, say, British Airways. Lufthansa has sought to work with its people to a greater extent. (It has) ... councils and other forms of employee participation in decision-making to a much greater extent than British Airways, which has been following a more adversarial tradition, which has been typical of the English-speaking countries."
There are also differences in the new breed of low-cost carriers typically started by flamboyant entrepreneurs.
The Monash academic points to the differences between Dublin-based Ryanair, which does not treat its employees particularly well, and US carrier Southwest. He notes that Ryanair's reputation for not treating staff or customers well has not stopped it from eating into the legacy market in Europe.
But Southwest has also prospered.
"And it treats its people very differently," he says. "It's fostered employees engagement and employee commitment and participative decision-making. It has a very partnership-oriented approach in dealing with the unions that represent its people and it's been the most consistently financially successful airline in the US since its foundation in the early 1970s.
"So they are two polar opposites -- Ryanair and Southwest."
Professor Bamber questions the extent to which the Ryanair model will be sustainable in the long run. He says customers have been annoyed and alienated, while staff are largely disgruntled. "And that might come back to bite them."
The director of research at Monash University's Department of Management argues that airlines that engage with their workers provide a better return to investors, as well as higher quality and more reliable services.
He is today releasing a book examining airline employment practices in North America, Asia, Australia and Europe.
Professor Bamber and his co-authors -- Jody Hoffer Gitell, Thomas A.Kochan and Andrew von Nordenflycht -- looked at legacy and low-cost carriers in researching Up In the Air: How Airlines Can Improve Performance by Engaging their Employees.
Teams of people based at universities around the world made case studies about airlines during the research.
"We've ... had a lot of quantitative data. We've been able to draw material from the international civil aviation authority, for example, much of which has been unpublished or not analysed in the past," Professor Bamber said.
The researchers found that where airline staff and customers reported high and rising frustration about the way they were treated this often resulted in cuts to services and staff.
Falling morale led to increased problems, such as flight delays and baggage loss, that undermined a carrier's viability.
Professor Bamber believes too many airline executives and unionists assume that adversarial industrial relations are inevitable.
He advocates instead a "virtuous circle" where more can be achieved with co-operative industrial relations.
"It's an appropriate strategy for airlines to get into and, indeed, other businesses, particularly those involved in serving customers, as many enterprises do," he said.
The Melbourne academic argues that employee relations in legacy airlines often stem from their origins.
He notes that many were founded by pilots who had been demobilised after World War I and run on military principles. He points to Lufthansa and Continental Airlines as examples of legacy carriers that have benefited from good or improving employee relations.
"Continental was very lean and mean and nasty to its employees under a previous regime and we include some detail of its transformation," he says.
"It went into bankruptcy and was relaunched with a new approach that aims to be much more engaging with its staff. It's working with its staff rather than hitting them with a battering ram and it's been much more successful in its new incarnation.
"Similarly, in Europe, Lufthansa has been more successful than, say, British Airways. Lufthansa has sought to work with its people to a greater extent. (It has) ... councils and other forms of employee participation in decision-making to a much greater extent than British Airways, which has been following a more adversarial tradition, which has been typical of the English-speaking countries."
There are also differences in the new breed of low-cost carriers typically started by flamboyant entrepreneurs.
The Monash academic points to the differences between Dublin-based Ryanair, which does not treat its employees particularly well, and US carrier Southwest. He notes that Ryanair's reputation for not treating staff or customers well has not stopped it from eating into the legacy market in Europe.
But Southwest has also prospered.
"And it treats its people very differently," he says. "It's fostered employees engagement and employee commitment and participative decision-making. It has a very partnership-oriented approach in dealing with the unions that represent its people and it's been the most consistently financially successful airline in the US since its foundation in the early 1970s.
"So they are two polar opposites -- Ryanair and Southwest."
Professor Bamber questions the extent to which the Ryanair model will be sustainable in the long run. He says customers have been annoyed and alienated, while staff are largely disgruntled. "And that might come back to bite them."
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see the blank gazes as they stand around the office water machine, at 3pm on friday (just before knockoff)
"So... I hear that morale is a good thing for business."
"MORALE?.... What is it? How much does it cost? How much will it make us?"
"Hey Brett... Google MORALE for us will you. It wasn't covered during my MBA"
"Come on Dicko... Ask Jacko again, she knows all about it."
"Tell 'em we can't afford any because of the Finance crash."
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
"So... I hear that morale is a good thing for business."
"MORALE?.... What is it? How much does it cost? How much will it make us?"
"Hey Brett... Google MORALE for us will you. It wasn't covered during my MBA"
"Come on Dicko... Ask Jacko again, she knows all about it."
"Tell 'em we can't afford any because of the Finance crash."
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There might be a link between that morale thingy and crews stopping in at the news agent to get Fridays Australian.
The people at the The Australian really do owe a lot to some airline managers!
The people at the The Australian really do owe a lot to some airline managers!
Morale
The good professor and his co-authors are correct, but part of the problem is that airline managements view of morale (and indeed morality) has changed dramatically in the past few years. It is analagous to the monkeys climbing the palm tree; the monkeys at the top looking down see smiling (perhaps grimacing) faces looking upwards, whilst the monkeys at the bottom only see @ssholes.
A cursory read of some of the threads on these pages refer to some of the problems :-
That employers see the above as being good is a major part of the problem. That a few ladder-climbers are willing to prostitute themselves for short-term gain is an additional problem.
Airline bosses seem to show no less contempt for their customers either, but the difference is customers often have a choice. Employees usually do not. I am not singling out any particular company here; with rare exceptions, they all seem to have embraced the view that employees are expensive and expendable, rather than valuable.
