FAs Flame AA on Private Facebook Page
Came across an interesting article in the Chicago Business Journal today detailing the three words AA FAs would use to describe the company. Seems many of them are as unhappy with the current state of AA as some of us are.
https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/...challenge.html My personal favorite was "going for crAAp." I feel a little bad for the employees of AA. Many are watching a once-great airline move in a direction that calls into to question what AA truly values and differentiates itself from its primary competitors in ways that are not conducive to consumer loyalty. I'm curious, what would your three words be to describe AA? Mine: we don't cAAre |
Originally Posted by SOBE ER DOC
(Post 30353149)
Came across an interesting article in the Chicago Business Journal today detailing the three words AA FAs would use to describe the company. Seems many of them are as unhappy with the current state of AA as some of us are.
https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/...challenge.html My personal favorite was "going for crAAp." I feel a little bad for the employees of AA. Many are watching a once-great airline move in a direction that calls into to question what AA truly values and differentiates itself from its primary competitors in ways that are not conducive to consumer loyalty. I'm curious, what would your three words be to describe AA? Mine: we don't cAAre |
I wonder if some of these are the ones who were so easily lured by promises of raises etc. they voted and advocated for the merger...
|
SeAArs of the air.
It'll be a slow motion tumble of a once-great American brand caused by boards that favor short term results over sustainability and management more than willing to live with good quarterlies at the expense of long term growth for a few years before they move on. It's so much easier to manage that way. |
Originally Posted by JDiver
(Post 30353175)
I wonder if some of these are the ones who were so easily lured by promises of raises etc. they voted and advocated for the merger...
|
Originally Posted by JDiver
(Post 30353175)
I wonder if some of these are the ones who were so easily lured by promises of raises etc. they voted and advocated for the merger...
Speaking of which, I'd love to have Crandall back at the helm. He understood how to run an airline. |
Originally Posted by JDiver
(Post 30353175)
I wonder if some of these are the ones who were so easily lured by promises of raises etc. they voted and advocated for the merger...
|
Interesting to read this. The reasons for various problems are surely complex. However, I look at a couple of big factors. First, the traveling public rarely compares apples to apples. They see a low price on a discount airline and falsely believe a major carrier should match it, yet then expect tremendous service/benefits from the major carrier, things they can't get from a discount airline. Anecdotally, I hear people discussing this quite regularly. "Frontier costs $74 to Denver each way. American is ripping me off at $425 r/t." Second, because of those low fares from discount airlines, there is not the financial support to operate the industry properly. Frankly, the entire airline industry is bankrupt in terms of honest accounting. Without various subsidies from government, the system would be radically different. It should be radically different. There are far too many aircraft flying at this point. JFK, LHR, and many other airports are statistically saturated. Any weather or other event causes massive delays. There is no slack in the system at these places to absorb the investable events. The same applies to the airlines. They do not have as many spare aircraft/personnel to cover for uncertainties, most likely because this increases costs. And the flying public does not want to pay more to fly to cover those costs when some startup airline will fly cheap until they burn through their initial cash pile and the realities of the industry catch up to them. Rinse. Repeat. Ultimately, the solutions lie in facing the reality of aviation. It is tremendously expensive to own and operate aircraft and airports. The public must be made to see this. If you want to travel between New York and London at a speed of 500+ miles per hour, safely, in a clean, well-staffed aircraft, arrive on-time at a similarly equipped and operated airport, then you must pay what it costs. And the cost must be paid by the traveler in every way. Not subsidized by gov't, the engine mfg, the aircraft mfg, or anyone else. You want to fly? You have to pay. Otherwise, someone else is making up the difference and hiding the true cost and the fantasy continues. With regard to American Airlines cabin staff specifically, I've been loyal to this airline since 1995. My loyalty is now in question. After several transatlantic flights this year with sub-par service in so-called Business class, I can honestly say my disappointment has reached a new level. My most recent flight (two days ago) one FA could only be described as churlish. Another was clearly out of her element and incapable of doing the job. They all disappeared for several hours. I did see one napping in the galley. Then during the final hour or so of the flight, they all re-appeared and were bright and cheerful. Perhaps they were trying to make amends so as to erase their pathetic efforts earlier. Sorry, if you don't like your job, please find another. Don't treat poorly those of us who pay for the service you are supposed to provide or work out your issues on us. Ironically, on short flights (1-1.5 hours) inside the USA, I have had excellent service on every single one this year. Every single one. No doubt the airline morass will grind on. Which is sad. I'm old enough to remember when flying was a more pleasant experience, something to look forward to, instead of an ordeal. Safe travels. |
The three (well four if you wish to be pedantic) words that we used at BA to describe their attitude towards their employees recently was "Couldn't Care Less".
