<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
By Chris Woodyard and Marilyn Adams
USA TODAY (http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20021105/4591559s.htm)
Todd Coomans had finally made it to the big league.
After years of piloting commuter planes, Coomans moved up to the cockpits of United Airlines jets out of Chicago in 2000. He was pulling down about $75,000 a year for a co-pilot job that allowed him to wear the uniform of one of the nation's largest and proudest airlines.
Then the dream evaporated. Laid off after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Coomans traded his crisp white pilot's shirt for the orange apron of a Home Depot store, working as a sales clerk for three months to provide for his wife and two daughters...</font>
It makes you sad sometimes (but not when I am getting raped for a $x,xxx business fare LAX-JFK-LAX) to read about these employee owners losing their jobs and seeing the value of their UAL stock dropping to nothing, but then again, the pilot who saw the value of his UAL stock drop from $400k to virtually worthless would have rather had a industry leading (short term) pay raise and no job security. All these pilots, mechanics, and prison matron FA's made their (UAL) beds, now they have to lay awake in them!
I guess it just goes to show that just because the employees were owners of the company it didn't mean that they knew how to be owners of a company.
[This message has been edited by onedog (edited 11-05-2002).]
Suffice it to say, it is not a pretty picture these days ay UAL! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif
LarryJ
Nov 5, 02, 10:48 am
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by onedog:
I guess it just goes to show that just because the employees were owners of the company it didn't mean that they knew how to be owners of a company.</font>
The UAL employees who participated in the ESOP didn't get any significant control of the company. Bad management decisions at UAL can not be blamed on the ESOP.
Once again we hear another variation on the "There are no bad magement decisions, only high labor costs" mantra.
It is management's job to lead. It is management's job to keep their employees motivated. See SWA as an example of how management can keep their highly unionized work force motivated, productive, and enthusiastic about customer service.
mdtony
Nov 5, 02, 12:24 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by onedog:
It makes you sad sometimes (but not when I am getting raped for a $x,xxx business fare LAX-JFK-LAX) to read about these employee owners losing their jobs and seeing the value of their UAL stock dropping to nothing, but then again, the pilot who saw the value of his UAL stock drop from $400k to virtually worthless would have rather had a industry leading (short term) pay raise and no job security. All these pilots, mechanics, and prison matron FA's made their (UAL) beds, now they have to lay awake in them!
I guess it just goes to show that just because the employees were owners of the company it didn't mean that they knew how to be owners of a company.</font>
I don't know about you, but I'm always sad when someone loses their job unless they really screwed up. Now, seeing how there aren't too many UAL flights crashing, or UAL pilots showing up drunk, I think it's sad that folks who have devoted a lot of time and money to flying are losing their jobs.
As for the pay raise, come on now. Let's go back to the time those raises were given. UAL was generating record profits. If someone came to you at a time where your company was generating record profits and offered you a huge pay increase, look me in the eye and tell me you'd turn it down. Who would?
Finally, I keep on hearing about the employee ownership, but you can't sell those shares to pay your bills. Furthermore, that ownership yielded two seats on the board, which is supposed to exercise leadership.
onedog
Nov 5, 02, 12:36 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by LarryJ:
The UAL employees who participated in the ESOP didn't get any significant control of the company. Bad management decisions at UAL can not be blamed on the ESOP.
</font>
Two board seats may not have offerred control, but that should have been more than enough to influence management's decisions. The ability to veto the appointment of the chief executive (unless he would cave in to the unions) seems like a pretty good amount of influence to me.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by LarryJ:
It is management's job to lead. It is management's job to keep their employees motivated. See SWA as an example of how management can keep their highly unionized work force motivated, productive, and enthusiastic about customer service.</font>
Its management's job to do this, its management's job to do that. Nice try at shifting the blame solely to management. Maybe UAL's employees should take some responsibility for the fact that they ran the company they own into the ground? Basically, the (militant) employees wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted to [i]own[/b] the company and still have the highest pay among thier peers. They couldn't figure out that they were supposed to be getting a little less pay and working with management because they were owners of the company. If the unions hadn't been constantly asking for higher and higher pay raises, work slowdowns etc. and instead had been building company reserves and preparing for the eventual economic slowdow (don't try and blame everything on 9/11, the economy was already slowing and UAL was already heading downhill before then), UAL would probably be in a stronger position to survive this downturn.
