Hahahaha...what delusional fantasy world are you living in?!?!
Lets pretend you're even half-right and mainline carriers go back to the system of wholly-owned regional partners, THEY ARE STILL OUTSOURCING FLYING.
To you, a pilot at the mainline, it is outsourcing... to the shareholders it is keeping the profit in the company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freezingflyboy
And you, as a pilot at that wholly-owned regional, are still nothing more than an entry-level B-scale employee.
and eventually, that entry-level B-scale will be the entry level position at the mainline carrier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freezingflyboy
Why would any mainline carrier want to take on the additional risk and cost of operating their own regional unit when they can contract out that flying for cheaper.
That's just it, it isn't cheaper...
Quote:
Originally Posted by freezingflyboy
Even if they go one step further and bring that regional flying completely in-house and operate the regional aircraft on the same certificate and seniority lists, all you've done is increase your total labor costs (longer longevity), your fleet costs now that you've added a new type to your operation AND your own management overhead now that your operation is that much larger....
and you have eliminated one ENTIRE part 121 airline adminsitration, from CEO down to rampers in the process. You can afford to accept the higher longevity and/or labor costs and still come out ahead. Come on, your not seriously trying to argue that running two administrations, and supporting staffs, for two seperate airlines is cheaper than running one slightly larger adminstration for the same total number of aircraft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freezingflyboy
When a mainline carrier contracts out with 2 or 3 or 4 different regional carriers they don't care that there are 2 or 3 or 4 duplicated managements or operations people or maintenance or whatever. All they are looking at is a simple cost-comparison. They look at what it would cost them to do the flying themselves (cost A) and what it would cost to pay a small-lift operator to do the flying (cost B). If cost A > cost B then that flying goes to the small-lift operator. It really is as simple as that. They don't call them bean-counters for nothing.
Do you really think the operational cost of flying a 50 seat aircraft is any different at one regional than at another? With the exception of pay scales the jet burns the same pounds per hour regardless of who's name is one the side, or in small letters by the door. So, whatever mainline pays a subcontractor has to cover ALL the operational costs, plus leave a profit for the subcontractor... with an in house owned regional you have the exact same scenario, but the profit stays in house going back into the mainlines bottom line, not into some other corporation.
Eventually the shareholders will demand that the BOD of their mainline companies stop sending money outside the company. After that happens, the principle of consolidating all of the management into one is a huge cost savings...
__________________
Fly The Contract & Nothing More
[quote=Mason32;496704] and you have eliminated one ENTIRE part 121 airline adminsitration, from CEO down to rampers in the process. You can afford to accept the higher longevity and/or labor costs and still come out ahead. Come on, your not seriously trying to argue that running two administrations, and supporting staffs, for two seperate airlines is cheaper than running one slightly larger adminstration for the same total number of aircraft.
You don't really eliminate the management, you finally actually control the management. I believe what you're saying is that the total costs of operating say United's Management and the Management at Trans Stateswould outweigh simply operating the management at United alone, just expanded to cover the additional flying that would now be done by United Mainline. I'd wonder just how true that actually could be. You have to remember that United isn't paying for the management at Trans States. Also, pay scales go much deeper than pilot/flight attendant contracts, while we're a portion of the payscales, you have to take into account rampers, schedulers, dispatchers, fuelers, caterers, mechanics, executives, training departments, etc. All of which at the contract regional will be less than a comparable cost on the mainline side. So, in order to get the cost savings from labor alone, you'll be negotiating compensation decreases across the full company spectrum. Imagine trying to convince not one or two groups, but many different independent yet related facets to take pay cuts and compensation cuts in order to bring more flying in to house...
Do you really think the operational cost of flying a 50 seat aircraft is any different at one regional than at another? With the exception of pay scales the jet burns the same pounds per hour regardless of who's name is one the side, or in small letters by the door. So, whatever mainline pays a subcontractor has to cover ALL the operational costs, plus leave a profit for the subcontractor... with an in house owned regional you have the exact same scenario, but the profit stays in house going back into the mainlines bottom line, not into some other corporation.
I have a difficult time believing that any mainline management group is "losing" money on regional operations. Some of those profits will still find their way back into the mainline pockets.
__________________
-Let's Toast the Rich...With the Cocktail of Our Choice!
We would probably all end up in prison or fined. Or both.
I know for a fact that "wildcat" strikes (one-day strikes) are a weapon used often in Europe and they are quite effective. Air traffic controllers in certain countries do it. The union tells them that at XXXX o'clock, on XX day, everyone is to completely stop doing what they are doing and not to resume working until they get what they want (there are exceptions for aircraft in distress). The management knows its coming and so as to avoid any catastrophes they give the union what it wants before the strike.
Anyways, from what I've been told, wildcat strikes are illegal in the States, regardless of who is in Office. I think they would be great...
But then again, what do I know, I'm just a kid who has no life experience. Gear up, george on, george off, gear down, repeat as necessary.
I love ya carlm but this the exact reason why an aviations science degree is not worthless. guys who have degrees have an idea about the RLA. don't ya think we'd be on strike if we could?
I love ya carlm but this the exact reason why an aviations science degree is not worthless. guys who have degrees have an idea about the RLA. don't ya think we'd be on strike if we could?
Yes sir, I think... rather, I know we would be on strike if we were allowed. As for the RLA, you're right, I don't have a degree of any kind and I am slightly behind the curve in that aspect. However, I learn quickly and do a lot of reading, so I will catch up.
At this point, though, I am just going to stand by and watch things unfold. I am unsure as to how I can help. I have offered my time to the Union, no response from them. The only thing I can say for sure is: I will never apply for a job at GoJet. The only exception to that would be is if Uncle Hulas, the Leech and Jaba-da-Hut decide to merge the two companies.
You don't really eliminate the management, you finally actually control the management. I believe what you're saying is that the total costs of operating say United's Management and the Management at Trans Stateswould outweigh simply operating the management at United alone, just expanded to cover the additional flying that would now be done by United Mainline. I'd wonder just how true that actually could be. You have to remember that United isn't paying for the management at Trans States.
Of course they are paying for it, and they are also paying enough for Trans States to make a profit for their shareholders...
Quote:
Originally Posted by flynavyj
Also, pay scales go much deeper than pilot/flight attendant contracts, while we're a portion of the payscales, you have to take into account rampers, schedulers, dispatchers, fuelers, caterers, mechanics, executives, training departments, etc. All of which at the contract regional will be less than a comparable cost on the mainline side.
There absolutely is truth to that... but what you're missing is that nowhere near as many would be needed. Additionally, instead of mainline and regional rampers, gate agents, FA's, schedulers, and dispatchers all worrying about job losses, they would welcome the extra work to ensure job stability. Most mainlines, and regionals, have been shrinking capacity, which just means less jobs everywhere, not just in the flightdeck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flynavyj
So, in order to get the cost savings from labor alone, you'll be negotiating compensation decreases across the full company spectrum. Imagine trying to convince not one or two groups, but many different independent yet related facets to take pay cuts and compensation cuts in order to bring more flying in to house...
You wouldn't have to take concessions anywhere. The entire administration of the absorbed regional would become redundant at that point. The theoretical elimination of 2/3's of the management staff, training staff, dispatch staff, scheduling staff, Chief Pilots, In-Flight, MX staff, duplicated reservations and ticketing..... not too mention duplicated ground service equipment... The cost saving alone from that would obviate any need for concessions from any workgroup. Would Mngt try for them... of course, but the need would not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flynavyj
I have a difficult time believing that any mainline management group is "losing" money on regional operations. Some of those profits will still find their way back into the mainline pockets.
Of course they aren't, my point was that they are able to retain a higher profit by owning the regional themselves. That being the most profitable formula, it is just a matter of time, before they get the idea to consolidate their operations under one roof and realize the additional cost savings from elimination of duplicated services. The number one priority is convicing their shareholders that THEY are doing the best at maximizing their returns.... that way they get to keep their jobs, and their high paychecks. When the shareholders lean on the BOD things happen quickly.
It's common sense, you have two of the same products for sale.... seats on a part 121 airline... but you are paying for two completely seperate corporations from the CEO's to the Lav cleaners...
They already do this with ticketing/code sharing... trying to make the seperate companies appear transparent as if they were one for the customer... the eventual migration will be to realize the additional profit to be had by making the transparency a reality through consolidation of assets.
I'm not saying it's a good thing, or a bad thing, I'm just saying it is the direction that things will go.
__________________
Fly The Contract & Nothing More
For the record though, TSA/Gojet has no shareholders, or if they do, they only have one...Uncle Hulas is the ONLY share holder who has to be pleased with the performance of the company. We're one of the good ole' airlines, that is privately owned.
Here's the problem I see...Yes, in ORD the rampers are mainline united already, so nothing really changes there, in IAD the entire UAX operation is done by Air Whiskey, which was just taken over from a different sub contractor (the name i dodn't remember). The difference here though, is that United would then be purchasing the equipment, the employees, etc as they go about their take over. Ontop of this, you'd have to replace countless numbers of outstations from being say skywest, or comair employees to being mainline employees also. That would have to cover gate agents, ticket counter reps, and rampers (most of which do all of the above). And this would be nationwide. These individuals would be going from lower paying jobs to higher paying jobs (probably good for the employee) but not so good for management.
Another note though, from memory i believe that BNA uses United employees. After sitting on the ramp waiting to get marshaled in, i talked with some of the rampers about the situation. They explained that United had scaled back the operation, so there's only enough crew for one airplane at a time. They went from roughly 30-40 employees to 12....Now, it makes more economical sense to have an aircraft sitting on the ramp, burning up Jet A (which united just hedged at the highest prices ever) for an extra 30 minutes, than it is to pay a several more rampers to be at work....If that's the stance of United Mainline, i have a hard time they're going to be willing to obsorb more infrastructure, as opposed to eliminate it.
__________________
-Let's Toast the Rich...With the Cocktail of Our Choice!
I love ya carlm but this the exact reason why an aviations science degree is not worthless. guys who have degrees have an idea about the RLA. don't ya think we'd be on strike if we could?
You are not really defending these schools that rack up 150k in debt as being worth it since you learn about the RLA? Heck, you can read it online anytime you want. If you are going to be an airline pilot, the RLA should be on your short reading list either before taking the job or within the first year after studying your contract.
You are mistaken sir. There is no greater waste of college education money than attaining a degree in Aviation Science. It is NOT required by ANY airline, it will not help your career advancement in any way, and it will do nothing for you in the event you are furloughed.
__________________
Fly The Contract & Nothing More
For the record though, TSA/Gojet has no shareholders, or if they do, they only have one...Uncle Hulas is the ONLY share holder who has to be pleased with the performance of the company. We're one of the good ole' airlines, that is privately owned.
Here's the problem I see...Yes, in ORD the rampers are mainline united already, so nothing really changes there, in IAD the entire UAX operation is done by Air Whiskey, which was just taken over from a different sub contractor (the name i dodn't remember). The difference here though, is that United would then be purchasing the equipment, the employees, etc as they go about their take over.
You are missing the point that they are ALREADY paying for this through their capacity purchase agreement, or whatever they call it now. That CPA has to cover everything that a wholly owned company has to pay for, plus it has to leave some moeny left over for Hullas....
Quote:
Originally Posted by flynavyj
Ontop of this, you'd have to replace countless numbers of outstations from being say skywest, or comair employees to being mainline employees also.
Again, the mainline company is already paying for them... instead of paying them directly, they pay the subcontractor who pays them... cutting out the middle man saves money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flynavyj
That would have to cover gate agents, ticket counter reps, and rampers (most of which do all of the above). And this would be nationwide. These individuals would be going from lower paying jobs to higher paying jobs (probably good for the employee) but not so good for management.
No, completely false. First, lets address the fact that once merged less overall employees would be needed.... you wouldn't need a full skywest staff sitting at the next gate from a full comair staff, sitting at the next gate from a full pinnacle staff... there would be staff reductions, or more likely, a hiring freeze to allow attrition to draw down the staffing level. Very much like what has been happening at United for some time now. They have drawn down their station staffing to the lowest levels I've ever seen.
Second, it is very simple to do what many mainlines did years ago and add B scales, or add extra pay steps (at the bottom end of the scales) so that commuter jet equipment becomes the entry level position, on a new lower first step pay and benefit scale. So, all the rampers, gate agents, ticket agents.... etc would all start on the new lower pay scale, which would be no different than what they get now. Keeping people on the small equipment and pay scales is just a mtter of writing the correct contractual agreements to match company structuring. For us, it gives mainline guys some furlough protection, it gives regional guys a light at the end of the tunnel that isn't a train comming at them, and it saves the company money... it's a win, win, win, that would be an easy sell to anybody that can see past their personal ego's.
No big pay increases or any other earth shattering happenings.... just a change in uniform, books, manuals, checklists, and for some where the paycheck comes from.... The advantage; scope is eliminated as a problem, more efficient and streamlined corporate structure resulting in higher profit retention; for employees, a more stable and predictable career path; for shareholders, a higher return on investment.
__________________
Fly The Contract & Nothing More
I just thought I'd run this idea by some people to see if anybody would be interested. Our mediator during negotiations is Jack Kane of the NMB. It's pretty obvious that this guy is mostly worthless and isn't helping us to get Jack sh!t (pun intended) done. If we began calling him frequently and expressing our dissatisfaction with the negotiating process and him, then maybe he would start to get the idea of what is really going on. I would imagine that this one guy has quite a bit of power when it comes to releasing us to self-help. Of course he is up against people in the administration that are probably against self-help completely, but if Mr. Kane gets daily calls about how upset we are, it should make him want to get things done.
This guy is probably very detached from the pilot group. All he hears is the bickering between the union reps and management. I imagine he's forgotten about all the pilots that are being screwed by the company.
Anyway, here's Jack Kane's contact info if you're interested:
Jack Kane, Mediator
Phone: 202-692-5067
Fax: 202-692-5084
Additionally, Jack Kane's boss is Larry Gibbons. It might help to express our dissatisfaction with him as well.
Larry Gibbons, Director, Office of Mediation Services
Phone: 202-692-5060
Fax: 202-692-5084
LinkBacks (?)
Linear Mode