Thankfully Chesley Sullenberger attempted to use his brief celebrity status to publicise some of these problems, but like when CRM was introduced, those who could benefit most from his advice were not listening.
A cursory read of some of the threads on these pages refer to some of the problems :-
- bases closing, causing relocation and family stress
- jobs lost with no immediate prospect of alternative employment
- the employer view that the cost burden of training should be borne by employees
- the willingness of employees to undercut (or undermine) each other for promotion or advancement
That employers see the above as being good is a major part of the problem. That a few ladder-climbers are willing to prostitute themselves for short-term gain is an additional problem.
Airline bosses seem to show no less contempt for their customers either, but the difference is customers often have a choice. Employees usually do not. I am not singling out any particular company here; with rare exceptions, they all seem to have embraced the view that employees are expensive and expendable, rather than valuable.
Thankfully Chesley Sullenberger attempted to use his brief celebrity status to publicise some of these problems, but like when CRM was introduced, those who could benefit most from his advice were not listening.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Always changing
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what can be done about these hopeless people in charge who pay lip service at best to morale and the value of people? We are people not dollars.
This is a VBP (very big problem), is widespread, and is something that needs to be fixed. How to do it?
This is a VBP (very big problem), is widespread, and is something that needs to be fixed. How to do it?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mrpaxing that is a promising development indeed. The fact they can read is a big plus. As for some other "managers" no amount of forced education would stop them from f@rking everything they touch.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And those who live in glass houses......?
The amount of slagging of other pilot groups on these boards is horrific at times.
When Sherm was young, outfits like Singapore Airlines, Cathay and Thai were tiny, barely a blip on the Kangaroo route radar. Emirates didn't exist. Now they are giants, dominating the world. yet you don't see Qantas pilots bad-mouthing their flight decks do you? But effectively they have "cost" Qantas jobs as they have soaked up all the growth on key routes.
Yet the home grown airlines that have been at the spearhead of growth and innovation, Virgin and Jetstar in particular......are abused, vilified and derided. Pornstar, Scabstar, onestar etc etc. References to working conditions as "obscene", photographs of monkeys and peanuts etc etc. How do the posters of such drivel think that affects morale in other cockpits?
The essence of professionalism vs the trades is that professionals set their own standards, and work to high standards as though there was no regulator. And that applies to how we talk of each other too. It doesn't have to be the chummy atmosphere of the university common room or the smoking room at a gentlemen's club.....but standards are things we drive, that we uphold, that we would expect to be offered to us.
Before any of us spends more time bagging management lets be awful sure that we treat each other better than they do?
The most important part of CRM is the bit we can fix, especially those privileged to command: "SET THE TONE".
And I'll start: if I have ever used the term "Sky Gods" I apologize. I no longer share the skies with those folk but I am sure they're just a bunch of around about average joes doing their job and doing it well and with their own points of view. So be it, that's fine by me.
The amount of slagging of other pilot groups on these boards is horrific at times.
When Sherm was young, outfits like Singapore Airlines, Cathay and Thai were tiny, barely a blip on the Kangaroo route radar. Emirates didn't exist. Now they are giants, dominating the world. yet you don't see Qantas pilots bad-mouthing their flight decks do you? But effectively they have "cost" Qantas jobs as they have soaked up all the growth on key routes.
Yet the home grown airlines that have been at the spearhead of growth and innovation, Virgin and Jetstar in particular......are abused, vilified and derided. Pornstar, Scabstar, onestar etc etc. References to working conditions as "obscene", photographs of monkeys and peanuts etc etc. How do the posters of such drivel think that affects morale in other cockpits?
The essence of professionalism vs the trades is that professionals set their own standards, and work to high standards as though there was no regulator. And that applies to how we talk of each other too. It doesn't have to be the chummy atmosphere of the university common room or the smoking room at a gentlemen's club.....but standards are things we drive, that we uphold, that we would expect to be offered to us.
Before any of us spends more time bagging management lets be awful sure that we treat each other better than they do?
The most important part of CRM is the bit we can fix, especially those privileged to command: "SET THE TONE".
And I'll start: if I have ever used the term "Sky Gods" I apologize. I no longer share the skies with those folk but I am sure they're just a bunch of around about average joes doing their job and doing it well and with their own points of view. So be it, that's fine by me.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Casablanca
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are all guilty of it Sherm, however, you are correct. Everybody is on edge or distracted these days due to whats happening around the globe and at our respective employers.
Getting on pprune and making snide comments about the viability of a competing airline is just one of a number of ways some individuals can let off steam. Whether they feel threatened that their own job is on the line as a result of the other airlines expansion, or they may have been rejected by that company when they applied for a pilot position. Who knows? One things for sure, in the heat of battle we have all said things we regret.
Maybe it's time to lead a charge to be more positive about not only our own futures but the futures of all that work in the industry as we know it. I'm not a wellspring and I'm not an advocate of allot of the warm and fuzzy stuff that HR departments put out, however maybe a bit of generosity of spirit at a time like this is what we all need.
Getting on pprune and making snide comments about the viability of a competing airline is just one of a number of ways some individuals can let off steam. Whether they feel threatened that their own job is on the line as a result of the other airlines expansion, or they may have been rejected by that company when they applied for a pilot position. Who knows? One things for sure, in the heat of battle we have all said things we regret.
Maybe it's time to lead a charge to be more positive about not only our own futures but the futures of all that work in the industry as we know it. I'm not a wellspring and I'm not an advocate of allot of the warm and fuzzy stuff that HR departments put out, however maybe a bit of generosity of spirit at a time like this is what we all need.