Pity the poor pilot who has seen the value of his $400k UAL stock drop to zilch. Sucks to be him eh? Oh, I forgot though, he was still getting paid six figures during that time. If he had been less anti-company and less me-me-me and been more concerned about building a better company (like at WN), his stock would probably be worth more. Instead he traded a few years of a couple of extra short term bucks in his paycheck and pissed away $400k. Those WN pilots are probably pretty glad that WN stock hasn't taken the beating that UAL stock has taken. Look at the stock charts. In 1990, UAL and WN's stock were priced close enough for our discussion purposes. Since then WN stock has risen steadily (current market cap ~11.5 billion)whereas UAL's stock has taken a big dump (current market cap ~221 million). They are also pretty glad that they weren't laid off unlike at UAL.
Management's job to lead? What about the employees (oh I meant to say owners but I didn't want to come across as too sarcastic) job to take pride in the company they own? Do a little extra work and quit treating customers like enemy. Yeah, yeah, yeah, we've all hear the line and gone over all the arguments that employees have the right by "contract" to sit in F and why should passengers who paid for Y get complimentary upgrades etc. You know what, UAL would probably find a couple more business fliers (you know them, they are the type that the airlines need to survive) willing to fly UAL if they received decent service (I know, I know, this is UAL we're talking about so don't get me wrong, I am not asking for SQ or CX type of service, but perhaps even WN level of service instead of Prison Matron level of service) and were able to upgrade thier seats (and I am not talking about the occasional OP-UG, but the ability to use paid segment upgrades or HKs or SWU's etc.) on occasion.
Unlike at WN, when was the last time you saw a UAL pilot or FA help clean the cabin after a flight?
anonplz
Nov 5, 02, 12:48 pm
Pointing fingers is not going to solve anything. The fact is that the business model they were operating under was working until recently. They just have to change that, be more like Southwest or JetBlue. Right now, they don't have the flexibility to do that, and they may go under, but in the end, the consumer will end up better off for it.
onedog
Nov 5, 02, 12:54 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
I don't know about you, but I'm always sad when someone loses their job unless they really screwed up. Now, seeing how there aren't too many UAL flights crashing, or UAL pilots showing up drunk, I think it's sad that folks who have devoted a lot of time and money to flying are losing their jobs...</font>
Don't get me wrong, I hate to see anyone losing their job. I don't have any animosity towards any specific UAL employee because there are probably some really good ones out their. It is just that enough of the bad employees were out their in leadership positions that have screwed it up for all of them. I have a wife, kid, mortgage etc. just like all those UAL employees. I may be joining the ranks of the unemployeed in the near future if the company I work for business prospects don't improve soon. The difference I see is that I am working my *ss off (have taken many a pay cut already) in an effort to keep the company going and surviving. UAL employees didn't want to consider pay cuts until the gov'ment said no way to loan guarantees unless the employees sacrifice a bit too.
I just don't much pity for someone who was in the position to influence how well their company does (pilots probably have the most influence of any employee group over their employer), screw it up and then cry about it later. I think bankruptcy would be the best thing for UAL. They would be able to get rid of the failed ESOP and start all over with reasonable labor contracts (read: pay them well for performance, not just because). It isn't high fuel costs or any of the other excuses the airlines try to use (when they screw us with "surcharges"), it is their labor costs that is driving UAL into the ground right now.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
If someone came to you at a time where your company was generating record profits and offered you a huge pay increase, look me in the eye and tell me you'd turn it down. Who would?...</font>
If my memory serves me right, those raises weren't really offerred but were in reality extracted? A few years ago when money was flowing, the company I work for did offer employees generous pay raises and benefits. But, when the economy went bust, these same employees understood when pay cuts and reductions in hours were needed.
mdtony
Nov 5, 02, 1:20 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by onedog:
If my memory serves me right, those raises weren't really offerred but were in reality extracted?</font>
Doesn't matter. According to the rules we play by, the extraction of those benefits was just fine. I don't know about you, but turning down extra hours really doesn't strike me as an evil thing.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">UAL employees didn't want to consider pay cuts until the gov'ment said no way to loan guarantees unless the employees sacrifice a bit too.</font>
Wanna know something? I'd do the same thing, too. Actually, in my current position, if someone asked me to take a paycut, I'd tell them no. I don't care if the company I work for makes it or not because there are so many others out there that I can go and work for with my skill set.
It's a little different for pilots -- as the story illustrates, there's not a whole lot someone with that particular skill set can do so if I were in their shoes, I'd be willing to talk about wage cuts.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">when the economy went bust, these same employees understood when pay cuts and reductions in hours were needed.</font>
Uh, a few billion bucks in wage concessions sure seem to be something similar, don't you think?
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">pay them well for performance, not just because</font>
So, how do you propose to measure just how well a pilot has performed? I'm curious here. After all, for that job, it kind of is an all or nothing situation. Either the plane lands safely or it does not. Pay for performance works when you've got someone making widgets or something like that, where you can measure the output of someone versus the average employee. It doesn't work here.
[This message has been edited by mdtony (edited 11-05-2002).]
LarryJ
Nov 5, 02, 2:47 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by onedog:
it is their labor costs that is driving UAL into the ground right now.
</font>
Really? Can you back that up?
In another thread I suggested that those who felt this way should take a look at the real numbers.
Go through some old annual reports and find the per unit labor cost for UAL now and compare it to the per unit labor cost back when UAL was making record profits. How much has it changed? Now look at the per unit revenue then and now. How much has it changed?
Next take today's per unit cost (total) and subtract today's per unit labor cost. This will give you the per unit cost in a hypothetical world where all UAL employees work for free. Next compare that to the per unit cost excluding labor of SWA, AirTran or JetBlue. You'll see that it isn't the labor cost that makes the big difference between a traditional major airline and a low-cost point-to-point airline.
As to your misconceptions regarding the ESOP, you need to spend some time talking to a UAL pilot who's been there through that whole process to understand the whole story. The ESOP was in exchange for dramatic pay cuts back in the early 1990s. Instead of pay, the participating employees got company stock which they are prohibited from selling while employeed by UAL. As it's turned out, they gave those concessions a decade ago and have gotten almost nothing of value in return.
LarryJ
Nov 5, 02, 2:54 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
So, how do you propose to measure just how well a pilot has performed?</font>
For pay purposes, it's measured in productivity. Productivity takes two forms; flight hours/equipment and duty time.
Flight hours/equipment - The number of flight hours in a particular type aircraft produces a certain number of units of productions--ASMs. Fly bigger, faster airplanes and you are more productive per flight hour so bigger, faster airplanes tend to pay more than slower, smaller ones.
Hours on duty - Being on duty is productive, even when not flying, as that duty time is necessary in order to fly the schedules as set by the company. Frequently, airlines will set schedules which do not maximize crewmember productivity because those schedules do maximize sales and yield for the flight. In this regard a crewmember who is waiting around for his next flight is being productive in that the waiting produces higher loads and yield on the subsequent flight than it would if the flight left earlier.
mdtony
Nov 5, 02, 4:16 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by LarryJ:
Go through some old annual reports and find the per unit labor cost for UAL now and compare it to the per unit labor cost back when UAL was making record profits. How much has it changed? Now look at the per unit revenue then and now. How much has it changed?
Next take today's per unit cost (total) and subtract today's per unit labor cost. This will give you the per unit cost in a hypothetical world where all UAL employees work for free. Next compare that to the per unit cost excluding labor of SWA, AirTran or JetBlue. You'll see that it isn't the labor cost that makes the big difference between a traditional major airline and a low-cost point-to-point airline.</font>
Larry, the folks who say this are probably listening to the so called Wall Street "experts" who only talk about how UAL's pilots can take home $250K a year while Southwest's pilots take home far less.
Of course, they always seem to forget to mention that very few of the pilots working for UAL will ever see the $250K and that the pilots getting that are the ones flying the planes that generate the most revenue.
But who said that the jokers on Wall Street ever knew what the hell they are talking about?
After all, just a few years ago, they were the ones talking about how great it was that UAL bought labor peace with the huge wage hikes they gave to the pilots and they were the ones telling us that internet stocks were the way to go and they were the ones telling us to buy WorldCom and Enron because they were such well run companies.
And now they are the ones telling us that the discounters are the future providers of all the air transportation that we'll need in the country and that the traditional airlines are dead.
Also, thanks for the information on pilot productivity.
[This message has been edited by mdtony (edited 11-05-2002).]
onedog
Nov 5, 02, 4:18 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
I don't know about you, but turning down extra hours really doesn't strike me as an evil thing.</font>
Not evil, but if someone asks an employee to work a few extra hours or the company may go broke or there may be layoffs and they will be out of a job, and they chose to bravely say "no paycuts", they shouldn't go about crying when they are standing in the unemployment line.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
Wanna know something? I'd do the same thing, too. Actually, in my current position, if someone asked me to take a paycut, I'd tell them no. I don't care if the company I work for makes it or not because there are so many others out there that I can go and work for with my skill set. </font>
Nice to know that your skillset is so irreplaceable. Little solace though that your bravado provides to the pilots, mechanics, FA's etc. in the article who are now at Home Depot.
Here in Silicon Valley, for every super duper talented engineer/marketing guru that bravely says he won't take a pay cut and would rather see the company go belly up, there are 1,000s who are lining up to take his job. Yes, it would be a different situation if the company was making money hand over fist. But, last time I checked, UAL isn't. Maybe required reading for UAL employees should be the how the Diamondbacks were able to win the World Series a few years ago.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
Uh, a few billion bucks in wage concessions sure seem to be something similar, don't you think?</font>
Hmm, good question. Employer (both mine and UAL) asks employees (my coworkers and the pilots, mechanics, FA etc.) for wage concessions in order to help the company survive a tough economic downturn. Looks at least like a vaguely similar situation, just the scope that is different.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
So, how do you propose to measure just how well a pilot has performed? I'm curious here. After all, for that job, it kind of is an all or nothing situation. Either the plane lands safely or it does not. Pay for performance works when you've got someone making widgets or something like that, where you can measure the output of someone versus the average employee. It doesn't work here.</font>
Hmm, another good one. Where do you come up with these toughie questions? I wonder how WN is able to pay their pilots/mechanics/FAs for performance but UAL can't? Must be some double super secret business model that WN has that no other airline can duplicate. Hint: I am pretty sure that WN pays their pilots partially based on performance.
I am not an airline management consulting guru (and I don't play one on TV), but being paid for performance is pretty much a standard operating procedure in a lot of industries nowadays, even industries that do not rely on "someone making widgets or something like that". It wouldn't be too hard for some consultant somewhere to come up with ways to measure employee performance besides the overly simplistic "it kind of is an all or nothing situation. Either the plane lands safely or it does not." Maybe, UAL employees could have part of their compensation be based things that they have some ability to influence such as customer satisfaction surveys (HAH!, I almost couldn't type that one because I was laughing so hard), flight on-time departures & arrivals performance etc.
C'mon, cut me some slack. I am not anti-UAL employees as individual people. Yes, UAL management contributed to the debacle now known as United Airlines. How much, I don't know. But, the UAL will never be an efficient and profitable company (long term, not just when the economy is clicking on all cylinders and money is falling from the sky) unless the employees (read: owners) take a bit of responsibilty for where they work.
WN and Jetblue aren't the absolute business models that all the airlines must follow in order to survive (yeah, yeah, hub-n-spoke vs. point to point, no international flights, we've all heard them already). But, UAL's business model seems to be pretty broken right now. WN and Jetblue treat their customers like, well...customers, not like the enemy.
[This message has been edited by onedog (edited 11-05-2002).]
mdtony
Nov 5, 02, 4:28 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by onedog:
Not evil, but if someone asks an employee to work a few extra hours or the company may go broke or there may be layoffs and they will be out of a job, and they chose to bravely say "no paycuts", they shouldn't go about crying when they are standing in the unemployment line.</font>
That was not the situation when the pilots at UAL did their job action. The situation then was record profits. Big difference.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Here in Silicon Valley, for every super duper talented engineer/marketing guru that bravely says he won't take a pay cut and would rather see the company go belly up, there are 1,000s who are lining up to take his job.</font>
So what? I won't take a pay cut at my current job, and if they don't like it, they can lay me off. I'll just collect unemployment and find a new job. The job market is not that bad -- unemployment is below six percent, which used to be considered a boom type number. If I were getting paid to fly, it'd be different.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">I wonder how WN is able to pay their pilots/mechanics/FAs for performance but UAL can't?</font>
Please show me the pay for performance plan that you cite here. I'd love to see it. Is this something that's public knowledge? If it is not, then how did you get a hold of it?
