New airline commercial:
"Fly with us and you'll feel like you never left the ground, because we treat you like dirt"
The airline industry is the canary in the coal mine for widespread management schemes that outsource jobs to prevent paying equitable wages while demanding a heavier work load.
If workers do not feel secure that employment with a company can be long term or that their work is valued, there is no reason for corporate loyalty.
If a worker fails to tighten some widgets on an assembly line, why should his/her co-workers care? As long as the stock market is doing well, there's no problem

Interesting that the WSJ notices the effect of underpaying employees when it means they can't get their complimentary martinis in First Class.

Normally the WSJ could be counted upon to use this situation to advocate for a guest worker program to match "a willing employer with a willing worker," and find people to do jobs that "Americans aren't willing to do."

Seems there's a combination of factors at work here. The first are 9-11 regs about security both on the plane and in the airport. Overblown threats have been met with a reactionary response and it's frankly ridiculous that I can't do things like bring a bottle of water through security.

Post 9-11 the airlines have struggled financially while, at the same time, flight crews have been given duel jobs in both customer service and security. The result has been more work for lower pay and, frankly, a lot of attitude on behalf of airline employees who view passengers less as customers than as people who can be ordered around and herded like cattle.

And, of course, they're understaffed and missing flights and are defensive about it. During a layover in St. Louis a pilot on break told me why they leave you on te tarmac during delays, instead of going back to the gate, letting people off and reboarding. First, they need the gates. Second, the pilot cxan only fly a certain amount of hours a week, whether they're in the air or on the tarmac. Waiting through a couple of hour delay when the doors are closed means they can do less work the rest of the week. Seriously.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

the airlines are in transistion. wages don't translate into better service especially if you're like me and enjoy putting gas into your own car or ringing up and bagging your own groceries.

the differentiating factor of airlines is simply cost. cities like Las Vegas and companies like Disney World depend on "low cost" airlines, not "high service" airlines.

as I've noted before, computers fly the space shuttle even though pilots sit in the cockpit and i'm not even sure that pilots could bring a space shuttle home without computer support.

the saftey of flight, in my mind, is highly correlated to computers and not humans these days because computers can predict when various parts break down and also consider sensor readings when determining when a particular part should be serviced.

in the old days, mechanics did indeed do this but, in the modern world, computers are more important and the repair process is probably designed to be done by less skilled people and work like universal health care since prevention is cheaper than triage.

I'm happy to buy my own meals at the airport because, even in the good 'ol days, nobody raved about airplane food-- so airlines were smart to often get rid of it.

and, if patience is the price of a cheap ticket, that's fine with me!

To boldly go...

I don't know that this can be blamed on 9-11 or the Bush administration (though both did no good certinly). These trends date back much further. Anyone remember the fate of Eastern Airlines? And up in Michigan Northwest gained it nickname of Northworst well before we'd even heard of George W Bush.

or if you are Warren Buffet very high standards..

Warren would want airlines to come up with an airplane that didn't suck down so much.

GM and Ford are croaking because they have gas guzzlers that require expensive resources to operate.

Less resource consumption can translate into lower prices, higher profits and more liquidity since air travel would be more widely affordable.

To boldly go...

I'll throw this one out there, although I have no expertise or depth of knowledge for the airline industry, but my mother was a stewardess with American Airlines in the late fifties and early sixties. Her take on air travel is that when she flew flying was for the rich and business people. Volumes were low, the business was glamorous, and people actually dressed up to travel by plane. She thinks that the current air travel situation is the result of cost competition, or put a different way, the democratization of the skies.

Again, no expert, but if the industry margins cannot grow purely by volumes (i.e. lower fairs more passengers), then it may not be a viable business model. One other observation, in the 1980's I flew Virgin a lot to England. It was cheap and bare bones, but with a good sense of humor. As we have both grown up I've noticed they are no longer the cheapest in the skies. I got this sense as I was being comp'd drinks in the upperclass lounge. Not the cheap seat it once was.

The public wanted lower air fares; they got them, so now they should stop whining about poor service, lost baggage, late flights, cancelled flights, long waits, long lines, mass confusion, etc.

If anyone thinks they're going to fly coast to coast, non stop, on time, and sup on foie gras, Cornish Game Hen L'orange Asparagus Spears Amandine, and Dom Perignon '63 for $120.00 round trip is nutty.

Buffet owned U.S. Air for a time, he has called it one of his worst investments. Airlines tend to be ok trades and terrible investments. I has been asked if anyone since the Wright Brothers has made money investing in an airline.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

It may be an illusion. I had the bulkhead seat in an Air Canada dash-80, a very small turboprop. Rather than corduroy, I faced a set of emergency instructions.

The last line left me in Zen meditation from Toronto to Fredricton: "If you cannot read this, call a flight attendant."

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

It's called government subsidy. Not that our own do not feed from a tax break trough, but many foreign airlines get better fixins to stay in the black: regulations, government ownership, national pride, etc.

So the problem with American airlines is not enough regulation? Not enough government subsidies and tax breaks?

American airlines practically live at the public trough. But they've just about dispensed with regulation.

No, I am not saying that. The question was how do foreign airlines survive. Perhaps a better response might have been because they are not participating in the same business model as foreign airlines; meaning that for foreign airlines losses are acceptable as they are not expected to be independent profit making concerns. They are not businesses, so much as public services and national symbols.

Again, as I posted earlier, I am no expert on airlines. I have read about them in the business trades and newspapers, and at one time I worked for a re-insurance firm that underwrote policies for aircraft, but I have not worked for or written a disertation on air travel.

Also, I believe I referenced the tax breaks and subsidies. An interesting point to consider is that deregulation, which was meant to make air travel more of a free market, may be a major cause of the current industry woes.

Again, perhaps the business model is wrong.

they just are one way relationships: "pay us but don't expect anything in return."

that's the opposite of what business stands for: fair contracts.

To boldly go...