Right!


Here's the deal. The company should be wearing the pants here. Management doesn't listen to the pilots that much when it comes to PBS and line construction every month, and that's our bread and butter. ALPA has allot of control over other things, and this seems to be one of them.

I do get it.... Both sides of the issue. ALPA has dues paying members in good standing who they want to keep content. These pilots moved to IAH, have famalies here, and have sunk roots here. Bumping them and forcing them to commute will just hurt the operation and anger and alienate those pilots.

Management has some human resources not being used in a productive manner. So, the real question is: Does management place a value on those pilots lack of productivity? It's not an ALPA thing, it's a management thing. Those pilots aren't being paid by ALPA, they are being paid by Munoz and Co. If their value in terms of cost to the airline and benefit to the airline doesn't bother management then they will keep it over-staffed. However, if management is looking to build more routes in and out of iAH and simply re-deploy the former LOS block hours then it makes sense to leave those pilots there. I think flying will pick up greatly with Olympics going south. We will need the lift capacity and the pilots shortly.

I do agree that there is a strange dynamic with the CPO-Flt Ops-Sr. Mgt. I don't see any former L CAL people in key decision making places, so not sure if that is the driver or not. I don't think the 787 productivity in IAH is an issue for Munoz. He doesn't get involved in minutia such as this.

This would be for flight ops, marketing, and manpower planning. I am sure he gets a briefing every month on staffing, block hours, sick time, and productivity. If the briefing isn't given to him by fleet, base, and seat, he may not have the info presented to him in a logical manner. Depending on how its framed will depend on what sort of questions he asks.

 

SWA has more plans to expand it's Mexico, Caribean, and Latin America flying. I hope we don't give any more revenue away and I hope we are watching their growth. If we want to keep our market share then we need to be ready, willing, and able to compete. We gave so much Florida and central America away to AA, jet blue over the years it makes me sick. If we want to preserve and protect our Latin America revenue stream then we need to have more of that type of flying out of IAH. We also need fewer RJ's because that drives more traffic to SWA.

 

We have a tendency to overestimate the value of IAH to the overall route structure and operation at United. Both IAH and CLE have local contracts that tie the airline to the bases/hubs but when the operational cost exceed the penalties of maintaining those contracts, we'll see a pull back and closures.

Unfortunately, it could be happening sooner than later. The problems with the 737 and now the 787 are symptoms of a much larger problem at these locations.

There is a bright side - starting to see more United TV ads that appear to be going after the branding issues we've suffered since merger. Maybe OM is starting to listen to the outside forces.

 

You do realize Houston is the fourth largest city in the US right? It's a lot more than "local contracts."

 

It doesn't matter if it's the largest in the US. If it can't support itself or the operation then it's not needed. Hide and watch - change is a coming.

 

Taking away one route means it can't "support" itself? The same has been said about DEN but that's not going anywhere either.

 

Well, if we shutdown IAH, then we need to open TPA, MCO, or MIA. We need to both compete in and dominate central and south America. IAH offers the ability to do that.

SWA doesn't connect through Houston, or Dallas to Europe. But, AA, and DAL do.

The UAL/CAL merger only makes sense if we use the existing route structure in a competitive way. With only 9 over-lapping routes pre-merger it was supposed to be "check mate."

I would like to see our marketing department figure out a way to preserve, protect, and enhance our high revenue PRASM stream.

 

If the size of a city mattered, everyone would have bases in Jacksonville FL. Houstons economy is a one trick pony, oil. It does serve a critical purpose though, it's business is a great hedge against high oil prices to take the edge off.

AA is right.

 

Houston is 2 1/2 times the size of JAX, what is your point? Most companies fly airplanes where people live, more people=more airplanes.

 

DEN makes sense - there was a reason we chose ORD over IAH for the headquarters and DEN over IAH for the dominate training center. Hard to accept - I know, but CLE will wither and IAH will fold as DEN grows as United resumes it's role as dominate carrier there.

Rational thought is going on and OM is being held accountable going forward for the petty games JS played post merger. What say you - OM?