And as Larry just noted, there is a pay for performance system in place at UAL and the rest of the traditional airlines. Fly a bigger and faster plane, and you get more money because you are a more productive pilot.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">But, the UAL will never be an efficient and profitable company (long term, not just when the economy is clicking on all cylinders and money is falling from the sky) unless the employees (read: owners) take a bit of responsibilty for where they work.</font>
It's a cyclical industry for a reason. Even Warren Buffett couldn't figure out how to turn an airline into anything but.
onedog
Nov 5, 02, 4:47 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by LarryJ:
Really? Can you back that up?...</font>
I am not some airline managment guru privy to the inner workings of UAL. But, pretty standard that if a company wants to be profitable and be successful, revenue must be higher than expenses (except for telecom companies such as Worldcom etc.).
But, to me, an outsider looking in, for an airline such as UAL, if revenue isn't keeping up because customers are staying away (either because of terrorists, economimc downturn, you take your pick), then UAL either needs to lure them back and increase revenue, or needs to start cutting costs. Employee wages must (I use the term must instead of are because I don't know for sure and folks like you are better at providing all the hard facts) be one of the major variable expenses for UAL. Now, they have already done all the easy things like removing the one olive from the F salad and substituted paper salt & pepper dispensers instead of the glass shakers to save weight and cut down on fuel costs, not providing an entire can of soda to thirsty passengers so save on beverage costs (read: extreme sarcasm) so next up just might be labor.
Yes, not every UAL (pilot, mechanic, etc) makes $the big bucks$ of a 747-400 intergalactic pilot with 100s of years of experience, but they make enough to live comfortable. The gov'ment isn't asking for UAL employees to work for free (and I sure am not because I understand as I also have a family who needs to eat too). But, if they want federal loan guarantees (who really guarantees those loans...us the taxpayers who also just happens to include UAL employees), they need to start putting in place procedures and practices that will insure the long term viability and profitability of the company.
Given the chance to reconsider their decisions, I would bet that all those ex-UAL employees who are now working at Home Depot would gladly take that pay cut if it meant keeping thier old jobs at UAL. Management AND employees need to work together to make UAL successful.
onedog
Nov 5, 02, 5:15 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
That was not the situation when the pilots at UAL did their job action. The situation then was record profits. Big difference.</font>
But the situation we're discussing now (Good discussion. No flaming, no personal attacks, no name calling, just good clean discussion) is. UAL management is asking for concessions to help save the company, and some of the employees are willing to talk. And I do notice how the pilots are stepping up to the table.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
Please show me the pay for performance plan that you cite here. I'd love to see it. Is this something that's public knowledge? If it is not, then how did you get a hold of it?</font>
C'mon, this isn't some super secret and the exact specifics aren't even central to this discussion. But, (reluctantly) I will try to find out for sure if WN pilots have a performance aspect built into their compensation. I think where I read it was even via a thread here on FT. My point was that true pay for performance is possible, even in the airline industry.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
And as Larry just noted, there is a pay for performance system in place at UAL and the rest of the traditional airlines. Fly a bigger and faster plane, and you get more money because you are a more productive pilot.</font>
That is not a true pay for performance compensation model. That is a pay scale model where if a pilot learns how to fly the bigger planes, they get paid more. Lets not rehash pilots getting paid for flying bigger planes becuase they bring in more revenue etc. I agree that if a pilot flys the bigger plane, they should get paid more. But, flying a bigger plane has nothing to do with their performance and productivity relative to their peers (who fly similar planes). A FA qualified to abuse pasengers on a 747 may be paid more than a FA on a 737, but, wether the Prison Matrons treat their customers like cr*p or garner rave reviews, they get paid the same (assuming all other things being the same such as airplane, years of service etc.) If FAs got paid partially on how good thier customer reviews were, darn if the Prison Matrons would quit hiding in the galleys and would come out to see if the passengers needed anything.
