FAs Flame AA on Private Facebook Page

Old Oct 24, 2018, 9:55 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: ORD / MDW / FLL
Programs: DL DM/1MM, AA EXP, SPG Platinum, Hyatt Platinum, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 2,295
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
SOBE ER DOC is offline  
Old Oct 24, 2018, 10:05 pm
  #2  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SLC/HEL/Anywhere with a Beach
Programs: Marriott Ambassador; AA EXP 3MM; AS MVP, Hilton Gold, CH-47/UH-60/C-23/C-130 VET
Posts: 5,234
Originally Posted by SOBE ER DOC
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
There are certainly moves I don't like but ... one of them is the inconsistency in FA's and the lack of any way to enforce soft standards. Most FA's are in the range of good to great but if on every flight the FA's (1) gave a PDB, (2) greeted me by name, (3) didn't disappear en route, and (4) thanked me for flying AA, it would be an improvement most of us would appreciate. Plus those are the service standards and it just isn't that hard. Personally, I would think working long haul J, for example, would be pretty exciting ... interesting pax, time off on the other side, and only working a few days a month. One of AA's moves is upgrading its international premium product but the problem is the soft product so it seems strange to see the FA's making these complaints.
flyalways likes this.
C17PSGR is offline  
Old Oct 24, 2018, 10:13 pm
  #3  
Moderator: American AAdvantage
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Matre-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,948
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...
JDiver is offline  
Old Oct 24, 2018, 10:20 pm
  #4  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 17,254
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.
Gringa and boss315 like this.
rickg523 is offline  
Old Oct 24, 2018, 11:09 pm
  #5  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Programs: OW Emerald
Posts: 1,452
Originally Posted by JDiver
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...
Exactly
jridge is offline  
Old Oct 24, 2018, 11:19 pm
  #6  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: BOS/UTH
Programs: AA LT PLT; QR GLD; Bonvoy LT TIT
Posts: 12,653
Originally Posted by JDiver
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...
Part of the raison d'tre of unions is to find fault with management. These are the same people who ridiculed Bob Crandall when he was in charge (IIRC they nicknamed him "Fang"), then, a little while after the merger that they supported went into effect, openly longed for the good old days under Crandall. The union will never say that it thinks that current management is doing a great job. It can't.

Speaking of which, I'd love to have Crandall back at the helm. He understood how to run an airline.

Last edited by Dr. HFH; Oct 25, 2018 at 10:52 am
Dr. HFH is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2018, 1:08 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Programs: BAGold; AA3MMPlat; UA1MMGold; FBGold; MarriottAmb; AccorPlat; HHGold; ICPlatAmb; HyattDiscoverist
Posts: 4,378
Originally Posted by JDiver
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...
I had the identical thought!
rfrost is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2018, 1:40 am
  #8  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Programs: American Airlines
Posts: 58
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.
Marschel and HampsteadHeath like this.
Flight44 is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2018, 2:49 am
  #9  
Fontaine d'honneur du Flyertalk
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Morbihan, France
Programs: Reine des Muccis de Pucci; Foreign Elitist (according to others)
Posts: 19,079
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.
wrp96 and argonath like this.
PUCCI GALORE is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2018, 6:06 am
  #10  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Programs: AAdvantage PP
Posts: 13,913
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?
MiamiAirport Formerly NY George is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2018, 6:24 am
  #11  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Programs: DL 1 million, AA 1 mil, HH lapsed Diamond, Marriott Plat
Posts: 28,190
Originally Posted by Flight44
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.
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?
LINDEGR likes this.
3Cforme is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2018, 6:48 am
  #12  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Programs: AAdvantage PP
Posts: 13,913
Originally Posted by 3Cforme
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?
Well certainly airlines could go back to 32 inch Y pitch seating, meals in Y on flights over 3 hours +, 2 free checked bags, etc and raise fares to make up the difference. But then demand would likely fall. Airlines would be forced to cut capacity and routes, park a/c and layoff staff including FAs. So those angry FAs would be even more angry since they no longer had a paycheck. For those that can afford higher fares or more likely has an employer that would pay the higher fares the good ole days are desirable.
MiamiAirport Formerly NY George is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2018, 8:25 am
  #13  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,712
Originally Posted by Flight44
(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.


  • There are not too many aircraft flying; the legacies have learned capacity discipline, fares are steady/rising, and load factors are 90+%. In the next recession they will park planes and furlough employees, not hold rock-bottom sales.
  • There is not significant pressure from PeoplExpress-type upstarts; the barriers to starting a major airline have become virtually insurmountable.
  • Fares are not a bazaar of below-cost deals; pricing power is now concentrated among three megacarriers, not the 8 to 10 network airlines we had to choose from in the '90s, and onetime price insurgent Southwest is now often the most expensive choice.
  • In the '90s airlines routinely lost billions; today's survivors are in little danger of losing money.

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.
BearX220 is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2018, 8:44 am
  #14  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Programs: American Airlines
Posts: 58
Originally Posted by 3Cforme
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?
The airline industry is heavily subsidized on many levels making it a 'socialist' type enterprise as opposed to 'capitalist.' Airports are subsidized, aircraft mfg is supported with tax breaks for companies in various jurisdictions, and the list of other "socialized" costs is long and varied. With regards to making money, airlines are a terrible investment. Take away the subsidies and hidden supports and the whole system would be in shambles.

Any time you want to support my business ventures with taxpayer money, comrade, please advise. Thank you and good day.
rickg523 likes this.
Flight44 is offline  
Old Oct 25, 2018, 9:56 am
  #15  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Programs: AAdvantage PP
Posts: 13,913
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.
MiamiAirport Formerly NY George is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

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.