Says it all really. Applies to passengers and staff. |
First I'm not sure all FAs feel this way. I think most just go do their job the best they can and aren't interested in the "politics" of it all. Still, the move towards tightly squeezed fully loaded a/c makes their job more stressful. As "densification" comes about so will too many bags for too small of an a/c and the s**t show that occurs towards the end of boarding as angry paxs are forced to swim the tied against other angry paxs trying to get to their seats in an attempt to find bag space or reluctantly have their bag checked. Not too mention what happens on a late arriving flight into a hub and those in the back of the a/c are desperately trying to catch their connection, sometimes the last flight of the day.
Ultimately this is what deregulation as brought us. Others point to the fact that cheaper airfares enable more of the public to travel by air. Whether this all was a good move depends upon your perspective. I have to wonder if suddenly we are looking at $100 oil what will the airlines further do to squeeze more revenue out of paxs and how much more miserable will they make the experience other than for those few lucky ones in the premium cabin. Finally, if we were in a 1970s world there'd be far fewer flights and therefore some of the FAs wouldn't have had their job to begin with. The good news is that the ULCC hasn't been a huge success on the International scene. Apparently getting people to shove themselves into a 28-29 inch pitch seat to save a few hundred dollars hasn't been the hotcake seller. However, on the domestic side these airlines are go gang busters albeit when the next economic crash comes will they be sitting with too many shiny a/c unable to fill those tortuous seats? |
Originally Posted by Flight44
(Post 30353621)
It should be radically different. There are far too many aircraft flying at this point. JFK, LHR, and many other airports are statistically saturated. Any weather or other event causes massive delays. There is no slack in the system at these places to absorb the investable events. The same applies to the airlines. They do not have as many spare aircraft/personnel to cover for uncertainties, most likely because this increases costs. And the flying public does not want to pay more to fly to cover those costs when some startup airline will fly cheap until they burn through their initial cash pile and the realities of the industry catch up to them. Rinse. Repeat. Ultimately, the solutions lie in facing the reality of aviation. It is tremendously expensive to own and operate aircraft and airports. The public must be made to see this. If you want to travel between New York and London at a speed of 500+ miles per hour, safely, in a clean, well-staffed aircraft, arrive on-time at a similarly equipped and operated airport, then you must pay what it costs. And the cost must be paid by the traveler in every way. Not subsidized by gov't, the engine mfg, the aircraft mfg, or anyone else. You want to fly? You have to pay. Capitalism allows enthusiastic investors to demonstrate belief in a business plan by funding it. There's heavy institutional ownership of U.S. airlines and Honeywell, GE, UTX... at this point. These investors are not naive nor uninformed. U.S. airlines have been making pretty good money for the last five years. Margins aren't uniform but decently-run carriers are surely covering their cost of capital. That is one definition of financial sustainability. Fewer flights/seats might make the (very few) capacity-constrained U.S. airports more operationally efficient. The other 400 airports with scheduled passenger service don't really have a problem. Fewer flights/seats would surely drive up prices. Why do prices need to be higher when carriers are making good profits? |
Originally Posted by 3Cforme
(Post 30354211)
You're kidding, right? Comrade? Comrade?
