|
Originally Posted by finis72
(Post 1085839)
Maybe I'm wrong but the Legacy carriers hub and spoke systems combined with deregulation is the main reason the majors went to outsourcing.
When you see Chuck Giambusso, ask him how all this came to be. |
Originally Posted by nerd2009
(Post 1085843)
Ohhhh, Ya I got it ! C Series 130 seat for ASA, ...because they are Delta Pilots!
:eek: ASA has some good folks over there. If something like this were to happen I'd bet that Charlie Tutt and Fred L had something to do with it. |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1085834)
FedEx customers are very much impacted by an operation that runs safely, on time, efficiently and smoothly. Pilots play a very large role in making that happen. When you go out to eat you rarely meet the chef, but you are always impacted by his or her work.
I am by no means trying to belittle what the pilots of FedEx do. Yes, they absolutely impact the brand. I was just trying to expand the discussion point about the fact that FedEx does not rely 100% on it's pilots for their brand. I should have just stuck with the example of the caravans and all the metroliner's and other "outsourced" labor they use to fly their packages around. As far as I know, the only company that has a 100% scope clause is SWA. |
Bacon and Eggs walk into a bar, bartender says “sorry, we don’t serve breakfast.”
|
Originally Posted by finis72
(Post 1085839)
Maybe I'm wrong but the Legacy carriers hub and spoke systems combined with deregulation is the main reason the majors went to outsourcing. In the small feeder markets they couldn't at that time compete with start-up (think cheap money cheap gas) low cost carriers, SW on the other hand was a post deregulation point to point carrier that doesn't interline bags. Not a big incentive to outsource. Not saying it's good or bad just different business models. The economics are changing and I believe that outsourcing (RJ's) is a phase that has come and is in the process of going away (code share is here for awhile)
Regardless of what the keyboard warriors say DL makes more money flying DL pax on DL jets when it makes economic sense but when it doesn't they will continue to find alternate means to gain extra pax/revenue. I know this is a very simplified explanation but DL will fly their airplanes where they make the most money. For the first time since deregulation I think DL has finally figured out how to consistently make money. A profitable company floats all boats and it's time for our share ! Finis; Please explain to me "when it makes economic sense?" If all you have to do is sell the ticket (on somebody else) to make money, I can't think of an example of where maintaining a giant infrastructure makes economic sense. If DAL is in the ticket selling business only, which I believe they think they are, we DAL pilots are just obsolete without MUCH STRONGER SCOPE. |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 1085870)
Finis;
Please explain to me "when it makes economic sense?" If all you have to do is sell the ticket (on somebody else) to make money, I can't think of an example of where maintaining a giant infrastructure makes economic sense. If DAL is in the ticket selling business only, which I believe they think they are, we DAL pilots are just obsolete without MUCH STRONGER SCOPE. |
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 1085869)
bartender says “sorry, we don’t serve breakfast.”
|
Originally Posted by 1234
(Post 1085810)
Yep, they need the delivery trucks because FedEx delivers packages, similar to the fact that Delta needs airplanes because we deliver people by air. All of the FedEx ground trucks where the EX is painted green are independent contractors and not employees of FedEX (the vast majority of delivery trucks).
I responded to Carl because he said: I don't understand how you can include FDX in that statement because the pilots of FDX have zero impact on the brand as it pertains to the customer. I bet that 99.9% of their customers never even meet a FDX pilot. They do however meet the driver and that driver is most likely outsourced. Now, it would be cool if a 727 could pull into my driveway for delivery's. After 30 years at FDX I'll have to say : you couldn't be more wrong about FDX pilot's customer impact and brand loyalty. Your opinion is shaped from the outside looking in......not always accurate. Caravan scope was a negotiated portion of the contract that was actually beneficial to both sides. Besides, would you really want to fly a single-engine turboprop, single pilot in Cat II / icing conditions ? Me neither. Anyway, the payload on the caravan is very small, and it allows FDX to serve very small markets that would otherwise not be served. The caravans only feed FDX mainline, and that rising tide actually does float the FDX pilot's boats. Pay attention to Carl, his delivery may be too curt for your taste, but he's on target the vast majority of the time. Rant over, BG |
Originally Posted by Rolf
(Post 1085756)
Carl,
I think GK would have loved to copy the legacy outsourcing. SC got elected(IMO) as SWAPA President because we wanted to stop that (Thanks ALPA, for showing us what path not to take). To his credit, GK listened. |
Originally Posted by 1234
(Post 1085810)
I don't understand how you can include FDX in that statement because the pilots of FDX have zero impact on the brand as it pertains to the customer. I bet that 99.9% of their customers never even meet a FDX pilot. They do however meet the driver and that driver is most likely outsourced. Now, it would be cool if a 727 could pull into my driveway for delivery's. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:48 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands