Originally Posted by WebTraveler
Sounds like you are the one taking this so personal. To me, convenient air service is a time saver and a real life issue. Let's have some compassion for what the customer goes through once in awhile rather than what the employee goes through.
And to answer your question, I do believe Alaska's management team is "missing the ball." In fact, I think Alaska's senior management is inconsistent and bloated with unproductive overhead. I will conceed the point that the airline can probably make more money in Seattle than in Portland. No doubt in my mind that is the case. But I think a well run operation in Portland can do okay.
I don't think you (or any Alaska employee) realize(s) that for the frequent traveler Alaska has not provided the same level of service that it does to Seattle passengers. Maybe Alaska can't make money doing that and maybe thats just the way it is. I am not satisfied with the level of service we have and I am going to speak out on it - that is my choice as a consumer and user of of Alaska's products and services.
But the fact is that other airlines are adding flights to other destinations in Portland. Some may be subsidized, but so what? That's the name of the game. Seattle and the state of Washington subsidize Boeing and other companies to keep them. Oregon has some crafty laws that benefit the big Intel operation out on the west side of town. Nike is crying foul that it might be annexed to Beaverton and have to pay city property taxes of a $1M more a year - now the legislature is considering a deal to make it so Beaverton cannot annex the property. Incentives and backroom deals are what governments do to attract companies. Its not necessarily bad - its real and they all do it to some extent.
You also talk that it is bad for a company to have "low costs." Remember, Southwest's cost of labor is not so low in comparion, they are just an incredibly efficient operation. Yes, Jet Blue doesn't have some of the higher maintenance costs or higher labor costs based on seniority issues....so is this bad? They also have a more modern retirement program - one that is based less on defined benefits and more on portability and one's own investment choices.....and remember, as legacy carriers fail so does the pension plan....
The airline industry is like the steel, coal, and manufacturing industries. The refusal of American workers and companies to be more efficient, more modern, and change with the times has resulted in the relative extinction of these companies in America.....yet, how can Toyota, Honda, and so forth come over here, build a plant, and have lower costs than they had in Japan? Its because they are innovative, efficient, and bring management styles that can change with the times. Until and unless the legacy airline carriers and their employees adopt an attitude like this, the legacy carriers will continue to fall.
Rather than change and be innovative, legacy airline employees like yourself sit back and bash the new upstarts that bring innovation and change to the industry. Change is a way of life and every industry goes through it and some competitors lose along the way because they refuse to modernize.....
First, let me say that I don't take this discussion regarding PDX personally at all. Things are what they are, we can talk until we're blue in the face and it's not going to change the economic conditions in PDX or the fact that most mainline carriers are indeed cutting back on their services in PDX. There are a few exceptions but, by and large, if you look at the amount of the seats PDX has now, as compared to what they once had, it has decreased. The good thing, though, is that as airlines start to expand more, they are expanding on a more point to point basis. Rather than adding more frequency to hub airports, airlines seem to be adding more and more point to point service on a once or twice daily basis. PDX could perhaps see some service enhancements that way, where they make sense, but probably at the expense of some hub departures. So far, Alaska hasn't added service to any new cities where it would make sense to add a nonstop from PDX. They are, however, looking at an all-nighter from PDX-MCO. I don't know when/if this will come to fruition, but as it makes sense they will add service. I've seen the argument for Chicago but, with American, United and Southwest already flying nonstop to Chicago, it would be adding seats to an already saturated market. Right now, a well run operation is doing okay in PDX, that would be Alaska. Well run means putting the right size aircraft in the markets that can support them. When the picture in PDX looks brighter than the aircraft will inevitably be changed to larger aircraft. We are not obligated to provide the same level of service to PDX passengers that we do to our SEA passengers. We are obligated to provide a return to our stockholders and that is what the company is working towards. You can talk about how people are leaving Alaska in droves but our load factors would easily prove that wrong.
As for your comments about "legacy airline employees like myself" that sit back and bash the new upstarts, I will say this. As far as the F/A's are concerned, we have been at minimum staffing for quite some time now, which is far ahead of the curve where "legacy" carriers are concerned. Our current contract was adopted from Southwest, verbatim, years ago. There were several modifications made, primarily to benefit the company but, the contract pretty much looks just like that of the former Southwest contract. Since then, Southwest has adopted a contract that is much more generous to their F/A's in both work rules and compensation. So, please don't lump us into the same category as UA, AA, DL, NW, US or CO F/A's. Our current contract still isn't as generous (if that's what you could call their contracts) as some of theirs - we took our lumps a long time ago.
As far as bashing the new upstarts, so far the only thing most of them have done has been to enter lots of new markets, bring fares down to unreasonable levels that even they can't support then fold and leave stranded passengers holding the ball, not to mention the other airlines that are then obligated to transport their passengers holding their useless tickets, for which they recieve no compensation.
Southwest does have an incredible efficient operation. They need fewer employees because they offer fewer frills. They don't need a large support staff for their rewards program because they don't offer a large variety of partners or rewards. They don't need club room staff because they don't offer club rooms. They don't need catering kitchens or staff because they don't cater anything. They don't need extra ramp personnel to transport bags around to other airlines because they don't do that. They need fewer accounting staff because they don't interline with anyone and don't need people to account for sales through other airlines and vice versa. They need fewer training staff and maintenance staff because the operate only one type of aircraft. The list goes on and on, but in the end the reasons they are more efficient are the same reasons we can't be that efficient. As for Jet Blue, I'm not bashing them at all - their load factors have been falling, their CASM is going up and RASM is going down. They are finding it hard to exist on the same fares that they perpetuate. Air Tran, so far, they're holding their own - good for them. Who else is left? Independence Air? They're going the way of the dodo bird, which is to say they'll be flightless probably before the end of the year. Sun Country Airlines? They've already come out of bankruptcy once and gone back to running a charter operation. Now they're going to spar with Northwest at MSP again - we'll see who loses. ATA? We see what happened there. Frontier has been losing a fair amount of money lately. America West isn't making money. Any more? How about Midway or Vanguard? The ONLY low fare airlines that has been consistenly doing well is Southwest. Jet Blue's profits have been consistenly eroding. It's not bad that they don't have the same costs as other carriers because their company is so young, but as their company ages we see what happens. So, if you think talking facts is bashing the new upstarts then I guess I'm guilty. I prefer to work for an airline that has a real vision for the future, one that is based in reality rather than maybe and what if's. Incidentally, I NEVER said it is bad for companies to have low costs. I think it's great if the costs are low. I also think that it's fair to compensate your employees fairly. I'm not going to go from middle class to poor willingly so that airlines can offer cheap bus service in the sky. If that's what it comes to then I'm out. If that means that I'm being stubborn and "unwilling to go with the flow and the times" then so be it.