Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: beet1e on December 14, 2002, 11:25:10 AM
-
Bad business about United Airlines. Bad business indeed. :( I can only think that with the impending war in Iraq, things are going to get tougher for the airlines just like last time during the 1991 Gulf War. Sept. 11th 2001 might have been a turning point for the "cheapo" airlines. Lots of people were frightened of flying after that dreadful day, but we got seduced back by cheap fares. The thing is, the cheapo airlines are making big profits! :eek: But how?
In March 2001, my best friend and I decided to go to Dublin for the weekend. It's a 50 minute flight on http://www.ryanair.com from Luton (40 miles N of London). The return fare for each of us? £1. Yep, I thought it was a mistake too, but no mistake. The catch was that the airport taxes were added to that separately, and that took the figure to £26. But even so, two people going to Dublin for £52 return is still a steal. That same friend took his girlfriend to Salzburg (Austria! - home of Mozart), and the fare was 20p, plus govt. taxes. The thing is, Ryan Air posted a £20m profit last year. How the hell do they do it? OK, there's no meal service, no business or first class. Drinks & snacks are available, but pricey. I prefer to take my own.
Airlines like RyanAir seem to be gaining popularity as a model of what the flying public actually wants, as opposed to what is forced on them by the majors. Are there any cut price lines in the US?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The thing is, the cheapo airlines are making big profits! :eek: But how?
1. A lack of union involvement.
2. A lack of union involvement.
3. A lack of union involvement.
-
Well thought out answer, Curval.
Wrong, however. :)
-
SWA is a union shop, no?
-
Yes Funked.
You’ve been a self appointed foolish expert and consumed on these airline/union topics here since my rebuttal to MT’s father’s union busting comment Curval. Whether you’ll be as giddy to admit it, as your love for your wife for instance, it’s pretty apparent. Why?
I’m not sure. Somewhere a union did you wrong or something? My viable reply to MT , as it was true, just pointed out how a union could provide a positive, in that case wage increases. A simple comeback for a opposite example he described. Anyway, it’s pretty uncomfortably obvious it struck a nerve with you, as your posts on anything to do with this topic are guaranteed, short, spiteful, and lacking of anything of content or fact.
Get over it or bring a argument to the table. I know lots about this issue and can clue you in. If not, you sound like a angry tool.
Just saying*...
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Yes Funked.
You’ve been a self appointed foolish expert and consumed on these airline/union topics here since my rebuttal to MT’s father’s union busting comment Curval. Whether you’ll be as giddy to admit it, as your love for your wife for instance, it’s pretty apparent. Why?
I’m not sure. Somewhere a union did you wrong or something? My viable reply to MT , as it was true, just pointed out how a union could provide a positive, in that case wage increases. A simple comeback for a opposite example he described. Anyway, it’s pretty uncomfortably obvious it struck a nerve with you, as your posts on anything to do with this topic are guaranteed, short, spiteful, and lacking of anything of content or fact.
Get over it or bring a argument to the table. I know lots about this issue and can clue you in. If not, you sound like a angry tool.
Just saying*...
I'm management Cremo..it is my duty to go to battle against you blue-shirted types.;)
You wonder why I have a gripe against unions. One reason is that I was involved in audits of two of the largest unions in Canada when I was working up there. I have never in my life seen a larger waste of money or resourses. They weren't airline unions but I am confident that it would be no better in that industry. I cannot elaborate more than that as I don't want to risk divulging confidential information, but I suggest the next time your union produces a set of financial statements, read them..and try to understand what is being presented. Ask your people what actually comprises balances in the expense accounts and on the balance sheet. You will find that people will get very quiet, very quickly.
As far as this particular thread goes...I made a form of accusation. I was rebutted by a simple statement from Toad that I was wrong and one example of a union shop that is making money was presented as a reason for this. Sorry, but the onus is still on you to prove me wrong. I will stick to my opinion until that time.
The fact is that these airlines that are going under are doing so because they cannot seem to control costs. Wages expense and benefits is one line item that is spiralling out of control on their P&L statements. Revenues have dropped for a number of reasons, including 9/11 and fierce competition but I fly alot and notice that many of the flights I am on are full, suggesting the problem with the airlines is related to costs.
Educate me..I'm always willing to learn, if I am wrong.
-
Originally posted by Curval
I have never in my life seen a larger waste of money or resourses.... but I suggest the next time your union produces a set of financial statements, read them..and try to understand what is being presented. Ask your people what actually comprises balances in the expense accounts and on the balance sheet. You will find that people will get very quiet, very quickly.
LOL! Perhaps you have never seen in your life the results of "expert" managers such as those that ran Enron?
Those folks got very quiet, very quickly, didn't they?
As far as this particular thread goes...I made a form of accusation. I was rebutted by a simple statement from Toad that I was wrong and one example of a union shop that is making money was presented as a reason for this. Sorry, but the onus is still on you to prove me wrong. I will stick to my opinion until that time.
Well, simplistic accusations get simplistics rebuttals. Nonetheless, you are wrong.
Airlines thrive when they have good management and marketing and they tank when they don't. Unions have nothing to do with the selection of management and marketing in almost every case.
Delta is a case in point. Under Dave Garrett, everything Delta touched turned to gold. Under his successor, Ron Allen a "personnel weenie" that brown-nosed his way to the top without knowing a d*mn thing about the airline industry, Delta almost went bankrupt. Under the new CEO, Leo Mullin, Delta did respectably well because Mullin, while not an "airline" guy is a capable manager over all. Sept. 11 is a wildcard that most management cannot deal with for numerous reasons. The foremost one is perhaps the unwillingness to accept the fact that the entire industry method of operation needs a complete overhaul.
Southwest is another airline that shows what management that knows its own business and knows that treating folks as you yourself would want to be treated will result in success.
Check out Bethune at Continental. It's true they operated in bankruptcy for quite some time after Frank Lorenzo totally destroyed what Bob Six had built. Still, by treating his people fairly, understanding his business and treating the customer correctly, Bethune has done quite a job overall.
It isn't the Unions that make airlines fail. It's piss-poor management. Union activity at an airline merely reflects the capability of management in understanding the core business and understanding how to treat people.
Again, which came first: Piss-poor managers or union organizers?
There... more detail. You happy now? :D
-
Curval, you presented a statement with absolutely no arguemnet to back it up, the onus isn't on anyone to prove you wrong, you haven't given any reason to think you are right in the first place.
-
Now I'm all for throwing out a meaningless statement without any fact to back it up (lord knows I do it myself), but if you think for a second anyone is going to take you seriously, or should have some responsibility in proving wrong a one line blip that you blurt out like a tard, think again.
Also, what Thrawn said.
SOB
-
WTG Toad - I am with you 110%
Originally quoted by CurvalThe fact is that these airlines that are going under are doing so because they cannot seem to control costs. Wages expense and benefits is one line item that is spiralling out of control on their P&L statements. Revenues have dropped for a number of reasons, including 9/11 and fierce competition but I fly alot and notice that many of the flights I am on are full, suggesting the problem with the airlines is related to costs.
This is absolutely TYPICAL of the faceless bean-counter speak I am so sick of hearing.
Businesses go bad when they are managed by incompetents who have little or no knowledge of what they are managing and rely on the charts and accountants.
EXCESSIVE COSTS ARE CREATED BY BAD MANAGEMENT - FULL STOP
Example :- In my hangar we had a nice bread and butter contract - big job but not rocket science. Managed by idiots - hence this "not rocket science" job suddenly became "very complex" with "unrecognised challenges". The Idiots seeing the job not matching their pretty graphs (because they wouldn't listen to people who knew how to really do the job) then insisted on trying to match the pretty graphs by invoking VP - Visual Progress. " I know we don't need to fit that cabinet yet - just do it".
So now to do the VP and then un-do the VP and put right the cockups caused by having the VP in place and then try to do the job right we have to work lots of overtime ..... at time and a half or double time.
But the Idiots didn't keep track of the overtime because it wasn't on their graphs and the bean counters only look at the quarterly figures.
Job finishes and bean-counters look at the overtime bills - HOLY CRAP !!! We need to cut costs - get rid of some people.
Guys are laid off.
Bread and butter job lost because we "can't make money at it"
And now the kicker - because the company didn't have a good year we can only have 2% pay rise (after agreeing to having none for 2 years to try to "remain competitive")[/i] - Oh and due to an influx of other work we are loused out with contractors to replace all the guys laid off (contractors who cost way more than us per hour) and we are being asked to work overtime.
I'm in the union - I wonder why :rolleyes:
Sparks
-
Toad, Enron IS an example of piss poor management, bad accounting practices and extremely bad auditing practices. The same can be said for WorldCom and a few other recent notables, not involved in the airline industry.
The fact is though, that I cannot even begin to list the success stories. Just too damn many.
You blame management...I blame exploding costs and the inability of management to control them. So, effectively you same tomato..I say tomAto. But, I ask you this...how can management control wage and benefit expense, one of the largest line items on the P&L statements, with unions constantly stepping in the way? Creamo, in the thread to which he refers, was bragging that one paycheck paid for his union dues and that the union was responsible for getting him the increase that facilitated this....within a matter of weeks that airline filed for bankruptcy. It just seemed to me to point to something a bit more substantial than simply blaming management.
-
I take back what I said about the onus being on you to prove anything. I stick to the rest of what I have said. Happy?
Just do me a favour Sparks...ask your union "brothers" about what actually comprises the balances in your union's financials as I suggest above..then come back and say it is just accounting speak. Strange how you all did not comment on that.
"EXCESSIVE COSTS ARE CREATED BY BAD MANAGEMENT - FULL STOP"
LOL....omg. What planet are you from?
-
I've had some bad experiences with unions (operating engineers and UAW), but if they were so destructive to airlines, then how come the most ass-kickingest cut price airline ever (SWA) is a union shop?
-
Back to the question...
Don't the cheap airlines use much smaller airports, just airfields in some cases, than the big ones? Landing costs are much lower there. Could be a factor.
-
Just a guess funked..but probably because they give them what they want and cut costs in every other department.
-
I'm management Cremo..it is my duty to go to battle against you blue-shirted types.
Oh for gods sake. You actually see your home Sears machine washed white shirt and JC Penney tie, ironed before work, as if it’s a status symbol of actual production and intellectual business savy worth? Your bravely saving the stockholders from the Blue Horde??
I’m still confident your not a Wall Street management type that keeps fortune 500 companies running, and clients on hold in busy conference calls, to work in 20 posts a day on a flightsim BBS before your secretary delivers your dry cleaned work attire.
Just a guess funked..but probably because they give them what they want and cut costs in every other department.
Mindless. I can't even make you seem anymore foolish. I'll just paste it again.
Just a guess funked..but probably because they give them what they want and cut costs in every other department.
lol
Bashing you on every point you miss in the rest of your posts will serve no purpose. It’s bedtime.
-
Curval - I have no problem with asking questions on union balance sheets and with you maikng your claims I may well do so.
However you seem to be associating rising wage costs with the need to fund the union structure - that simply doesn't follow.
Now to this.....
But, I ask you this...how can management control wage and benefit expense, one of the largest line items on the P&L statements, with unions constantly stepping in the way?
This is a PERFECT example of blinkered accountants looking at a business. You are missing one key factor - the relationship between what you pay a worker an hour and what that hour of work brings in for the business.[i/] THAT relationship is what is controlled by the management and managemnet alone.
The cost of an employees hour of work is irrelevant if he earns more in the hour than he costs. If I come to work and there is nothing for me to do then I am COSTING money - THAT IS NOT MY PROBLEM - IT IS A SALES / MANAGEMENT PROBLEM.
Taking Beetles point on airlines - look at the ratio of management to shopfloor workers in each British Airways and Ryanair - I know people in both and BA has approx 4 times the managers per X manual employees than Ryanair. The manual people EARN the money - the managers SPEND the money.
Now going back to my initial relationship and my intial reply post - the Idiots managing the project were not only NOT supporting the workers under them (i.e. providing tools, planning support, information, skills, training) they were actually hindering them. HOWEVER when it comes down to the bean-counters analysis where is the problem - the labour costs due to overtime. The overhead of incompetent management is never seen - never seen because the accountants aren't going to finger the person who pays them and managers are not going to finger themselves.
I have been self employed and understand costings. The union may be imperfect but it's the only protection I have against the incompetance and power games I see every day in middle management upwards.
Sparks
-
Creamo, in the thread to which he refers, was bragging that one paycheck paid for his union dues and that the union was responsible for getting him the increase that facilitated this....within a matter of weeks that airline filed for bankruptcy.
A nightcap.
No wonder you and DRippy crapped yourselves all over the place, him punting threads about United stock, emailing me again about my wife, changing his sig to include a ref. to it, and you making all these posts and the spiteful dig about "Las Vegas dealers job opening".
You think I work for United?
Tards.
-
originally posted by Curval
"EXCESSIVE COSTS ARE CREATED BY BAD MANAGEMENT - FULL STOP"
LOL....omg. What planet are you from?
Not the one where accountants come from obviously......
OK - I'll tell you my "greasy workers" blue collar view. I go to work for a company for X number of hours and company agrees to pay me Y pounds/dollars per hour for that work - REAL simple arrangement.
Now what company decides to do with me for that X hours is its choice - i.e. the choice of the management.
Now it can have me loafing about because it hasn't got it's sales force off it's bellybutton to bring any work in or it may have me doing work twice over because it won't listen to me when I give suggestions as to how we SHOULD do it. In which case company will lose money. Bean-counters will see this as "excessive labour costs - UAL perhaps - Xerox certainly (worked for them too so I know from first hand)
Alternatively it can have me cracking out a full days work, effeciently planned and properly costed. Ryanair and others.
At the simplest level I want the going rate for the job and to maintain my position in relation to others skills - why should I lose my income due to piss poor management.
I can't earn more than the management let me so yes excessive costs ARE down to management.
Also I can't affect the price the job was estimated at or how the resource assigned to do the job is used - thats down to the management and that determines the profits......
You want to find where to cut costs - look in the glass fronted offices and behind the walnut desks - but ah yes thats where you sit , or at least those who pay you :rolleyes:
-
Sparks..I am not associating union costs with anything but internal corruption within the unions. Those comments, which Bro Creamo still hasn't addressed, were to answer his question on what I have against unions.
Nothing you can say or do will change my mind on that score..I've seen it firsthand.
Creamo, no I'm not wall street, but 20 posts a day is a slight exagerration, especially since you have a hell of alot more posts than I do..bit of a pot calling the kettle black I'd say old chap. I have double the number of posts per day as you but not all have been during working hours. Just curious though,why do you always resort to accusations about people posting at work as a form of defense..it is just a weak and lame jibe. I work more hours than you do "ganar-freakin teed" and I fill in time sheets to account for it all.
Your rants about my white vs. blue shirts comment is just silly. I put a wink after it to signify I was not being serious.
-
my wife works between 5 and 12 hours a night keying mail for the post office. befor the union lawsuit they made minimum wage. now they make $12.95 as second class union type. I was also raised in the unions are bad ( republican government union members ) its crap. give people the option to enter a union on any job is the only acceptable option otherwise businesses will abuse them if at all possible.
p.s. my wife says the fact that managment idiots ( like several of the above )can no longer spew their threats and other crap ( just befor the union they promised all jobs would go if pay raise happend ) they have since added 900 people.
For the working man unions are good, for management they are bad, cause american managment is rife with stupid spitefull lackys spouting football analagys who cant see 5 minutes beyond their own bonus.
In the long run decently paid workers with benifits help a company alot more than a never ending succesion of temporary wage slaves. I cant see how you can even argue aginst it. but this is a country ( the only industrialized one on earth ) where national medicin is a bad thing. sigh
-
ccvi -yes, the cut price airlines use low cost airports. easyJet (http://www.easyjet.co.uk) operates out of Luton & Liverpool, and flies mainly to holiday destainations whose airports have no large overheads. Ryan Air (http://www.ryanair.com) operates all flights out of London Stansted (except their flight to Dublin - operated from Luton). This has a major impact on cost cutting. They don't have ticketing - they manage their own passenger lists, and do not use ticketing companies like Amadeus or Gallileo. Down side to that is the scrum when you're trying to board. Solution: get on via the back door if you can.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Creamo, in the thread to which he refers, was bragging that one paycheck paid for his union dues and that the union was responsible for getting him the increase that facilitated this....within a matter of weeks that airline filed for bankruptcy.
A nightcap.
No wonder you and DRippy crapped yourselves all over the place, him punting threads about United stock, emailing me again about my wife, changing his sig to include a ref. to it, and you making all these posts and the spiteful dig about "Las Vegas dealers job opening".
You think I work for United?
Tards.
I have no knowledge about anyone e-mailing anyone about one's wife...keep me outta that. Rip has his opinions, I have mine, there is no colusion going on...stop being paranoid.
Yea, I did think you worked for United...if I'm wrong then so be it, I'm a tard in that regard.
Did my spiteful dig hurt...really? I think you are a big boy, you throw enough of your own spite around here, and can take it.
Doesn't change my opinion about unions in any way.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Sparks..I am not associating union costs with anything but internal corruption within the unions. Those comments, which Bro Creamo still hasn't addressed, were to answer his question on what I have against unions.
Nothing you can say or do will change my mind on that score..I've seen it firsthand.
Creamo, no I'm not wall street, but 20 posts a day is a slight exagerration, especially since you have a hell of alot more posts than I do..bit of a pot calling the kettle black I'd say old chap. I have double the number of posts per day as you but not all have been during working hours. Just curious though,why do you always resort to accusations about people posting at work as a form of defense..it is just a weak and lame jibe. I work more hours than you do "ganar-freakin teed" and I fill in time sheets to account for it all.
Your rants about my white vs. blue shirts comment is just silly. I put a wink after it to signify I was not being serious.
I think you should re-read his post. He wasn't comparing his job to yours or the amount of hours he works to the amount of hours you work or even that it wasn't OK for you to peruse and post to this BB from work. He was deducting that you couldn't be a super high-falutin' upper management-type if you have time to post on this BB. At least, that's how I read it.
SOB
-
Curval,
I'm in management as well, but you, sir, are an idiot.
And the onus is on you to proove otherwise, but by watching your posts, you've dug a pretty deep hole.
Here's hoping you don't risk of pissing off anymore clients.......
It's NOT Unions that run a company into the ground.....It's the hacks in Management that do 100% of the time.
Who the hell do you think makes strategic and tactical decisions?
Who the hell do you think negotiates with the Unions....it's Management's baby to win or loose.....man, if you are/were an auditor, then I already know what kind of Hack you are.
If you don't take care of the DIRECT Labor...not INDIRECT Labor like you and me, but DIRECT labor, where rubber meets the road, then you've lost. It's that simple! Manage them, don't despise them.
I'm no Union lover, believe me, but I also know it's not the Union who busts a company.....again, it's the Management Hacks every damn time.
And what SOB said.
Cobra
-
27 year old here, no experiance in either, management or unions.
But as for management, 90% of management i've experanced in my personal carrier has composed of idiots, imposters and wanna be's. Now that I've atteneded management classes in my college, i know why.
The following are the quotes from the profesor at UConn in Management 201 class. Professor is a PhD actually, in something HR related. 30 years in large corporation so on..
"good manager doesn't have to know anything about what his people are doing"
"good manager doesn't make decisions, he facilitates communicatons"
"stereotypes are good cause they allow us to categorize things easily"
I'll see if i can dig up some more later..
You get the point however.
My manager is reading the book called "Leadership secrets of Attila the Hun". Here is an expert from "The Economist" review about this book:
If you are a person who sees the world in a Manichean world view of "good and evil"/ "us and them" then you may ultimately see some kind of value in this book. All research however indicates that a successful business relationship is formed on the basis of honesty, trust and committment to a win-win relationship with the client. Without that fundamental understanding business and corporations do not advance. Those companies that practise the Attila mindset will ultimately remain Neanderthals and will condemn themselves to always being small-time, cheesy presenters with a life time of believing in the simplistic explanations for complex behaviour.
My manager however swears by it. :) He also doesn't know anything about what I do, which in some cases is quite nice. I can get away wiht just about anything :)
Idea of proper management has been lost long time ago.
The moment we started teaching facilitators instead of molding leaders.
-
Hey Cobra..if you want to cuddle up to Creamo that is fine..but don't insult me in your efforts to do so. I know you "like him" but insulting yourself in your tirade against management is going a bit far.
I am direct labour in my company. I docket my time and it is charged directly to clients. I am not "overhead" like yourself.
I WAS an auditor. I am no longer one. Any CPA you know was once an auditor..I guess they are all hacks, just like management, in your opinion.
As far as your comment about pissing off clients..you should read that thread again. The guy who I "could" have upset didn't hear what I said (even though I didn't say anything wrong) and the founder of that company who pointed out my potential faux-pas agreed with me. It wasn't a wise thing to say politically, but no-one is or was upset. Please get your facts right.
-
I'll bet it wasn't the CAW(Canadian Auto Workers) that you audited Curval...Some unions are better than others..Some aren't really unions at all,like Old Blue of the Ontario Liquor Board.
-
Curval,
I'm not cuddling up to anybody....so slow down there Ace. Like your comment about Rip...my opinion of you is my own.
Not sure how I insulted myself, but hey, whatever makes you love yourself more.....
Heh...CPA...explains more than you know :)
I'm in management, like I said. I do it on a Global level. I do it in Supply Chain and logistics at that level. I don't just audit someone doing it....I make it happen, bean-counter ;). But I'll bow to your vast experience :rolleyes:
I got my facts right, hissy-lad. What you did was a very stupid, stupid thing. You got lucky that time, but it doesn't change the stupidity of your act.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go vomit after reading the wisdom in your posts.
Cobra
-
I blame exploding costs and the inability of management to control them
[/b]
When Ron Allen almost destroyed Delta it was a direct result of going on a grandiose terminal building spree. Prior to this idiotic maneuver, Delta operated out of whatever was available at the airport, made minimal upgrades and just "got the job done".
We could do this because we had personnel with long-time experience in the industry at the particular terminal. It simply worked. It wasn't fancy, it wasn't glamourous but the flights got out on time.
Brother Allen decided this wasn't befitting of a "world class air line" and embarked on a spending spree that was unprecedented in the industry. He built monuments to his stupidity all over the place. Two of the most egregious were Los Angeles and Orlando. They were huge, they were marble and glass and they were incredibly expensive. We almost went bankrupt.
Now, 10 or so years later we don't even use half the gates we built. We lease them out at fire sale prices to other carriers that have to be laughing their hind ends off.
Tell me how this was labor's fault?
Management's number one problem in controlling costs are the morons that they choose to sit behind the overabundant big mahogany desks.
Back when Dave Garrett ran Delta, DAL had the fewest Vice Presidents of any major airline. Under Ron Allen, we had the most or were at least in the top 2-3 for superfluous, expensive managers.
Why is SW successful? Check and see how many managers they have compared to folks that actually "do the job" and earn the company money.
Which came first: Piss-poor managers or union organizers?
Before I go, one of Leo Mullin's (the "new" guy) BIG MISTAKES:
The DAL pilots took the worst contract in the majors in '96. Major pay and benefit cuts. Put them @ #8 in pay/benefits in the industry. The rest of the employees took major cuts as well.
Mullin takes over and the industry turns around. All the airlines are making money hand over fist, can't find places to hide it all.
Mullin gives all non-contract employees huge raises, from 8-14%. Tells the pilots that they have a contract and "a contract is a contract, see you in two years".
The pilots get MAJOR gains in the next contract, puts them essentially at #1 or #2 in the industry. They enjoy this for almost 8 months.
Then 9/11. Mullin talks of everyone having to make "sacrifices". Instantly, copies of Mullin's old "contract is a contract" letter appear all over the system, posted on the public cork-type bulletin boards. So far, no changes to the pilot's contract. (But it's coming; everyone knows that.)
Wouldn't an intelligent manager have shared a bit of the largesse with the pilots when he gave raises to all others? The amount of good will to be had woud have been purchased at bargain basement prices and would ALREADY have been returned to him thrice-fold since 9/11.
But no.. he had to treat someone else in a way that he would have personally considered cheap and unfair.
....... and it came back to bite him.
Go figure.
You don't have to be real smart to be a manager; you just have to be fair and follow the golden rule.
Problem is they can't control their own GREED and thus they can't control corporate costs.
-
Problem is they can't control their own GREED and thus they can't control corporate costs.
Hey there Cowboy.... why dontcha stop insulting the #1 Principle of the "American Dream". Wish there was a tongue in cheek smiley.
-
United was in fact ruined by it's unions. If you remember united was the airline that made news in the 1990s for being owned by the employees and that they had a controllining interest in the company. Well they did and one of the biggest things they did was raise pay, United has (had? :( ) one of highest overpaid workforces in the airline industry - in effect they bled the company dry like vampires. Now 911 did not help but that was only the final blow. I'm very happy United wend under as it's childish ownership scheme demonstrated the evils of unions and also communism, which is basically what the unions did at United.
-
Wow, I REALLY hate to do this.. but since Grun insists.
From UAL's own history site:
Under the wings of UAL (http://www.ual.com/page/middlepage/0,1454,2292,00.html)
Winds of Change...
In 1970, United posted a $46 million net loss, a massive turnaround from the $45 million profit it reported the previous year. What went wrong?
Airline observers cited various causes, including higher costs, lower fares and a flattened market. In addition, the Civil Aeronautics Board's Transpacific Route Case decision in mid-1969 cost United its bid for international routes and drained profits from the airline's lucrative U.S. Mainland-Hawaii operation. Finally, there was the premature introduction of the jumbo Boeing 747. But there were other causes, too, many of them internal.
Can you say "piss-poor management"?
Between 1970 and 1989, United made six changes in the office of the president, including the arrival of Western International Hotels executives Edward Carlson and Richard Ferris, who played significant roles in the acquisition and [/b]divestiture of United's principal subsidiaries during those two decades. In that period, also, UAL, Inc. changed its name twice -- Allegis Corporation in 1986, then to UAL Corporation in 1988.[/b]
Can you say "piss-poor management"?
With management changes came new directions and a new image. UAL, Corp. reached beyond the airline industry to acquire non-airline enterprises. United, itself, went beyond U.S. borders -- first, via new route authority to serve Tokyo from Seattle in 1983, and, two years later, through the purchase of Pan American Airways' Pacific Division.
To reflect its new direction, United changed its logo and aircraft livery and incorporated the design and color scheme in its employee uniforms, ground equipment and corporate signage. Before the turbulent era passed, United's parent company was forced by a major investor group to divest itself of its non-airline subsidiaries. UAL Corporation once again became involved exclusively in air transport operations.
Money well spent by labor right? :p[/b]
In 1978, the U.S. Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act and airlines were free to compete for passenger and freight business in an open market. Seven years later, the Civil Aeronautics Board went out of existence and air mail contracts - -the last regulatory domain of the CAB - - also were opened to free-market competition.
New Image for a New Airline...
As United entered the last decade of the 20th century, it took on an exciting, new image -- a growing, global airline. On Jan. 5, 1990, the company received U.S. government approval to serve Paris from Chicago and Washington, D.C., and, soon after, launched Newark-Tokyo service. By year's end, a series of bold moves left no question about United's plans for unparalleled expansion.
Let's see how this incredibly smart managment move turned out.......[/i]
In just nine days in October 1990, the company placed the largest aircraft order in commercial aviation history -- $22 billion dollars -- and announced its purchase of Pan American's U.S. routes to London. At the same time, the U.S. government approved United's long-standing application to serve Tokyo from Chicago and granted an exemption to permit service to Madrid from Washington Dulles.
Bold and aggressive management there, eh?[/i]
By the end of 1991, United was serving Amsterdam, Berlin, Madrid and Munich. In 1992, Caracas, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo and other South American cities became United destinations. Stephen Wolf that year relinquished the airline presidency, remaining as chairman and CEO. Executive Vice President John Pope became president and chief operating officer.
The picture started to change in 1991 as fuel prices rose to record highs in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf crisis and a number of low-cost, no-frills carriers came on the competitive scene. UAL Corporation reported a record net loss of $332 million in 1991 and set a new, more dismal record in 1992: a net loss of $957 million.
Oops. Mr. Wolf may not have been as brilliant as Wall Street thought. Doubts? Check his "success" at driving US Air into bankruptcy as a follow on to his UAL act.[/b]
United began 1993 by introducing a new gray, navy and red livery for its aircraft and new employee uniforms to project a more global image. But in response to the company's poor financial performance, senior management quickly switched gears to a strategy of stringent cost containment. A hiring freeze, the grounding of older aircraft and the sale of 15 of United's flight kitchens contributed to a $400 million reduction in operating expenses that year, but it was not enough.
Right on top of things, weren't they. This is what they get the big bucks for? New paint when the world is going to sh*t?[/i]
The company proposed a significant change in labor costs and began months of intense negotiations with employee unions. The negotiations produced agreements in mid-December with the Air Line Pilots Association and the International Association of Machinists. On Dec. 22, 1993, the UAL board approved a proposal for 54,000 employees to exchange portions of their salaries and benefits for UAL stock, paving the way for the creation on July 12, 1994, of the largest majority employee-owned company in the world.
The Buyout was a bad idea? Really?
1. It was PAID FOR by employees.. it wasn't given.
2. THE BRILLIANT MANAGING BOARD approved the deal
MANAGEMENT APPROVED.
Can you say "piss-poor management"?[/i]
Thought you could. Because the history is there if you only take the time to read it.
-
And since 1994 who has had a controling stake in United airlines? Who selected management since that time? If they didnt like the way the company was going the unions could have changed management since they ha a majority controlling interest in the company. You cant blame this on some Wall-Street evil capitalist pigs as this was the fault of the employees who owned the company and had a controlling interest. It was their fault simple...
-
You want to know about incompetent management and airlines...look up Ansett Australia.
A proud Airline butchered by negligent management, and incompetent buisness structures led by News Corp ,TNT , and then Air New Zealand.
the evils of unions
The evil unions were the only thing that kept it flying in the end AFTER it's corporate master set it adrift, claiming it had nothing to do with it.
Tronsky
-
Cobra just a few snippets from your previous post:
"I'm in management as well"
"It's the hacks in Management that do 100% of the time"
"again, it's the Management Hacks every damn time."
You seem to have a dim view of management and yet you are a management hack yourself.
I find it strange that you glorify the unionised worker by saying:
"not INDIRECT Labor like you and me, but DIRECT labor, where rubber meets the road"
and then go on to claim that you are somehow making everything happen here : I'm in management, like I said. I do it on a Global level. I do it in Supply Chain and logistics at that level. I don't just audit someone doing it....I make it happen, bean-counter."
Which is it wonder boy? You seem to be having some sort of identity crisis at a minimum.
As I said earlier I do not audit anymore.
-
Oh yes we should just diminish and degrade management and leadership and just have the "workers". Gee where did I hear that before... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
And since 1994 who has had a controling stake in United airlines? Who selected management since that time? If they didnt like the way the company was going the unions could have changed management since they ha a majority controlling interest in the company. You cant blame this on some Wall-Street evil capitalist pigs as this was the fault of the employees who owned the company and had a controlling interest. It was their fault simple...
Look at the entire industry since 1994. UAL has performed as well as or better than the rest of the majors until 9/11.
Seems like the employees, who only had 3 seats on a 12 member board, are either responsible for:
1. Making the company perform as well as any other major
or
2. Having no negative effect on performance when compared to the other majors.
Check this Grun; this is 3 years after the buyout:
1997 Unit cost per Available Seat Mile
Southwest Airlines $0.074
United Airlines $0.077
America West Airlines $0.077
Trans World Airlines $0.091
Delta Air Lines $0.091
Northwest Airlines $0.093
Continental Airlines $0.094
Alaska Airlines $0.100
American Airlines $0.101
US Airways $0.134 (With Wolf, the guy that got UAL into such trouble that they had to do the employee buyout as CEO. :D )
So what do you think? UAL second only to Southwest in Seat Mile Cost? That employee buyout... low costs, eh?
Now, for your homework, find UAL's profit/loss since the buyout and compare it to:
1. Industry average for the majors
and
2. The profit/loss for DAL, AA, NWA and CAL over those same years.
Then tell me the employees hurt the operation.
You're going to be surprised.
-
Toad:
The 1997 UAL annual report shows:
Operating expense per ASM 9.53 cents
The 1997 SW annual report shows:
Operating expense per ASM 7.4 cents
The 1997 AMR annual report shows:
Operating espense per ASM 9.27 cents.
These are again from the Annual Reports from 1997.
What source are you using for your UAL and other company data? Why is your figure off by so much compared to the 1997 UAL annual report?
-
I don't know if 'unions' ruined the poor airlines or not. Speaking as a stupid blue collar worker (which I've been my entire life), I'd be more inclined to blame it on management.
I'm a relatively young man, I've only been working for 10 years now. In that time, I worked at a variety of 'retail' stores (including some time in a shop, which I'll count as retail since they provide a service). Of all those jobs, the closest I've come to being a manager was being a '3rd key' at Goodyear. I've never been in a union. Now, my impression of 'management' may be slightly skewed since I've never had one I was impressed with, but I'll give it to you anyway. "Corporate America", right down to the overseers in the lower echelons of management, would enjoy nothing more than to have a labor force made up of slaves. I'd say probably 75% of their job is thinking up new and improved ways to bring 'labor' closer to bondage. The other 25% of it is trying to fool the diddlying retards that are the labor into thinking that management has 'their best interests' in mind. Need evidence? Well, I'm to lazy to look up exact statistics, but I'm sure someone could dig up some data showing exactly how much of the U.S.A's industry has fled overseas in the past 50 or so years. Why would they do this? They do it so they can have a more pliant workforce willing to work for even less than American 'labor' has managed to wring out of them. The general trend has been going away "Labor" towards "Management" for the past 80 years or longer. And you'll notice the effects- people make less money now than they did 30 years ago (with wages adjusted for inflation anyway). Well, not ALL people. Some people make a million times what they did 30 years ago. A few thousand of them anyway. The average worker in the U.S.A. makes less money, works longer hours, and works more days per year than anyone else in the world except for Japan (at least if I remember correctly). Why? Well, for starters nobody in the U.S.A. gives a toejam about the average worker. If the average worker could buy politicians like the corporations do, maybe someone would. Until then I don't think anything is to terribly likely to happen.
I'm all ABOUT unions. I'd laugh until I diddlying cried if the unions suddenly had power to match the 'management'. And no, to answer your unasked question, I don't give a toejam about how paying the "blue-collar" workers a living wage would tear the diddlying heart right out of the poor corporations 'profit margin'. I think that money makes people happy. I think that being paid a wage you can actually LIVE off of might make people give a toejam about their job performance. And if that happened, you might end up with workers that are more profitable than slaves.
-
Mr. Toad! A very interesting post, and I read every word. I can’t help wondering that the bigger an organisation becomes, the more susceptible it becomes to being used as a cash cow, whether by unions, management, or the taxman.
In 1982, British Airways posted a £545m loss, but was able to turn that around and became for a while the world’s most profitable airline under Tom (later Lord) King. He was a Thatcher protégé, but later turned out to be a bit of a ***t. The airline became profitable by axing less popular routes, and by a dramatic slimming down of the workforce. At about that time, Richard Branson made a phone call to Britain’s CAA (Civil Aviation Authority, but known amongst private pilots as the Campaign Against Aviation) and said ”Hello, I’d like to start my own airline, please!” They were probably taken aback, but Branson went ahead anyway, and so was born Virgin Atlantic Airways. Of nine airlines that have flown me across the Atlantic, Virgin has been my favourite. Sorry, Toad. :D British Airways got into hot water with their infamous “dirty tricks” campaign. Virgin was not big enough to run their own mainframe computer, so they rented capacity on BA’s IBM mainframe. Their business was run in a LPAR (logical partition) which is supposed to make it look like you have your own machine. But BA was able to spy on Virgin business, and formed the untidy habit of telephoning Virgin customers to offer a free upgrade onto a BA flight. Branson didn’t like that when he found out. He took BA to court in England and got about £600,000 in damages, but he didn’t stop there. Took ‘em to court in the US over other matters and I believe he got £15m. Cheapest crossing I got out of Virgin was £145 inc tax from London to New York (Newark) One good thing about BA was that they used Rolls Royce engines, and not those General Electric American pisspots. A baggage handler I knew that worked at O'Hare said he could HEAR the difference when a BA plane taxied up to the stand - the engines sounded much sweeter. Sorry, guys - couldn't resist!)
As for easyJet, Stelios decided to give the flying public what they wanted. They used to fly me every week from Luton to Nice – at a very reasonable price – sometimes as low as £49 one way (all taxes included), but more usually £69 or £79. So far as I know, they haven’t got into any silly price war with RyanAir – I don’t think they compete on routes. But BA got up to their dirty tricks again by forming the GO airline. I steadfastly refused to fly on GO, as it was designed as part of a cartel to put easyJet out of business by operating similar routes under similar terms, at prices below cost. That’s illegal, and I don’t know how they were able to get away with it. Besides, I have neither forgotten nor forgiven BA for making me sit for 12 hours with my body twisted with my knees pressed against the seat in front, and have avoided them at all costs ever since. Stelios ran a competition to estimate how much GO would lose in its first year. The figure was £22m.
As a passenger on easyJet, it seems that their formula for success is to cut out business and first, and to have their own reservations system – a non-ticketing airline. I book on the web. They operate only out of low cost airports like Luton, and never places like Heathrow. By operating only B737s it means that all their pilots can fly all their aircraft. And they need only one simulator, so there’s money saved there as well as money saved on space to accommodate it. (Mr. Toad – can you comment on the licence/rating issue for different variants of the same plane? Is a 737-300 rated pilot also rated to fly 737-800? Still only one sim needed? I ask because the –800 has entered service with the no-frills airlines.) The downside of a no-frills deal is that there is no refund if you don’t show up, and you can’t just “catch a later flight” if you miss your designated flight. But what the hey – you pays your money, and takes your choice. I got a bit fed up with the tardiness of some EJ flights. The Friday evening Nice to Luton was often late. The aircraft in service would fly the route first thing in the morning, then do an afternooner to Amsterdam, then do the Nice flight again. Well they started operating that plane to Barcelona instead of AMS for the afternooner – a much longer distance – so the Nice flight at the end of the day was often late. The problem was that Boeing couldn’t seem to crank out enough B737s to keep up with the airline’s demands! But they’re OK now.
Richard Branson is a man of vision. I wish he would form his own political Party (Virgin Democrats?) and run for Prime Ministerial office, as I would vote for him. He has an interesting past – smoked a bit of naughty stuff, very nearly went down for selling records designated for export in British record shops, and was expelled from school – for shagging the headmaster’s daughter! ROFL!!! As British politicians go with sleaze, Branson would fit right in – lol.
I’ll leave you with a pic I took on that Dublin trip – the statue of Molly Malone who sold cockles and muscles alive alive-O from her barrow, down streets broad and narrow. Although she appears to be doing her day job, she’s already dressed for her evening job – can you guess what THAT was? ;)
-
Beetle, Molly's dress is merely "marketing", showing that she indeed understood how to sell. I'll wager when she bent over to get your cockles and mussels "alive, alive-o" a few things did indeed spring to life. ;)
-
Grun, the comparison is from a disreputable little outfit called the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Global Airline Industry Program. They cite as their " Source: Airline Business Magazine Top 100 Survey 1997)".
The site is here (knew I should have just linked it. And folks get on me for linking too much... saves time in the end):
THE AIRLINE INDUSTRY (http://web.mit.edu/airlines/industry.html)
If UAL cites a differing number I wouldn't be suprised. Statistics have a funny way of changing depending on who you ask. Still, if you want to take annual report numbers, I 'm sure we could look them all up for 1997. After all, Airline Business Magazine sounds like a Union rag, doesn't it?
-
BEETLE:
(Mr. Toad – can you comment on the licence/rating issue for different variants of the same plane? Is a 737-300 rated pilot also rated to fly 737-800? Still only one sim needed? I ask because the –800 has entered service with the no-frills airlines.)
Beetle, I can only speak to FAA practices here in the US. Each country has it's own "aviation authority" that can decide "common category" domestically, although all seem to generally follow the FAA lead and certainly they abide by ICAO rules. (International Civil Aviation Organization).
Having one "type" of aircraft in your fleet saves an INCREDIBLE amount of money. You might call it "smart management". Pilot training and upgrade expense is minimized, it greatly simplifies scheduling planes and crews because any crew can fly any plane, it simplifies maintenance, it simplifies overhaul and parts inventory, it simplifies reservations and marketing.. I could go on, but you get the point.
Anyway, the "next generation" 737's like the 800 are a different "category" than the older ones. Bascially, the FAA drew the line at having "round dial" and EFIS aircraft as a "common category". Thus, the old 737's and the "new" 737's require different training and checkrides. No airline that I know of mixes pilots and categories although in the "old days" we could be "dual pool" at my airline and be qualified on two different categories at once. For example, one could be a DC-9 Captain and an L-1011 F/O at the same time. It was decided that this was a truly "bad idea" after not too long a time.
Everyone flies the domestic B757 and B767 as common category AFAIK. When introduced in our configuration, there were only 3 switches in the cockpit that were different or just in a different location. Procedures are nearly identical. So, mixing a wide body and a narrow body in the same category seems to work quite well.
As an interesting note, I understand Southwest got around the "round dial/EFIS" problem by having their EFIS computer display "round dials" that matched the old 737 fleet. Thus, they CAN fly newer 737's in the same category. Can you say "smart managment?"
They are limiting their operation a tiny bit by doing that, however. I understand they cannot fly Cat III approaches in that configuration. Still, it saves TONS of money for them and how often do you make a CAT III? I might have gotten 3 in the last year and two of those in Salt Lake. So if your system generally stays away from places like SLC you may happily give up CAT III for the common category savings.
-
Grun, how you coming with that profit/loss comparison between traditional and "employee owned" airlines vis-a-vis each other and the industry average?
-
So you are saying the annual reports are lying for UAL, AA, and a few other airlines I checked out?
-
No, I gave you my source. That's what you asked for, isn't it?
MIT/Airline Business Magazine
Make your case that employee owned airlines did so much worse than the industry average or, better yet, did so much worse than airlines run by true professionals like Steve Wolf at US Air.
:D
BTW, did you notice that nearly all the rest of the majors are threatening bankruptcy too? The ones run by the professional management teams?
-
Here is what i have to say about your source.
If MIT cites a differing number I wouldn't be suprised. Statistics have a funny way of changing depending on who you ask.
-
Hey Grun... how about Southwest?
Employee Ownership in the Airlines (http://dept.kent.edu/oeoc/PublicationsResearch/Winter1999-2000/EmployeeOwnershipInTheAirlines.htm)
(Looks like it came from Kent State University)
Southwest Airlines, today's fastest-growing major airline, is partially employee-owned through stock options for pilots, and through a condition of company-wide profit-sharing that a quarter of the money go to buy company stock. There are millionaires and near-millionaires among rank-and-file employees of the highly unionized airline as a result, but no employee representatives on Southwest's board.
Gee........ Southwest....... employee participation in ownership.
-
However since you insist:
Wholesome "employee controlled" company:
UAL expense per ASM 2001 (falsified) annual report: 12.0 cents
Evil capitalist pig companies:
AA expense per ASM 2001 (falsified) annual report: 10.58 cents
Southwest expense per 2001 (falsified) annual report: 7.54 cents
Anyway UAL is bankrupt.
As for your Southwest tidbit do the pilots have a 55% controling interest in Southwest?
You see by US law the majority owners of a companies voting stock have full control, anyone with less than 50% has no say
legaly whatsover. UAL is 55% owned by the employee Unions according to (falsified) 2000 UAL annual report. They can fire and hire any managers they want, they can elect anyone to the board and do anything they want because they own the show. They are responsible for all good and bad.
BTW Employee 55% majority owned and controlled UAL is still bankrupt and had substantially higher expenses per ASM than evil capitalist pig AA...
