Letter to United

[Airbubba]

The infamous golden goose quote was from Rick "Mad Dog" Dubinsky. As many have observed, the goose ran out of eggs long ago.

United has actually started recalling furloughed pilots with classes to begin in January. Maybe they will be able to morph into a low cost carrier and survive. They have certainly led the industry in reducing wages and benefits over the past couple of years.

[airship]

Compared to some big companies in other industries, it strikes me that the United Airlines saga could someday become an outstanding example portraying "a company's struggle for survival in adversity". Where everyone involved: employees, unions, management, shareholders, bankers, government (and why not loyal passengers?) made varying sacrifices with the honest objective to keep the company intact as far as possible and the jets flying?!

That'll be small consolation for those who will have to rely on the PBGC for their retirement income though.

At least United have not been doing anything illegal, just using measures already available to any corporation in difficulties. Both United Express and Ted appear to be serious efforts at trying to meet the competition at their own level, with a view of delaying the eventual hardship on the parents of all airlines with "legacy costs". But as a matter of interest, which "United Airlines" company actually holds the rights United took over from TWA and PanAm under Bermuda II?

And if you'd like to take a few minutes off to read about the measures some big companies in other industries might have taken recently in order to reduce their own "legacy costs", I offer Rhodiagate. It has all the ingredients of an Arthur Hailey novel, allegedly involving a conspiracy of:

- several EU governments in order to create a world-dominating pharmaceuticals giant,
- the off-loading of the "legacy liabilities" of at least one of the parties, whose operations included very "dirty" chemical plants operating in the developing / 3rd world with huge liabilities which were covered up and the new entity "spun-off",
- some of the biggest names in high-finance being "strung along",
- a Frenchman, member of the supervisory board at the time, who goes on to become the Finance Minister for his country,
- the "unexpected" death of a well-known financier whose family invested over $80 million in the spin-off, shortly after launching legal proceedings...

I might have said too much...

[Brian Abraham]

Konkordski
"Nice to know someone's prepared to write a letter which is all problem and no solution"

A little unfair i think. If he had a solution he would be running the company perhaps and not be a mere bus driver. We can all tell there is a pot hole in the rode that needs fixing but few of us have the necessary skill to do much about it other than make a phone call.

[20driver]

There is a lesson in this sad state of affairs to all of us.
For years airline pilots in NA carried on that is did not matter what the company did - we are irreplaceable and I'm all right jack. I'm no Bob Crandall fan but he pointed out that at one stretch over three years what AA paid it's pilot's in "profit" sharing was equal to the companies earnings for that period.
When the employess say "screw the shareholders" - you have to say what goes around.......... I know one AA driver who used this "profit" share to but a time share at a ski resort - told me he figured it was found money.
As Herb said - look after the employees - they look after the customers - and they look after the shareholders. Goes all the way round - but the shareholders need to be taken care of as well. Funny thing was 2-3 years back the Southwest MEC suggested voting against the company offer. The pilots were not quite so stupid (or full of themselves) and accepted. They end up being the best paid pilots in the US. Poetic justice?

[aviator]

<<<They end up being the best paid pilots in the US. Poetic justice?>>>


Maybe so.

Keep in mind that all these years the Southwest pilots have asked for "industry average" wages and chose to not ask for a pension to undercut the majors, thus giving their company a cost advantage and rapid advancement to Captain.

The trend they set was one of the factors in many (soon most) airlines ending up without a pension, and they are becoming the high cost provider of pilot services. Are they ready to "carry the water" for the ones that did it before them?

Southwest does run a good and efficient airline, but the labour cost advantage is vanishing. The fuel hedges are also, so the playing field is leveling.

What does it mean? I do not have all the answers, but it seems like labour cost can only provide so much of cost reductions. At the large airlines the pilot pay has been cut up to 50%, in addition to retirements being nearly eliminated.

It gives me no joy to see the glee ( schadenfreude) from my fellow pilots on this subject. Lets hope for better times ahead. And for the brotherhood of aviators to materialize.