This may be a stretch, but bear with me. Have you ever been on a cruise? On a cruise the main dining room waiters will kiss your *ss and provide the very best service and your wish is their command. Why? Because their compensation is directly related to their performance. If their customers (us the table guests) love their service, tips (read: most of their pay) generally are bigger. That is true pay for performance. Yes, there might be a difference in tipping amounts depending on if the ship is one of those mega-gigantic super duper liners vs. just a smaller, cozy behemoth, but, the waiters still garner most of their pay based on performance. Yes, this is overly simplistic, but my point is that there are other ways to pay for performance other than just what type of plane a pilot flys. The customer just needs to be happy.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
It's a cyclical industry for a reason. Even Warren Buffett couldn't figure out how to turn an airline into anything but.</font>
Cyclical industry - yes. But WN (yes, yesw, I know, I am using WN alot in my examples even though they have a different business model point-to-point overseas Prison Matrons etc. than UAL) seems to have figured something out. UAL doesn't (and can't and shouldn't) become a WN clone, but UAL can't continue just being the same old UAL.
[This message has been edited by onedog (edited 11-05-2002).]
LarryJ
Nov 5, 02, 10:29 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by onedog:
Hmm, another good one. Where do you come up with these toughie questions? I wonder how WN is able to pay their pilots/mechanics/FAs for performance but UAL can't?</font>
1. SWA pays their pilots by the trip instead of by the hour but it really works out the same. Fly more hours, get more pay. The SWA pilots also receive SWA stock which, for some reason, people think is a good idea at SWA but a bad idea at UAL (ESOP).
2. Are you aware of UAL management ever proposing a performance based pay system for their pilots, F/A's or mechanics? I'm not aware of any Major airline proposing such a system.
There are times when it's a pilot's job to make a decision which hurts productivity, instead of increasing it. In those situations we want pilots making those decisions based on the safest course of action, not how the decision will effect their paychecks.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"> Must be some double super secret business model that WN has that no other airline can duplicate.</font>
Yes, so secret that not even you know if it's true.
A long time ago the original Braniff Airways had a promotion where they mounted a clock on the front bulkhead where every passenger could see. If the flight arrived more than a specified number of minutes late each passengers received monitary compensation for the delayed flight. There was a lot of pressure put on the pilots, both external and internal, to arrive on time. One summer day a Braniff flight was running late due to a line of afternoon thunderstorms and their skipper (they used terms like that back then) decided to go through the line. The airplane came out of that line in a number of separete peices. Soon after that accident the clocks were removed from the cabin bulkheads and the promotion quietly went away.
The point is that pilot performance is not always measured by how often a pilot arrives on time or under planned fuel burn but it's measured by the times that he does not.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">WN and Jetblue treat their customers like, well...customers, not like the enemy.</font>
And how will big pay cuts improve the employees attitude towards customers? Taking money and benefits away from employees usually has just the opposite effect.
Employee moral and enthusiasm is the responsibility of management. Management must lead the employees to providing good service and avoid doing things that will alienate the employees which will often show through to the customer.
mdtony
Nov 5, 02, 10:48 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by onedog:
My point was that true pay for performance is possible, even in the airline industry.</font>
In order to properly do pay for performance, you need a basis to compare a specific employee's performance to. For teachers, you can look at test scores. For factory workers, you can look at widgets made or defect rates. I'd like to see what measure you'd use for a pilot.
You can't use revenue per flight, because they don't sell the seats. Customer satisfaction? Well, even if you could get that, they're going to be dissatisfied if something happens that isn't the pilot's fault, such as a weather delay.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">If FAs got paid partially on how good thier customer reviews were</font>
How do you propose to do this? How do you plan to determine how well a specific flight attendant is doing? Do you want to hand out cards at the end of the flight where passengers rate the crew? Do you know how much effort that would take? And after all that effort, would it even be worth it? How many people fly a specific airline because of the crew? I bet you it is way down on the list of factors a passenger considers!