Capitalism allows enthusiastic investors to demonstrate belief in a business plan by funding it. There's heavy institutional ownership of U.S. airlines and Honeywell, GE, UTX... at this point. These investors are not naive nor uninformed. U.S. airlines have been making pretty good money for the last five years. Margins aren't uniform but decently-run carriers are surely covering their cost of capital. That is one definition of financial sustainability. Fewer flights/seats might make the (very few) capacity-constrained U.S. airports more operationally efficient. The other 400 airports with scheduled passenger service don't really have a problem. Fewer flights/seats would surely drive up prices. Why do prices need to be higher when carriers are making good profits? |
Originally Posted by Flight44
(Post 30353621)
(B)ecause of those low fares from discount airlines, there is not the financial support to operate the industry properly. Frankly, the entire airline industry is bankrupt in terms of honest accounting. Without various subsidies from government, the system would be radically different.
It should be radically different. There are far too many aircraft flying at this point... some startup airline will fly cheap until they burn through their initial cash pile and the realities of the industry catch up to them. Rinse. Repeat. It is tremendously expensive to own and operate aircraft and airports. The public must be made to see this. If you want to travel between New York and London at a speed of 500+ miles per hour, safely, in a clean, well-staffed aircraft, arrive on-time at a similarly equipped and operated airport, then you must pay what it costs. And the cost must be paid by the traveler in every way. With great respect, this is an analysis from 25 years ago.
As for Frontier and the price disparity, Frontier had 2.7% of the US airline pie in 2017, while American owned nearly seven times as much, charges more, and was the largest airline in the world based on sales ($43b revenue), so I doubt Doug Parker is pacing the halls at night worrying about Frontier or any other smallball also-ran nipping at his ankles. (Stat source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/...g-us-airlines/) American Airlines is now something like a large, complacent government agency that will never go out of business, never evolve much operationally or culturally, and never be very good. The Veterans Administration of the air. That is partly because in a de facto three-headed, vrtually collusive "competitive environment," there is no penalty for operating this way; they have too many captive customers and too much pricing heft. It's partly because of management choices and unhappy frontline culture -- although complaining, emotional airline employees have been around forever. (United Airlines employees have criticized / undermined / attacked every last CEO and management team they've had since Dick Ferris in the early 1980s. All of them. It's a psychology study waiting to happen. Toxicity runs both ways.) One of the three-word summations of AA quoted in the linked article is the one I too would use to describe American: "Stressful, cheap, uncaring." But sadly I base my views mostly on my experience of AA service culture, which is shaped mostly by the AA employees doing the complaining in this case. |
Originally Posted by 3Cforme
(Post 30354211)
You're kidding, right? Comrade? Comrade?
Capitalism allows enthusiastic investors to demonstrate belief in a business plan by funding it. There's heavy institutional ownership of U.S. airlines and Honeywell, GE, UTX... at this point. These investors are not naive nor uninformed. U.S. airlines have been making pretty good money for the last five years. Margins aren't uniform but decently-run carriers are surely covering their cost of capital. That is one definition of financial sustainability. Fewer flights/seats might make the (very few) capacity-constrained U.S. airports more operationally efficient. The other 400 airports with scheduled passenger service don't really have a problem. Fewer flights/seats would surely drive up prices. Why do prices need to be higher when carriers are making good profits? Any time you want to support my business ventures with taxpayer money, comrade, please advise. Thank you and good day. |
Its seems to me the 3 legacies (and now B6) do seem to be very aware of the ULCC even with the huge difference in market share. Otherwise why would AA, UA, DL and soon B6 gone to BE? Admittedly it gave them justification to make their lowest fares even more restrictive. Personally I'd wish the entire ULCC business model fall flat on its face but the opposite is occurring. Some (including Chase Bank) are anticipating a major economic downfall in 2020. If so, will the airlines of carrying leisure paxs see a major nosedive in demand. Remember back in 2008/2009 when AA (and others) were doing things like 2-3 a year DEQMs to rouse up business? What's Spirit going to do other than cut capacity and routes, park planes and fire staff? Usually given the high capital costs of running an airline that doesn't work.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:30 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.