-
Originally posted by Curval
Cobra just a few snippets from your previous post:
"I'm in management as well"
"It's the hacks in Management that do 100% of the time"
"again, it's the Management Hacks every damn time."
You seem to have a dim view of management and yet you are a management hack yourself.
I find it strange that you glorify the unionised worker by saying:
"not INDIRECT Labor like you and me, but DIRECT labor, where rubber meets the road"
and then go on to claim that you are somehow making everything happen here : I'm in management, like I said. I do it on a Global level. I do it in Supply Chain and logistics at that level. I don't just audit someone doing it....I make it happen, bean-counter."
Which is it wonder boy? You seem to be having some sort of identity crisis at a minimum.
As I said earlier I do not audit anymore.
Ok, Office-Lackey....here goes...
You should probably use the whole quote, not just a snippet....because it read Who makes the Strategic and Tactical decisions.....you guessed it Management.
Where did I glorify the Union worker in that quote of Direct Labor....I didn't...man, I'm glad you got out of the auditing business, you can't even read what's there. Hehe...if you can't do, count, would be your motto, eh?
I've worked in both environments as management. Union and Non-Union.
Trust me, I didn't glorify Unions there boot-licker.
I made a very true statement that it is Management's responsibility to make decisions and set the stage for the company to be successful. To blame it on those big bad unions alone, means that Management is not stepping up to their role.
In my position, I'm responsible for Staff and Floor Guys. I've seen way too many staff people who have never been on the floor, who don't have any idea of what it takes to get product moving, do things to make it harder where rubber meets the road.
They push it down the chain, what is ultimately their responsibility, which is to manage......get it, Manage!
I have a dim view of only that Management which does not pull it's weight, and tries to find scapegoats for its inability to step up to the bar.
I've worked with some Executives that were amazing. They always put their people first, period. They focused on what the company does to make money, in my case, manufacturing, and they made sure those areas where managed well, and took care of the direct work force. The forced the onus onto management to take responsibility for managing their respective areas, period.
Get that simple concept, memo-boy?
I'm not sure your qualified to compliment me by calling me a management wonder....in fact, I know your not....but thanks anyway, coffee-fetcher :)
Cobra
-
Let me see... you're using figures from UAL annual reports that you state are "falsified", from American that you state are "falsified" from Southwest that you state are "falisfied" but you don't accept the MIT figures?
:D
Grun, you're almost as good as Boroda sometimes.
I'm sure you have the correct figures for us?
Have you found the annual profit figures for the majors over the '94 to 2000 period?
Or are those all "falsified" too?
:D
Don't take this as a personal attack, but I don't think you've done your industry research well enough to announce that UAL's problems are all the fault of the Unions.
For example, a little research into how the buyout even happened might be illuminating. I think you'll find that Steve Wolf, the management wunderkind at the yoke, had UAL in DEEP trouble. Note that Wunderkind Wolf presided over the bankruptcy of US Air... the one just prior to UAL's recent filing. :D
-
You insinuated that the annual reports are false, I was being ironic.
Anyway the truth of the matter is UAL is majority owned and controlled by it's unions. they could hire, or fire any executive or manager. In effect the managers were hired employees of the union, the union was the "management" and you said UAl was screwed by the management - so actually you are right!
-
Every Number Tells a Story (http://www.planebusiness.com/tscolumns/tscolumns/ts102500.html)
Cost Per Available Seat Mile
Airline 9/30/1999 9/30/2000 % Change
US Airways 13.57 12.28 -9.5%
Southwest 7.55 7.70 2.0
TWA 9.41 9.72 3.3
Delta 8.61 9.14 6.2
Continental 8.83 9.65 9.3
Northwest 8.42 9.29 10.3
America West 7.57 8.42 11.2
American 9.21 10.31 11.9
Alaska 8.63 10.04 16.3
United 9.18 10.98 19.6
Source: Plane Business
Note the UAL CASM for '99: 9.18 :D The source for this stuff is DOT filings, btw. I guess they "lie" to the government too.. or does DOT "falsify" the data? :p
You might want to take a look at the "Yield" chart in that article too. Employee owned UAL yield is right in there with all those professionally managed companies.
Another good article there:
Comparing Airlines Nose to Nose Tells the Tale (http://www.planebusiness.com/tscolumns/ts072100.html)
Check the RASM/CASM comparison at the end of the article. Again UAL is right there with the rest of the majors.
-
C'mon Grun. You say the employees are the managers.
OK, post the annual profits for the majors from '94 up to 2000.
Let's see how your theory holds up when you compare the employee rookies against those other management pros.
You can't have it both ways.
Oh, yeah... post UAL profits for the pre-buyout years under that management wunderkind Wolf, too.
Or does that totally ruin your case? :D
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Anyway the truth of the matter is UAL is majority owned and controlled by it's unions.
That is true.
they could hire, or fire any executive or manager. In effect the managers were hired employees of the union,
That is totally incorrect. The pilots and mechanics did have veto power over the CEO selection I believe but not hire/fire authority over "any executive or manager".
the union was the "management" and you said UAl was screwed by the management - so actually you are right!
The unions... and there are more than one involved and they very often don't agree amongst themselves (note that the pilots and machinists split over pay cuts just prior to bankruptcy)..... are not managing and marketing the airline.
They have "professional managers" to totally screw that up for them. :D
Come on now.. post the profit/loss stuff. :D
Tell us how great Wolf is at running airlines and what he did to UAL before he bolted to go screw up US Air.
-
UAL is bankrupt now. I dont care what the profit figures were a few years ago. I have not looked them up. Go ahead and post them yourself if you think it helps explain why the unions made UAL file for bankruptcy last week.
As 55% majority owners of company voting stock the Unions could do whatever they wanted. What part of that is not clear?
Even one of the sources you posted clearly says this...
"Today, the pilots and the Machinists each have seats on the board of directors of United's parent company, UAL Corp., as do salaried employees. Through supermajority voting provisions the two unions have veto authority over major transactions, their directors sit on the board's most important committees, and they effectively select the company's top executives."
Toad the point is UAL today has higher operating expenses than AA its chief rival, UAL is bankrupt, the UAL leadership are the unions.
And how exactly does it help your case that employee ownership and controll is better when you excuse their failiure by saying "they very often don't agree amongst themselves". What kind of leadershp is that?
-
Mr. Toad :D I don’t think Molly would even have to bend down for things to spring into action. ;)
I liked your reply. I thought I would be right about the airlines saving money by running only one type of aircraft, but I didn’t realise how true that was. I have another issue on which I would welcome your comment: Fly by wire. I don’t know if you ever flew on the dark side - WB. There was a WB guy called socket who also flew in real life for US Airways on 757/767. (BTW those ratings are synonymous in the UK too) I remember socket saying that his next step would be to move up to the A330. But for the moment, that was waaaaaayy too senior. No sooner had he said that when he’d done it! I believe at that time, US Airways had a policy of going the fly-by-wire route, and wanted all their planes to be FBW eventually. (Not 100% sure of this) Do you think that converting to FBW is going to be the goal of the aviation industry as a whole, and that FBW will become the industry standard? Given the financial hammering that airlines have had since 9/11, is that a feasible objective? As someone outside of the airline industry, I would think that the transition would be very expensive, especially for carriers like easyJet and RyanAir who operate only one type of aircraft. The transitional phase would see them operating two types. The worst case scenario might be to run out of money during that transition, and be stuck with two types of aircraft – manual (if I may call them that) and FBW. Do you think that Boeing will ever choose to go the whole hog with FBW and stop making “manual” aircraft? So many questions – hehe – but I admit I am lacking in knowledge here and seek answers.