[Ignition Override]

Bigmouth-the situation at United might have included those factors (possibly among many others?), but United's pilots' MEC only spoke for United's pilots. Their situation and style back then has nothing to do with those who bargained for at least average pay and benefits. Delta was also in a very unique situation-they had received almost no cost of living increases for many years. Therefore, United and Delta pilots had significant pay raises, but not so at the other US majors.
ALPA does not operate like the powerful IG-Metall in Germany, which bargains for much of the country's industrial workers (not pilots). As for their "Vereinigung C0ckp1t", I know not. But over here, each company had, in the old days, and still has a unique situation. You might not believe that the ALPA regional JET pay for First Officers, is little above US minimum wage. You might research this well-kept secret among laymen.
As the most successful US airline, Southwest has been heavily unionized for many years. As has ben stated often on this august forum, Southwest's pilots are about the highest-paid 737 aviators in the world. But the airline was one of the few to have created mostly highly-productive crew duty days, from the first day. The pilots don't have ALPA (SWAPA), but nevertheless, many of the staff are unionized, and for a long time. Without some sort of valid union, history seems to indicate that no labor group will ever earn enough respect from an airline management, allowing a job to become a true career, without both sides having the power to negotiate. Handshakes are not effective with most companies. And it is very doubtful that the airline can become successful, in the mid to long term, without flightcrews' ability to point to a written contract and have something to look forward to-in writing. What if your wife, son or daughter develops a serious medical condition and your company, having no contract for your pilots, decides to "let" you now pay a large fraction of the now-exploding insurance premiums? There must be an agreement signed by both parties (in good faith) for certain mis-interpretations to go to arbitration. Otherwise, their (your?) management will never be able to do anything except make promises and half-truths. Many companies will pay you about the salary of a large truck/lorry driver to fly a large jet, but can you count on it as a career?

And safety will probably never be a priority, unless your company is committed to spending the necessary money, canceling any flight if need be. Safety is from the top down, with support for a Captain's decisions on whether to accept an aircraft or require repairs to be made (or MELs applied: if any Pprune reader does not understand what an MEL is, then he/she knows nothing about airline flight operations). US airline history is being written at this moment, and it would be quite a turnaround if my comments can all one day be contradicted.

Aviator: Interesting observation you made about other pilots enjoying the turmoil, and even some of them see no reason why ethics, implied by contracts, which were ALL accomplished by US managements' (oft-vigorously denied) "pattern bargaining", should compel them to honor their signed, legally-binding agreements

Some of those who sneer at any negative changes for the US industry either have never worked in the US industry (other than at the Bolivar, Cotton Belt, UND or Vero Beach schools etc), or are pilots from the United States who spent most of their careers flying under contracts in other lands, enjoying the benefits and apparently competitive pay (let's not name nicknames... ). But NOW, 'they' somehow have no sympathy that US pilots, who are still active and struggling through the industry's "flak-filled skies" ("so thick you could walk on it!"), should be able to plan on anything in our contracts, which unfortunately require mangement integrity, even though we hold up our side of the bargain under circumstances which threaten unpredictable fractions of our pay (not to mention family medical/dental benefits) and careers. Many on "Rumours and News" are not even pilots, but foreign mgmt. types who were probably denied their so-called US green (white) cards or work visas years ago. Such types are only self-centered, due to short-term professional goals (stock share price and profit-sharing gains, at others' painful expense), or see themselves as simply above the unlettered serfs and other yokels who train intensely (often must also focus intensely on the job) in order to prevent their multi-million dollar machines from having major pieces (or passengers) pulverized.

For those who are pilots here but not with a major, any glee (Schadenfreude) in their views about all this is quite ironic, because the US industry's major disruptions will have both a direct and many indirect influences on where their careers can go, due to furloughed pilots who bounce over to former corporate, charter companies (even jobs with the FAA), or already after 9/11 filled up flying slots with ANG, Air Force Reserve etc, even active duty military slots. Some are hired directly into F-27 Captain jobs and many others, allowing the companies to hold back their own experienced FOs from upgrading, due to their cost-saving ability to hire a Captain at first-year pay rates. Some of the overseas types are always angry that the US will not let them work here, but there is nothing that anybody here, outside of the govt., can do about it. Personally, I wish them all good luck, wherever they find a decent flying job, or possible career opportunity.

