Food For Thought: An Exclusively WO Future?
05-09-2018 | 07:39 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,723
Likes: 0
If I were American I’d just absorb my 3 WO’s. Everyone comes in at1 year seniority however instead of seniority by age in class it’s determjned by your DOH at whichever regional your coming from. Come up with a new pay rate for all the RJ aircraft. Then everyone can bid for any base and aircraft their seniority can hold.
Seems like this would be a way better recruiting tool then a hard to predict flow.
I know this will probably never happen but seems to make sense to me.
Seems like this would be a way better recruiting tool then a hard to predict flow.
I know this will probably never happen but seems to make sense to me.
05-09-2018 | 07:56 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,199
Likes: 42
From: Gear slinger
If I were American I’d just absorb my 3 WO’s. Everyone comes in at1 year seniority however instead of seniority by age in class it’s determjned by your DOH at whichever regional your coming from. Come up with a new pay rate for all the RJ aircraft. Then everyone can bid for any base and aircraft their seniority can hold.
Seems like this would be a way better recruiting tool then a hard to predict flow.
I know this will probably never happen but seems to make sense to me.
Seems like this would be a way better recruiting tool then a hard to predict flow.
I know this will probably never happen but seems to make sense to me.
05-09-2018 | 08:05 AM
#33
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 378
Likes: 16
You got it completely backwards.
Three CRJ200s move the same amount of people as one A320. What costs more to move the same amount of people around? The one A320 or three CRJ200s? The one A320 is obviously cheaper.
I don't think you understand the meaning of CASM - seat for seat and mile for mile.
Three CRJ200s move the same amount of people as one A320. What costs more to move the same amount of people around? The one A320 or three CRJ200s? The one A320 is obviously cheaper.
I don't think you understand the meaning of CASM - seat for seat and mile for mile.
CASM is a useless metric if you only have 50-75 people to move during a given bank. Put alternatively, should AA send A320s from CLT to EWN? A -200 with 40 pax will always cost less than an A320 with 40 pax. It's about net profit, not cost per seat-mile. CASM is one metric, but not the most useful one.
Regionals will ALWAYS have a greater CASM. They have fewer seats. Fact of life. The reason AA makes a killing is because regionals keep up the frequency of feed to/from the hubs and makes CONNECTIONS possible that do not involve 3 to 6 hours of waiting in an airport. Nobody would even book such tickets if they had to wait that long between flights.
Cheaper DOES NOT mean more profitable.
Pointing out higher CASM at the regionals is simply a tool for middle management to try to get everyone at the WOs to be happy with their current wages and not fight for what they deserve.
05-09-2018 | 08:27 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,928
Likes: 97
I don't think you understand how hub and spoke operations work.
CASM is a useless metric if you only have 50-75 people to move during a given bank. Put alternatively, should AA send A320s from CLT to EWN? A -200 with 40 pax will always cost less than an A320 with 40 pax. It's about net profit, not cost per seat-mile. CASM is one metric, but not the most useful one.
Regionals will ALWAYS have a greater CASM. They have fewer seats. Fact of life. The reason AA makes a killing is because regionals keep up the frequency of feed to/from the hubs and makes CONNECTIONS possible that do not involve 3 to 6 hours of waiting in an airport. Nobody would even book such tickets if they had to wait that long between flights.
Cheaper DOES NOT mean more profitable.
Pointing out higher CASM at the regionals is simply a tool for middle management to try to get everyone at the WOs to be happy with their current wages and not fight for what they deserve.
CASM is a useless metric if you only have 50-75 people to move during a given bank. Put alternatively, should AA send A320s from CLT to EWN? A -200 with 40 pax will always cost less than an A320 with 40 pax. It's about net profit, not cost per seat-mile. CASM is one metric, but not the most useful one.
Regionals will ALWAYS have a greater CASM. They have fewer seats. Fact of life. The reason AA makes a killing is because regionals keep up the frequency of feed to/from the hubs and makes CONNECTIONS possible that do not involve 3 to 6 hours of waiting in an airport. Nobody would even book such tickets if they had to wait that long between flights.
Cheaper DOES NOT mean more profitable.
Pointing out higher CASM at the regionals is simply a tool for middle management to try to get everyone at the WOs to be happy with their current wages and not fight for what they deserve.
05-09-2018 | 09:34 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2017
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
I don't think you understand how hub and spoke operations work.
CASM is a useless metric if you only have 50-75 people to move during a given bank. Put alternatively, should AA send A320s from CLT to EWN? A -200 with 40 pax will always cost less than an A320 with 40 pax. It's about net profit, not cost per seat-mile. CASM is one metric, but not the most useful one.
Regionals will ALWAYS have a greater CASM. They have fewer seats. Fact of life. The reason AA makes a killing is because regionals keep up the frequency of feed to/from the hubs and makes CONNECTIONS possible that do not involve 3 to 6 hours of waiting in an airport. Nobody would even book such tickets if they had to wait that long between flights.
Cheaper DOES NOT mean more profitable.
Pointing out higher CASM at the regionals is simply a tool for middle management to try to get everyone at the WOs to be happy with their current wages and not fight for what they deserve.
CASM is a useless metric if you only have 50-75 people to move during a given bank. Put alternatively, should AA send A320s from CLT to EWN? A -200 with 40 pax will always cost less than an A320 with 40 pax. It's about net profit, not cost per seat-mile. CASM is one metric, but not the most useful one.
Regionals will ALWAYS have a greater CASM. They have fewer seats. Fact of life. The reason AA makes a killing is because regionals keep up the frequency of feed to/from the hubs and makes CONNECTIONS possible that do not involve 3 to 6 hours of waiting in an airport. Nobody would even book such tickets if they had to wait that long between flights.
Cheaper DOES NOT mean more profitable.
Pointing out higher CASM at the regionals is simply a tool for middle management to try to get everyone at the WOs to be happy with their current wages and not fight for what they deserve.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