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">But WN seems to have figured something out.</font>
You are comparing apples to oranges here. UAL is not going to be able to be a Southwest, and Southwest is not going to ever be able to be a UAL. They are two totally different creatures, and asking one to be like the other is a recipe for disaster.
onedog
Nov 6, 02, 1:47 am
Phew, I'm this much typing is killing me. Hey, c'mon guys, I don't have all the answers. If I did, I'd run an airline. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif
All I am trying to throw out for discussion is that there has to be a way to improve UAL. Yes, management contributed to the debacle known as United Airlines. But if UAL's employees (owners) don't take some responsibility for the the place they work, then I won't shed any tears for when they suffer the consequences. Bravado regarding one's job skills is all nice and dandy, but no one is irreplaceable.
mdtony
Nov 6, 02, 9:57 am
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by onedog:
All I am trying to throw out for discussion is that there has to be a way to improve UAL. Yes, management contributed to the debacle known as United Airlines. But if UAL's employees (owners) don't take some responsibility for the the place they work, then I won't shed any tears for when they suffer the consequences.</font>
Of course there is room for improvement. I'm just pointing out to you that it's not as easy as folks would make it out to be. Too many people come up with simplistic fixes, such as cut wages and be more like Southwest without thinking that through.
I'd like to call in to one of those CNBC discussions on the airline industry where someone talks about the traditional airlines and says, well, all their pilots make $250K and they're not like Southwest so that's what they need to address. This is followed, of course, by the bold prediction that if they don't do this, they have no chance, and it's presented as the only course of action.
Oh, really? Maybe they could pressure their leaseholders to reneogiate the terms of their leases. Do you think that GE Capital wants to be stuck with a whole bunch of airplanes that they can't lease? Do you think Boeing wants to see one of their largest creditors go into bankruptcy? But the "experts" never think of this!
misstree
Nov 6, 02, 11:11 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by onedog:
.... But if UAL's employees (owners) don't take some responsibility for the the place they work, then I won't shed any tears for when they suffer the consequences. Bravado regarding one's job skills is all nice and dandy, but no one is irreplaceable.[/B]</font>
One Dog, As a customer service rep I get to work on time. I have all the skills and tools to start my job each day. I then greet the first customer with a smile and proceed according to what is required, ticketing or check-in etc. Many transactions are the same, can be repetitive and others are much more involved. I feel that UAL has provided very good training. I just don't understand what you mean by "taking some responsibility for the place we work". We do the job we are trained to do, we always enter a transaction with the hope to please the passenger, never with a negative attitude.
However, realistically speaking, there is the occasional customer who is a jerk and there is no pleasing such an individual no matter what is offered.
Not in a million years will you convince any airline employee that Jet Blue and Southwest employees are immune to this type of customer and that they are able to offer anything and everything to such a customer. C'mon, please.
mdtony
Nov 6, 02, 11:17 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by misstree:
Not in a million years will you convince any airline employee that Jet Blue and Southwest employees are immune to this type of customer and that they are able to offer anything and everything to such a customer. C'mon, please.</font>
In fact, Southwest tells folks who get too difficult that they are no longer welcome to fly them and gives them a list of the phone numbers of their competitors.
onedog
Nov 7, 02, 11:56 am
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by misstree:
...I just don't understand what you mean by "taking some responsibility for the place we work". We do the job we are trained to do, we always enter a transaction with the hope to please the passenger, never with a negative attitude...</font>
misstree, don't get me wrong, I am so appreciative when I interact with someone like you. However, the classic examples are the infamous Prison Matrons who rule the premium cabins. When they provide surly service or no service at all (there are way too many instances of FAs providing the bare minimum service and then dissapearing for the remainder of the flight), they are showing their disdain for the folks known as customers. How many premium passengers specifically don't take UAL transoceanic because they know that for the same money, they can take an *Alliance partner and receive decent, if not wonderful service? I don't have any hard facts, but I would bet enough to make a difference to UAL's financials. Just one or two paying premium passenger per tansocianic would make a difference.
I am not asking for UAL Prison Matrons to be like SQ or CX, but c'mon, how many instances are there of passengers getting into arguments with a FA over wanting a full can of soda? Now, I know that UAL is trying to save money by boarding less soda to reduce weight and therefore reduce fuel costs (read: extremely sarcastic), but IMHO, I think generally it is just a FA who is trying to show the passenger who is the boss. On AA, I have been on many flights where the FA specifically asks passengers if we want the whole can. C'mon, give the guy the whole !@#$% can. If he asks for a whole can he is obviously thirsty and is probably going to ask you (that is if the FA ever shows up again) for a refill later anyway. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif
[This message has been edited by onedog (edited 11-07-2002).]
mdtony
Nov 7, 02, 12:44 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by onedog:
How many premium passengers specifically don't take UAL transoceanic because they know that for the same money, they can take an *Alliance partner and receive decent, if not wonderful service?</font>
Do you seriously believe this? Do you really think that folks consider whether or not they'll get two beverage services or one when they book their flights?