Our industry, along with certain British airlines, should also consider outsourcing both upper and middle managements (except for very good marketing people). Not the meek, but CPAs and lawyers seem to have 'inherited the earth'. . Cost is the mantra. Are such types 'over there' often like the condescending, sniveling, yuppie Director on the English show, "Waiting for God"?
Imagine how much overhead expense they will save via outsourcing!

[Brian Abraham]

The following is an item from Aviation Week & Space Technology 3 Oct 2005 which I think germane to the discussion.

“ENDANGERED SPECIES by PIERRE SPARACO

Europe’s financial analysts and aviation experts are increasingly puzzled by the U.S. airline industry’s dire straits. They don’t understand why legacy carriers can’t adapt to a new environment, maintain workable yields and restore profitability. Moreover, Europeans are concerned to see icons like Delta Air Lines lengthening the list of airlines operating under Chapter 11 protection.

The U.S. carriers that paved the way for mature air transportation were long admired in Europe. In the aftermath of World War 11, all European flag carriers dreamed about evolving into highly respected players like Juan Trippe’s Pan American World Airways. Tiny operators tried hard to replicate Pacific Southwest Airline’s Californian success story under Kenneth Friedkins’s leadership. In the same vein, Europeans familiar with the so-called northeast corridor were impressed by Eastern Airlines’ shuttle, the ultimate progress in shorthaul travel. Much later Air Inter and British Airways adopted the same path on their busiest domestic routes.

Today, however, the unthinkable is happening and Europeans are perplexed by the course of events. U.S. rules of the game provide significantly greater freedom of action than in other regions of the world, especially Europe. Jobs can be cut as needed in the absence of political interference, labour costs are lower in the U.S. than in Europe (including pension programs) and enthusiasm for the French born shortened work week has not yet crossed the Atlantic.

U.S. carriers are currently expected to post a combined $8 – 10 billion in losses this year. High fuel prices are further worsening the outlook, as is increasingly painful air traffic congestion.

Are U.S. majors an endangered species? Are we watching them draw near the vanishing point? Since the late 1940s, air transportation’s growth has justified a constant need for additional capacity – fleets expanded and operator’s overall size increased, in accordance with good management practices. Moreover, the U.S. Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 was signed by President Jimmy Carter at the right time to bring down remaining barriers and phase out the economic regulation of the airlines by the Civil Aeronautics Board.

Operating in a nearly ideal context, the U.S. airline industry evolved into a global model and inexhaustible source of inspiration. Deregulation, initially a strictly American way of running air transportation, soon extended to the rest of the world, including the long-reluctant European Union.

Now, in sharp contrast to such great achievements, the emerging feeling is that we are, perhaps, waking up from an American dream. However, the economic reality we are facing is, as always, complex.

The airline industry, in the U.S. and elsewhere, is not and has never been consistently profitable. Costs are high and revenues usually too low, while all players suffer the effects of factors such as economic downturns, political crises and oil shocks. Giovanni Bisignani, the International Air Transport Assn.’s chief executive, likes to stress that losses in the last few years have far exceeded profits accumulated since the Wright brother’s first flight. And he is not overstating the case.

Today, however, most experts unconsciously adopt the narrow view and display a surprising lack of memory. Furthermore, the emergence of low-fare carriers in a deregulated market has exacerbated the major’s difficulties, but wakeup calls, such as Pam Am’s dramatic liquidation in 1991, have gone unheeded.

In 1993, Robert Crandall, then American Airline’s CEO, said “There is no secret about how bad the airline business is, very bad indeed. The idea that American Airlines could ultimately disappear is no longer (far -) fetched.” He made this pessimistic statement in an era when Southwest Airlines was still one of a kind, long before the appearance of aggressive new entrants like Jet-Blue Airways.

