LAX

What I don't understand is why would anyone (FA's) rather be out of work than take a pay cut (I realize it's a substantial amount) when I hear all the cries of how the pay cuts will leave them unable to pay for mortgages, car payments, bills, etc! How are they going to pay for all that with zero income? I feel sorry for them, but why not help right the ship and hope for pay raises in the future? There are far more people out there making less money and still make ends meet. It's sure no fun to downgrade from BMW to Chevy, but at least it beats taking the bus (No offense intended to those who take public transportations!). Just my opinion.

LAX

SEA_Tigger

At this point, if it does happen and AFA members at US agree to strike and liquidate US, it's called "taking one for the team". While they all will be out of jobs, they lay the groundwork for their fellow members at UA to keep UA from abrogating their contracts. It also will help AFA negotiate a less onerous contract at UA and other airlines. It will make DL think twice before entering C11 to try and break their contracts.

And taking US out of the system will either prove or disprove once and for all the claims that there is "too much capacity". The larger markets will still have one to five majors in place to absorb the customers, boosting their yields and revenues. Select markets will see an adjustment in service to cover US' absence, which should help as more people will be flying (I'd love to see UA move from BGM to ITH and save me the drive and I expect ITH would be a better market in load factors and revenues then BGM).

Unfortunately, a lot of marginal markets will probably lose service. But those people will just slog to the nearest market with service, which again helps the surviving majors.

Those FAs who are close to retirement will do so - or take a short-term job until they are ready to retire. Those who can will move on to another industry. And for the rest, they will re-train and move on, as well. Some might find jobs with the survivors as they start to add jobs back due to capacity increases.

SpaceBass

Frankly, this kind of makes me mad.
I have booked tickets well into March- the most important of which is a ski trip, business can be re-booked at no cost to me . The point is that I put my fears aside and did what I could to support US Air. I do feel very badly for the workers who are taking pay cuts, etc but if they want to strike and destroy an entire airline that is just wrong.
I have put up with very grumpy FAs lately, I even do what I can to reassure them and sympathize with the situation (more often than not, there is an instant mood change for the positive). I am booking tickets more than ever. I feel like a strike is a strike against us roaches too.

SpaceBass

I couldn't agree more. In my world my boss would be more impressed if I offered to help a situation rather than just quitting. Thinks like that lead to rewards in the long run.
However, as has been pointed out so many times before, this is a union thing and I dont think a lot of us have much expirence with that mentlity.

If they are jumping the gernade for the rest of the airline workers at DL and UA, it might be time for me to renew that IFR license and start SpaceBassAirWays...

HPTunco

The point of the employees (unionized or not) is that they ALREADY HAVE HELPED BY GIVING UP PAY. This isn't the first time that US has had their hand in the workers pockets. At some point, you draw the line at where you're willing to help, and how much.

The workers want to negotiate these issues rather than have them imposed by a judge. If collective bargaining is circumvented, then maybe the workers will take the company down with them.

I'm hopeful that both sides will compromise to avoid each other's threashold of pain. They need each other, since there will be no US Airways if a compromise cannot be achieved.

LAX

"Take one for the team", huh?! I wonder how many hits AFA can take! If the current business models (high labor costs, etc.) at most "legacy" carriers do not allow them to compete against LCC's and the FA's won't budge on pay cuts to lower costs, I guess AFA will strike at every single one of them and have its members working for LCC's or other industries because they don't seem to be able to come to grip with the new reality in the airline industry. The bottom line is if LCC's can turn a profit flying coast to coast for $200 because it has lower operating costs while the "legacy" carriers lose money on every single passenger they fly at that fare, something got to give--either the costs at the "legacy" carriers come down or they stop competing. Don't get me wrong, I am not pro-management at all. I think it's sad that everyone want what's they think it's their fair share even though there isn't enough to go around (at least in the current environments). Just my opinion.

LAX

veliger

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but after the SECOND round of US FA wage and benefit givebacks, aren't they already equal to or below almost all other airlines in pay and benefits?? What all of you armchair Wolf/Seagul/Lakefield/etc. appologists don't get is that the new imposed deal on wages for US FA's will set a new low target for all the other struggling airlines out their to gun for. By drawing a line in the sand with a minimum compensation package they are willing to accept, the US FA's hope to halt the downward spiral airlilne industry wages and benefits continue to plummet into. With the new wage scale US Management wants to impose, the FA's may be better off at Wal-Mart, and the US Airline industry may be better off without US Air. As a six year CHP with 330,000 miles in the bank I certainly don't wish for the end, but at some point it may be the best thing for almost everyone involved.

veliger

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but after the SECOND round of US FA wage and benefit givebacks, aren't they already equal to or below almost all other airlines in pay and benefits?? What all of you armchair Wolf/Seagul/Lakefield/etc. appologists don't get is that the new imposed deal on wages for US FA's will set a new low target for all the other struggling airlines out their to gun for. By drawing a line in the sand with a minimum compensation package they are willing to accept, the US FA's hope to halt the downward spiral airlilne industry wages and benefits continue to plummet into. With the new wage scale US Management wants to impose, the FA's may be better off at Wal-Mart, and the US Airline industry may be better off without US Air. As a six year CHP with 330,000 miles in the bank I certainly don't wish for the end, but at some point it may be the best thing for almost everyone involved.

SEA_Tigger

They seem to have the lowest "exposure" at US, and US is the most "expendable" of the Big Six, so if you're going to make a point, US is the airline to make that point with, unfortunately for DM members.


Wages alone are not why the legacy carriers are in the toilet. WN pays their 737 pilots and (now) their Flight Attendants the highest average wages in the domestic industry.