I don't think that too many people say, oh, well, the crew on such and such airline is nicer, so I will take a more inconvenient flight just so I can have them serve me twice.
Maybe they do here, but among the rest of the folks -- keep in mind that I work with a lot of folks who didn't even know they had e-upgrades ready to expire until they were told by an employee -- I highly doubt that's the case.
vetteset
Nov 7, 02, 3:30 pm
I'm way over the "prison matron" in every post! It's very nasty to those of us who are professionals and treat our passengers with respect!
mdtony
Nov 7, 02, 3:53 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by vetteset:
I'm way over the "prison matron" in every post! It's very nasty to those of us who are professionals and treat our passengers with respect!</font>
Would you prefer air waitress?
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif
I'm totally teasing, don't get mad. One thing I like to do to kill some time is go to the boards on airlinecrew.net. Some of the names that the crew there have chosen for themselves just really crack me up!
[This message has been edited by mdtony (edited 11-07-2002).]
vetteset
Nov 8, 02, 5:57 am
Airlinecrew.net is so funny! Do you post there or just lurk? I noticed you see both sides to all issues and usually have a soft spot for labor.
mdtony
Nov 8, 02, 9:49 am
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by vetteset:
Airlinecrew.net is so funny! Do you post there or just lurk? I noticed you see both sides to all issues and usually have a soft spot for labor. </font>
I post there from time to time in the bar. It's the most fun place for me.
I do try to see things from both sides. I figure that you have to understand why different people feel the way they do about things.
I've become a lot more sympathetic to labor in the airline industry after I decided that I wanted to fly and get paid for it. After learning what the folks in the cockpit go through to get there, it's a lot harder to call them greedy and overpaid.
Cheap maybe, but not overpaid http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif
onedog
Nov 29, 02, 6:01 pm
United Stock Plummets; Bankruptcy Looms (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&ncid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20021129/ap_on_bi_ge/united_airlines_18)
I guess labor has spoken and let their wishes be known.
onedog
Nov 29, 02, 6:09 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mdtony:
Do you seriously believe this? Do you really think that folks consider whether or not they'll get two beverage services or one when they book their flights?
I don't think that too many people say, oh, well, the crew on such and such airline is nicer, so I will take a more inconvenient flight just so I can have them serve me twice.
Maybe they do here, but among the rest of the folks -- keep in mind that I work with a lot of folks who didn't even know they had e-upgrades ready to expire until they were told by an employee -- I highly doubt that's the case.</font>
I don't think people take into account the number of beverage services they will receive when they are deciding which airline to take premium cabin transoceanic. But you've got to be kidding yourself if you don't think that (not every passenger, but enough passengers to make a financial difference to UAL) people don't consider the level of service and overall quality of product when deciding to spend some serious $$. The reputation and percieved quality (or lack thereof) of an airline product goes a long way.
Yes, FTrs may be a bit extreme in some instances (mileage runs, segment runs and mattress runs are the perfect example), but they are also probably the most knowledgeable about air travel and are qualified to make valid comparisons between UAL transpacific and SQ or CX.
mdtony
Nov 30, 02, 5:41 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by onedog:
But you've got to be kidding yourself if you don't think that (not every passenger, but enough passengers to make a financial difference to UAL) people don't consider the level of service and overall quality of product when deciding to spend some serious $$. The reputation and percieved quality (or lack thereof) of an airline product goes a long way.</font>
I see. So then, let me ask you a question. If level of service was as important as you say it is, then why is Southwest doing so well? They don't do jack as far as services go, but they seem to be doing quite well.
Let's be realistic here. What people care about is getting there quickly and conveniently. That is the primary concern for most people flying. You will not see businessmen doing mileage runs to Singapore or doing a routing with ten different segments so that they can maximize their miles. They'll take the direct flight every time.
The mentality here is so different than the mentality for most travelers. I listen to folks brag about how they got six segments in and I'm like, you guys have got to get a hobby and then I realize that this is their hobby! Most people are not like that.