An unemotional top-to-bottom review of the airline industry could well show that the Europeans are proving more resilient because they had the opportunity to monitor U.S. experiments and developments, and so could avoid repeating the errors of Pan Am and its peers. For example, Air France-KLM is now the biggest carrier in the world and achieves superior profitability despite the low-fare carriers’ irresistible growth.

Of course, Europe is not without its lame ducks, such as Alitalia and Olympic Airlines. EasyJet, Ryanair and their imitators in the last 10 years have made forecasts obsolete, reminding us that the future in unpredictable. But that’s no consolation.

Indeed, sooner or later, a reality check will be needed. It is ironic to see that Europeans – including former flag carriers – are now largely employing the corporate structure that U.S. airlines used for decades. If the U.S. model doesn’t survive in an evolving environment, European carriers could eventually find themselves at the same crossroad.”

[AirRabbit]

Please don’t anyone take this post as anything other than what it is – purely my observation. I am not intending or attempting to “lecture” anyone. I’ve been there, done that. I’ve got both the tee shirt and the coffee cup – and I also have dollars off coupons for another ride. I’ve elected to sit –out a second opportunity, thank you.

Airlines (and almost every other legitimate enterprise – I say “legitimate” because there are some that operate under, or with, subsidies from other corporations or a government – and I’m not talking about those enterprises) operate according to the bathtub rule. By that, I mean that every business is like a bathtub. Every bathtub has a method of filling it (the spout) and emptying it (the drain). Every business has a method of “filling the bathtub” (i.e., income) and a method of “emptying the bathtub” (i.e., expenses). Each expense can be considered to be yet another “drain” to help empty the bathtub. Every source of income can be considered to be yet another “spout” to help fill the bathtub.

So, what are the potential sources of “drain,” or expenses, of an airline? Well, you and I both know that I’m not going to be able list all of those sources. However, consider the following …
1. Airplane purchase (or lease),
2. Airplane parts (like radios, radar units, engines, etc.),
3. Fuel (ahemm…) and associated delivery, storage, and disbursement fees, etc.,
4. Airport leases and fees (landing fees and lease fees for ramps, hangars, ticket counter space, baggage areas, etc.),
5. Physical facilities (other than those under airport leases),
6. Utility fees (telephone, power, water, sewage, etc.),
7. Equipment (like tables, chairs, baggage carts, computers, wrenches, hammers, airplane tugs, etc.),
8. Advertising,
9. Training (flight crewmembers, flight attendants, dispatchers, mechanics, reservationists, baggage loaders, gate agents, sales and marketing, etc.)
10. Personnel (salary and benefits – and usually the benefits cost somewhere between 80% and 150% of the individual’s salary; plus any retirement contributions)
Please, feel free to add any items to this list that I’ve overlooked.

And, what are the potential sources of “fill,” or income, of an airline? Well, how about the following …
1. Ticket sales.
Please, feel free to add any items to this list that I’ve overlooked.

The primary point of the game is to keep the bathtub full (in this analogy, the bathtub content would be MONEY – cash or other viable monetary instruments). If the level in the tub begins to get too full (has anyone ever seen that happen?) you could always increase the size of any one of the existing “drains,” or you could get artful and create any number of new “drains,” like sponsoring the annual LETS KILL CANCER telethon (which, certainly, no one could or would criticize). On the other hand if the level in the tub begins to get a bit shallow, you have one of two things you can do. Increase the “fill” or decrease the “drain.” It would be nice if you could do both at the same time. Any one who operates a business or has a family that is dependant upon the “drain” from the airline being their own bathtub “filler” is going to squawk when the airline decreases its outflow –forcing them to do the same sort of re-alignment for their own bathtub. I'll let anyone else decide if any given airline has a better shot of increasing the "fill" or decreasing one, some, all of their current "drains."

Overly simplistic? Probably. But I think you get the picture.

What can you, as an individual, do to help keep your own bathtub “liquid?” (Sorry, had to use that play-on-words) The only thing you CAN do is the very best you can at the job you were hired to do, and do it as consistently and as well as you possibly can. You can go around poking into other jobs and criticizing other folks’ job productivity or capability – but that will be to the detriment of your own job – leaving you vulnerable to the same type of criticism from still others who are poking around just like you. You can control only what you can control. If you cannot control it, all you can do is make noise about it. Of course, doing so is your right and I am certainly not going to tell you not to do that. But if you truly cannot control the decisions that are made above you in the “chain of command” (and not very many of us do) my counsel would be to watch those decisions being made, offer your input if you desire (and I wish you well with that) but, if that input falls on deaf ears, you have but three choices; continue as you have; buckle down and work harder; or seek employment elsewhere.

Believe me – I do NOT have the answer. If I did, I wouldn’t necessarily explain it in detail here, I’d run out and buy United or Delta and put my answer into action. And by the mere fact that I’m still here typing, you should recognize that I DO NOT have such a secret plan.
________
AirRabbit

[arewenearlythereyet?]

Airabbit, and your point is.... apart from the bleedin' obvious?

Thanks for the Economics 101 lecture but as you say, you don't have the answer or even a plan. Suffice it to say that we, as pilots, do buckle down, do work hard and some do even leave.

Perhaps the answer is in getting the 'sociopaths' at the helm to be more liable for the results of their decision making. Not just by denying them their bonuses but by making them as liable as most hard working small businesses with their own assets such as their homes being liable to surrender or even, shock horror, their pension funds being decimated in order to make up the losses. I'm pretty sure that'd make them think things through a bit more thoroughly.

[20driver]

I should have made my point clear - if you want a long-term future your company needs to be making money. That has not being the case for most of the airline industry for years and the chickens have come home to roost. Southwest has always made money and the pilots and all the staff are reaping the benefits. Ironic as they were looked down on as a group by a lot of the legacy pilots.

The lack of pensions has become a general trend in the US - the long-term implications are not good for anyone. My IR examiner was headed back to work at the FAA as his US Air pension was getting wiped out. He is an outstanding guy and I really feel for him.

However as a group I think pilots swallowed too much of their own PR. I used to shake my head when I read the various pilot group newsletters etc. Rick "Mad Dog" Dubinsky was not unique in his attitude. Many seemed to share it.

Unfortunately the industry really seems to suffer from useless management. I think mentally they simply cannot break away from being a regulated industry. The real success of Southwest has being decent management. They service a niche – don’t suffer from delusions of grandeur and stick to the bottom line. Decisions get made strictly on the basis of will this make us money. They run an airborne Greyhound service and have no problems with it. JetBlue has a different image but I think they are crafting a great identity and developing a real following.

I really cannot understand how the industry can continue to loose money like it does and yet seems to be unable to fix itself.

[AirRabbit]

arewenearlythereyet? wrote:

Airabbit, and your point is.... apart from the bleedin' obvious?
Thanks for the Economics 101 lecture but as you say, you don't have the answer or even a plan. Suffice it to say that we, as pilots, do buckle down, do work hard and some do even leave.
Perhaps the answer is in getting the 'sociopaths' at the helm to be more liable for the results of their decision making. Not just by denying them their bonuses but by making them as liable as most hard working small businesses with their own assets such as their homes being liable to surrender or even, shock horror, their pension funds being decimated in order to make up the losses. I'm pretty sure that'd make them think things through a bit more thoroughly.

…and you want what from me? An apology? A viable solution? Sorry, don’t hold your breath.

You have every right to squawk if your salary is reduced; for whatever reason: poor decisions by management; skyrocketing fuel prices; China and India getting industrialized and fighting (and paying) more for available oil; whatever the reason. What grates on the feelings of many however, are the stories about the occasional airline pilot who melancholically laments that he is going to have to “sell the ski lodge in Aspen and the ski boat docked at the lake house, in order for him to keep the three race horses he has on his ranch.” However, before you start taking pot shots at that comment, everyone recognizes that this is far from every pilot out there. But you have to admit that being an airline pilot, has, for a number of years, been a rather lucrative “job” that allowed a comfortable income and several valuable perks of the job – time off, free (or cheap) transportation and discounts on hotels, rental cars, and the like. Recently, this has been less so, of course. But still, flying for one of the “majors,” up until 2001, still had its benefits. Times have, indeed, changed.