The Big Six have higher costs because:

They fly less seats, thanks to First Class and Business Class.

Those First and Business Class seats often go out for the lower tiers of fares, so that exacerbates it even more. Replace those 12 First seats with 24 Economy and, even at the lowest fares, you doubled your revenue in that square footage of the plane.

They fly to five times as many destinations, domestically, and internationally, period, but not all those routes make money. Some make a mint (where there is no competition and high demand) and others are "loss leaders" that are flown just to keep customers on their planes for when they fly to the more profitable cities.

The legacy carriers have engrained on their passengers the perks and benefits of status, but the passengers are so fickle that they'll kiss your airline goodbye if they can save $50 a ticket to get it on another airline and give it up all together if they can save $150 a ticket.

The entire cost structure was based on 20% of the passengers paying fares that paid 90% of the costs of providing the service, allowing the other 80% to fly at the lowest fares. Now that it's 5-10% paying those fares, there is a huge gap that cannot be made up by volume at the low end, as now 90-95% are now paying the lowest fares.

Add to that:

LCCs fly only between cities that can fill the planes on a regular basis.

All of the LCC (at least WN) fares are one-way, not just the most expensive. And the most expensive one way fares are $300, not $1300 or $2300.

LCCs fly a single plane type, meaning every Captain, First Officer, Flight Attendant, Baggage Attendant, and Maintenance person can handle any plane in the fleet. This is really important at the flight deck crew level, since you can interchange your entire pilot force at will.

The LCC's (at least WN's) frequent flier program, while it doesn't generate hundreds of millions in raw revenue like selling miles does for the legacy carriers, is also simpler to operate and better fits the needs of their frequent fliers - you get credits for each flight, and with enough credits, you get a free flight anywhere they fly. It's easier then needing X miles to fly domestic, and Y miles to fly "local" international (Canada, Mexico, Carribbean), and Z miles to fly to another continent.

And you can see why they wipe the floor with the majors, even with arguably higher labor costs in some areas.

I had some frank talks with FAs on my recent flights and the ones that still love what the job is, not what it pays, don't much care. It's tight, they're disheartened and dispirited, but they cope. It's the older generations, especially the most senior, who remember what it was like to travel the world and make good money doing it, that are now so totally disillusioned and would just as soon end it.

And remember, they have been through this cycle two or more times now. They were in the busts of the 80's and 90's. They gave back a lot then, muddled through, made a killing on the "boom" side of the cycle, and are now back on the "bust" end. So while they have as much a hand to play as management does, at the meta level, the point is many of them probably just don't see a long-term future. Eventually, the bust will be deeper then the boom thanks to competition (from both within and without the airline industry) and the plane won't climb again.

SkyTeam777

If the company were to liquidate, would it happen immediately? or would they sell things off slowly in stages?

electra

From the United AFA site.


"Collectively, we made it clear that airline management is overreaching, and if they are not stopped, these cuts will spread to other carriers and then on to other industries throughout the United States.*

There is a price associated with safe, efficient air travel and Flight Attendants can no longer bear the burden for Washington’s lack of sound aviation policy and tacit approval of management’s attack on aviation jobs"


To me, FA's are on fighting on the front lines of the American Job. Something has be be corrected in this country, so that middle class people can expect to be able to feed and clothe their families.

We've lost manufacturing, farming, customer call centers - and people who could once afford a normal life are s******. You should be proud of people willing to risk everything to fight for the right of Americans to expect a decent paycheck for a hard day of honest work.

JAXPax

These folks actually have to pay for stuff.... they can't just slap it under "billable expenses" and get reimbursed by consulting clients like many here.

Take that big time pay cut and longer hours/trips.... and see how all that eating in airports/hotels adds up, as just one facet.

the wide chair

indeed



have to by law, at least on a stby basis

I predict you'll be getting the munchies soon

Boraxo

What have the FA's got to lose?

Job security?

Nice salary? (I bet they could make more as servers at most restaurants, and they wouldn't have any safety responsibilities though Heimlich manuever training might be handy. )

Pension benefits?

The real ? is: Why WOULDN'T they strike?

Of all the employees, the FA's are paid the least and the first to be laid off when business goes south, without those golden parachutes that were bestowed on the last 3 management teams. Can you blame them?

SEA_Tigger

Well the actual end of operations would be immediate. US would just formally cease to function and then everyone waits and sees who takes what tickets (paid and award) and where the miles end up (another airline or the dumpster).

The actual liquidation of US, selling off the assets, will take months if not years.

But once AFA walks, the airline ends as an operating entity and, while it might come back down the road in a different form, when and in what form that will be cannot be known until (and if) it happens.

And no, Boraxo, I cannot blame them. When good people can no longer stand bad conditions, then they have the choice - and the right - to move on. Do they have to strike? I don't know. Even if they didn't strike, and just resigned, the end game is the same - US Airways ceases to be an operating entity. Yes, you can probably find people who are willing to replace the ones who don't want to be there anymore and who would come into the workplace with "eyes wide open" about what to expect, but a wholesale changeout of the FA corps would be about as disastrous. Do you force those who don't want to stay to stay? It takes time to hire, process, and train an FA. They are not cogs that can be swapped in and out.

Like it or not, US is stuck with the people they have. If the majority of them don't want to play anymore, then sucks to be them, and sucks to be you.

My investment is with UA. I don't want them to go under any more then those with an investment in US want this airline to disappear. But I fly on the best bargain I can. I will pay tens of dollars more to fly domestically, and hundreds more to fly internationally, but I can only do so much, and even what I do puts me in the minority - the positive minority - in terms of the total passenger traffic load.