Yeah those big EFIS displays are an excellent idea. One assumes that if additional instruments became necessary, there would be no physical change to the instrument display, but the “new” instrument would be displayed once the EFIS software had been updated.
-
Grun, you are the one making the case that employee ownership/unions led directly to the current UAL bankruptcy.
You ignore the fact that PRIOR to the '94 buyout, Wolf was running the airline and his "professional" management had them on the brink of bankruptcy THEN. The "buyout" was the "solution" that "saved" them in '94.
You ignore the fact that SINCE the '94 buyout and up until 9/11, UAL's financials were pretty much "industry standard" for the majors. In fact, you can make the case that they were "above average" for the majors during that period. That's why you need to look at profit/loss for those years. Then you might be able to make an educated comment about the industry. As it is now, you admit you haven't even bothered to see what was really going on and you just rely on your anti-union personal bias to stand as unassailable fact. In short, you don't know what you're talking about.
You ignore the fact that Wolf, the "professional" manager, went on to US Air and drove them into bankruptcy. As a sidenote, remember that the year he denied the US Air F/A's any pay raise at all...... and they were WELL below industry standard on wages...... he and Ganghwal, his #2 "professional manager" split a $36 MILLION dollar BONUS... not wages, BONUS.
You also ignore the fact that UAL unions had almost no say in the daily running of the airline; the marketing and service end. They did have veto power over selection of the CEO, however. They COULD NOT hire/fire managers willy-nilly. The idea that the few Union seats on the board, members in committees and the ability to veto CEO selection and mergers and acquisitions equals "running the airline" is ludicrous. Those things are ancillary to the everyday job of moving people from A to B. THAT'S where UAL's "professional" managers fail to deliver..... and the unions have no say there. Not to bang UAL; the rest of the majors are in the same straits. The industry has changed and they have not. Only SW has a clear understanding of what passengers want, need and will pay to get it. Note again that SW pays their people competitively and that SW is now mostly unionized.
Now don't forget it was 2 of UAL's fleet that were primary in 9/11. You don't think that had an effect? Since 9/11, all bets are off in the airline industry, or hadn't you noticed that? UAL is bankrupt because of 9/11, IMO. They won't be the last either.
What will you say when DAL, AMR, CAL and NWA all file in the not too distant future? They're not run by unions and they have professional management.
-
I'm rated on the 757/767 as well. Nice aircraft. Not much of them FBW when compared to Airbus. IIRC, FBW technology is touted because it saves weight, is more precise than direct linkage and is "more reliable".
Well, FBW saves less than 300 pounds on a 757 if I remember that little Boeing tidbit correctly. Maybe one of the Boeing guys could comment. We carry way more canned pop that we never use than that. :D
More precise? Than what? I've never had any problems flying direct linkage aircraft even down to CAT III minimums and hand-flying CAT II.
More reliable? Not buying that one. When FBW quits, it's a computer or wiring problem. We all have experience with how long it takes to sort those out and how haywire other things can get when it happens. Direct linkages either work or don't work and it's merely a matter of replacing a piece of hardware.... software doesn't enter into it. If they don't work, there is usually a "backup" and even a "backup to the backup" particularly on a Boeing, which is why I just love Boeings.
So, so far I'm a bit unimpressed with FBW. It seems like a solution in search of a problem.
As a side note, my brother is rated on the Airbus A-330. He's had some absoulutely hair-raising experiences with the EFIS computers on final approach in the weather. Let's just say it's better to be lucky than good.
All of the above aside, I think it's clear that FBW is here to stay and future aircraft will be increasingly and finally totally FBW. It's all the "buzz". ;)
I'm just an old dinosaur who's career is ending before that happens..... and I'm happy about that!
-
Hmmm, yesss.... (spoken in a Jeremy Paxman voice). Mr. Toad, do you think that FBW is a Management favoured initiative? I knew a retired BA DC10 captain who seemed to think that *they* wanted to deskill the job of pilot, but it was not clear who *they* were...
I'd just got home from a flying trip from France, and was talking about it in a pub with the guy I'd gone with, and a guy overheard and started talking to us. He turned out to be a BA 757 captain, and seemed to favour the older more mature first officers. In his opinion, he could rely on them to do the job, whereas he "had to keep an eye on things" with the newbies, who seemed to favour full use of the automatics at all times. Do you think we're moving to a situation in which *they* want the pilot to have less and less responsibility? The control column encased by a glass box on which there's a sign which says "In emergency, break glass"? I have no axe to grind either way. Sure, I accept your feelings about FBW, but then *they* might say that 45% of all air accidents are caused by pilot error, so let's go as far as we can towards getting rid of the pilot.
I'll stick to flying for now, but the moment I hear "powered by Microsoft", I'm back to cars, trains and boats.
-
FBW doesn't break any new ground with regards to aircraft capabiities, IMO.
It's just a different technology/methodology for doing the same old things.
For example, FBW engine controls merely do things electronically that used to be done with a cable or a pushrod. The actual inputs are still either made by the pilot or the autopilot/performance computer.
So I'm not sure I see where FBW technology in and of itself makes pilots any more or less necessary to the operation.
It's in the realm of the Flight Management System....... a computer....... that the pilot interface with the aircraft is changing. They've computerized a lot of the performance aspects that we used to figure out with paper charts. They've computerized a lot of the route planning and radio changing we used to do manually.
FBW devices interface well with this but even before those were in use old autopilots and FMS (like the L-1011) could operate the aircraft in the same manner as FMS and a "FBW controls".
FMS and FBW are the same as any computer operation; Garbage In, Garbage Out. You can get yourself in very deep and very fast if you don't know what you're doing with an FMS.
So, as I said, I really don't see FBW as some "management tool" to deemphasize pilot skills.
Besides, they'll always require a pilot, no matter how much FMS and FBW they build in. They have to have someone to blame. ;)
-
Besides, they'll always require a pilot, no matter how much FMS and FBW they build in. They have to have someone to blame.
How true. How very true. :( I always remember that 1989 B737 air disaster at Kegworth, in which the pilots shut down the wrong engine. It was later found that the fire alarm wiring was incorrectly installed, and other 737s were recalled to have their wiring checked/modified. The B737 that crashed had been en route to Belfast when the left engine failed, and they attempted an emergency landing at East Midlands Airport. For whatever reason, the co-pilot was led to believe that the right engine had failed, and shut it down – hence TWO dead engines, and the plane was unable to make it to the airport and crashed short of the field on a motorway embankment. Both pilots were sacked, and at the time I remember thinking that I would never fly British Midland again in view of how shabbily the pilots had been treated by the airline. But if I took that stance, I don’t think there would be many airlines left for me to choose from. The captain was paralysed and will never walk again. I believe both lost their pensions. Seems that the wiring faults on this and the other 737s affected were matters that were swept under the carpet. By sacking (oops, firing) the two pilots, blame had been apportioned, justice was seen to have been done, and it was business as usual for British Midland.
-
Conseco files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection
The filing follows a yearslong tailspin after the conglomerate's aggressive acquisition strategy in the 1990s backfired.
Must be those dang union workers again, eh Grun? They're always out buying other companies.
-
Yes of course unions are cause of every business failiure, thats exactly the point I'm trying to make... :rolleyes:
-
Awwwwwwww c'mon. You can find a way to blame Conseco on unions. I know you can! Don't be a quitter!