I also recognize that some of the impacted persons do, as you say, buckle down and work hard. If that is enough, great! If it is not – it is not, regardless of the reasons. If the “outflow” in the bathtub has not been stemmed or the “inflow” has not increased to the extent that it overcomes the increasing “outflow” – something has to change; or the bathtub will become dry and leave employees the same way.

If you have an idea as to do it differently, spring it on us, friend. We’ll all be in your debt. You say you would “get sociopaths at the helm to be more liable for the results of their decision making.” Perhaps that would work. All you have to do is find those who are willing to take the helm under those agreements. I’m quite sure there are some out there who would. Identifying them first and reaching an agreement with them next seems to be the universal stumbling block. An airline (or any other business) finds just “the right” mix of circumstances and everything is bliss. But let any one of the factors change and bliss becomes broke. Whose fault is that? Mine? The CEOs? Yours? I would also suggest that in many (perhaps most) of those situations, the CEO does, just as you say, loose his/her job. But, as is true in many instances, that CEO probably had his/her head screwed on straight and had a “golden parachute” written into their contract. That is nothing new – it is just more publicized today. Should we outlaw such contract contents? Perhaps we should. Would that reduce the potential population of interested CEO candidates? Perhaps. What then?

I know that the aviation business has its share of predators – as does the rest of the economic world. But I might suggest that the decisions that are usually made in aviation Board Rooms are made with the information available at the moment – as guided by instinct, experience, and goals; either personal, professional, or corporate -- or a mix of the three. It would probably be a better place if well-intended CEO’s could exert appropriate influence on the factors that impact their own businesses – but that sort of influence is very limited (and what there is of it just may not be ethical at all). Sometimes I think the general public, in the US anyway, is so pent up on correcting such “ills” that we wind up sending Martha Stewart to prison – while OJ and Robert Blake go free.

Hmmm… OK. I’ve regained some control. Sorry. Got carried away just a bit.

Back to your point of “… making them (“helm holders”) as liable as most hard working small businesses with their own assets such as their homes being liable to surrender or even, shock horror, their pension funds being decimated in order to make up the losses…”: that sounds like a logical approach, but I would ask how you might feel if someone approached you to take a job under similar circumstances. Imagine the job offer: “Sir (or Madam), we would very much like you to lead our company, but if you make bad decisions, you will be fired, you will loose your house and we will take away your pension fund as well, and whatever else we may think is appropriate at that time. But we have big hopes for you and our company. What do you say, sir (or madam)?” Would you take the job? I don’t think I would - at least not without some sort of different guarantee.

So, we’ve gone ‘round and ‘round Robin Hood’s barn. And we keep winding up at the same point. What’s the answer? As I said, I don’t have one. And, I guess, for that, you jumped on me for the “economics lecture.” Sorry, but the facts and the circumstances haven’t changed.
________
AirRabbit

[aviator]

AirRabid wrote:

<<OK. I’ve regained some control. Sorry. Got carried away just a bit.>>


I am glad that you are feeling better now. Let me make a few comments on your previous postings.

First, most airline pilots are pretty well aware of the "bath tub" of which you elaborate. It is also knows by most as Economics 101.

Secondly, I am not sure that you are really trying to be helpful here, so maybe it is time to let it go. After all, it is not your retirement that is gone. Rationalizing why it should happen to others adds little comfort to those that have seen their life savings (deferred earnings) gone with little or no chance to make it up.

Peace...

[JustAnothrWindScreen]

"That has not being the case for most of the airline industry for years and the chickens have come home to roost. Southwest has always made money and the pilots and all the staff are reaping the benefits. Ironic as they were looked down on as a group by a lot of the legacy pilots."

20driver,

Hmmm... First that is really the first I have heard about legacy pilots looking down at SW. As for Southwest having always made money, that is true, however currently it is in the markets that SW is making money not as an airline. Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I read and the SouthWest pilots I have spoken with, if it were not for the fuel hedges, SouthWest as an airline actually lost big time. Now that says that the management that hedged the fuel and the crack spread were spot on and should be congratulated. The legacys that eeked out a small profit last quarter did that with real market conditions. It will be interesting to see what the 3rd quarter reports are with the fuel going to astronomical highs and the crack spread going even higher.

[Ignition Override]

OK, I'll admit that outsourcing upper management is probably not a good idea, but it seems to have already happened in many corporate revolving doors. They just can't seem to save money, even hiring outsiders.

It takes lots of money to attract (a few good) people into this shaky business, and the Boards of Directors seems to have most of the power in this area.

Just how can airlines in Europe or Britain lose less money, not to mention make a profit-do they receive a major tax advantage or such regarding fuel prices?

Oh well, back to reviewing ac and dc cross-ties, fault protections (gen. or system?) and transformer rectifiers .

[water check]

Ignition Overide. The reason that Euro airlines make money are several:

1. Much better quality of management
2. They charge MORE than cost for their tickets (...gee, there's an idea...why didn't we think of that!).
3. MUCH better product (look at BA's business class product...brilliant)
4. MUCH better standard of service. No 'grimy grannies' and (usually) perky and friendly service (my last AA flight had a flight attendant telling me off for having the nerve to ask for a bottle of water!!).
5. Cross-pollination of management (an Australian heading BA for example, now an Irishman....see how that goes.) US airlines can't see beyond their own shores for management personnel

I could go on...but why bother. The US airline industry is doomed. The only survivors will be airlines like SW and JB. The legacy carriers have ruined themselves, and the industry is changing so fast they can't possibly adapt in time. Incidentally, the Euro carriers have survived and prospered since 2001 without destroying their employees salaries and pensions. The only thing that will save the US carriers is if they are allowed to be bought out and managed by foreigners. It's ironic that it is the unions that oppose this, considering it's their only hope of long-term survival. You Yanks don't always have the best way of doing things...and you certainly don't know your ars*s from a hole in the ground when it comes to how to run airlines. Will be interesting to see how quickly United goes back into BK again....

ps. the Euro airlines are incensed by the US carriers diverting their capacity onto the Atlantic. They don't pay their bills (unlike the Euro carriers), then they artifically lower the yield on the Atlantic. Great idea, screw up their own market, then try and do the same to the European carriers. I do wonder why the Yanks are not exactly the flavour of the month at the mo....

[aviator]

<<Oh well, back to reviewing .....>>

Not so fast, Ignition Override,

Although it takes a bit of effort to read your postings (read: lack of punctuation ), they are some of the more seasoned and balanced ones on this forum.

Stay with it please.

Tailwinds always,

aviator

[Bigmouth]

Ignition O., I'm with you. Did you miss the first part of my first sentence? But the "industry leading" mantra turned into a spiral, being repeated by the next pilot group as soon as the previous one had signed their deal. Heck, even the SW guys started bitching about their -relatively- crummy pay.
And as for "You might not believe that the ALPA regional JET pay for First Officers, is little above US minimum wage.": I do believe because I do know. Been there, done that.

water check: Just a few years back the situation was pretty much reversed and you could have used virtually the same points to argue that case then.

[Huck]

you certainly don't know your ars*s from a hole in the ground when it comes to how to run airlines.

Yank bashing! On PPrune! How strikingly original!

[boofhead]

Watercheck, your point about fares in Europe is not correct; in fact there are fares well below what would be paid in the US: Fly from Dublin to Edinburgh for One Euro plus taxes and no blockout dates, saturday night stays or advance purchases etc. Of course the taxes are sixty to seventy Euros for the same ticket, which shows a lot about just who is making the money here.
Another example is fares around $150 one-way from LA to Edinburgh, while it costs more than that just to fly from LA to SFO, given the same conditions applying to the reservation with respect to date, times and so on. If I want to fly from Anchorage to Seattle it costs me around $250 return if I book weeks ahead and leave at 0100 or later. If I want to leave at a more civilised time the cost shoots up three or four times. The 1 Euro ticket is available any time of the day, and the fare goes up only on weekends, even then it is still way less than what I have to pay in the US for a comparable ticket based on distance.
Its called supply and demand isn't it?

[AirRabbit]

aviator wrote:

I am not sure that you are really trying to be helpful here, so maybe it is time to let it go. After all, it is not your retirement that is gone. Rationalizing why it should happen to others adds little comfort to those that have seen their life savings (deferred earnings) gone with little or no chance to make it up.

My retirement? For the most part of my eventual retirement, you are correct, sir, it is not gone. However, that part of my retirement that was to come from my years of airline employment most assuredly is – gone that is. So, please, don’t be so quick to stuff me (or anyone else for that matter) into a conveniently labeled cubbyhole and dismiss everything that follows.

As for my posts or my intent being “helpful” – I guess I’ll leave that to be considered by those who read and determine it on their own. While I would very much like to have it be true, I would indeed be quite surprised if every one of my posts were “helpful” to everyone, all the time – as I would assume you feel about the posts you provide. The purpose of my postings was to provide merely another perspective in addition to those already offered – the primary point being that not all business failures can, nor should be, laid at the feet of the company CEO – whether or not s/he escapes from that failure with the proverbial “golden parachute.” Often times it has to do with the state of the economy and the proclivities of those who “used to” purchase the goods or services that are some how now found to be wanting. Perhaps you don’t recall or were never aware but Drive-In movie theaters “used to be” a thriving business across the US. Was it the CEOs of the large chain drive-ins that caused their demise? I doubt it. In fact, movie theaters in general are feeling the impact of VCR and DVD rentals. Is that due to the operating procedures of movie theaters? I doubt that also. What used to be a very large market in long distance telephone service is being overtaken not so slowly by the no-roaming, no-long-distance-charge plans available from virtually every cell phone service provider out there. Is that the fault of Ma Bell’s or AT&T’s CEOs? Same answer.

Yes, there are airlines that have gone out of business. Others have been bought up by larger organizations. Others are struggling mightily. Some would say that there are only two types of airlines – those that have experienced devastating circumstances and those that will. I would wager that the instability in the airline business today is not over – not by a good margin. Back when airline de-regulation went into effect, its architect estimated that “in the end” there would likely be 2 major airlines and a dozen or so regional airlines still operating in the US. The longer the US airline business wallows around looking for a successful formula, the more prophetic Alfred Kahn’s statement seems to be.

First, most airline pilots are pretty well aware of the "bath tub" of which you elaborate. It is also knows by most as Economics 101.

I would agree with you that most airline pilots are aware of this analogy – regardless of what moniker you attach. That doesn’t necessarily mean that each remembers or pays much attention to those relationships when they are on the receiving end of a furlough or pay-cut notice. (Yes, been there. Done that.) And, the bottom line is still the bottom line. The bathtub analogy is still present and it will take its toll – whether you choose to berate me about it or not. And, please, I am not trying to “rationalize” why loosing your retirement should happen at all, to anyone. I’m just pointing out that it DOES happen. It has happened before; it continues to happen today; and, unfortunately, I believe it will continue to happen in the future. Certainly not every such circumstance is the fault of the company CEO.

And, I would be somewhat remiss if I didn’t address your choice of “word-morphing” in your last post salutation. Referencing a common dictionary – the way you chose to address me is referred to as either “extremely violent,” or as “going to extreme lengths in expressing or pursuing a feeling, interest, or opinion.” As I am sure you did not intend to imply that you felt that I am “extremely violent” – as you certainly do not know me at all - I will presume that your intent was the second option. I humbly accept your characterization of my desire to express my opinion.

I wish you the same peace you offered.

________
AirRabbit