Bad News - UPS
#32
The question is: does a furlough make them more money or not? If it does, I can't object (even as a first round cut) from a business standpoint. If, however, it can't and they realize it and are only playing the IPA for contract concessions, the badwill sewn by this action will cost the company for years to come as immature people like me hold a grudge until the day I hang up the chart bag. They're potentially creating 300 new '88ers with respect to loyalty to the company, and I doubt anyone in Atlanta has calculated the net present value of that. Unfortunate for them and us.
I will contend that both may be true, it's not as black and white as you pose. We can probably lose 54 guys as a business decision (think DC8 FE's) and continue, but it will sure create a lot of new '88ers as you say. The badwill will probably be far greater than the savings when compared to if they just carried the guys knowing that they will be needed soon enough. That will never show on a balance sheet or P and L statement in any identifiable way.
You posed the question and you are way more affected then me. What do you think? Will they ever be able to convince you or I that it was done in circumstance a or b?
#33
How many of us feel personal empathy for those in Atlanta or Washington, yet somehow expect an expression of empathy in a sort of odd one-way transaction?
Here is the news, it isn't going to happen.
In the end it is just a contract, nothing more and nothing less. Be careful what you bargain for, you can be sure they are doing the same thing.
Here is the news, it isn't going to happen.
In the end it is just a contract, nothing more and nothing less. Be careful what you bargain for, you can be sure they are doing the same thing.
Last edited by jungle; 04-13-2010 at 01:33 PM.
#34
Surprising quotes
Thanks for the good wishes. Retirement is something I heartily recommend to those who are in a position to do so.
#35
It is always wonderful when the truth accidentally slips out.
#36
So how do you answer that question? What metrics can you use to prove that it either made sense from a business stand point, or that it didn't and thus will provide the bad will and grudge holders.
I will contend that both may be true, it's not as black and white as you pose. We can probably lose 54 guys as a business decision (think DC8 FE's) and continue, but it will sure create a lot of new '88ers as you say. The badwill will probably be far greater than the savings when compared to if they just carried the guys knowing that they will be needed soon enough. That will never show on a balance sheet or P and L statement in any identifiable way.
You posed the question and you are way more affected then me. What do you think? Will they ever be able to convince you or I that it was done in circumstance a or b?
I will contend that both may be true, it's not as black and white as you pose. We can probably lose 54 guys as a business decision (think DC8 FE's) and continue, but it will sure create a lot of new '88ers as you say. The badwill will probably be far greater than the savings when compared to if they just carried the guys knowing that they will be needed soon enough. That will never show on a balance sheet or P and L statement in any identifiable way.
You posed the question and you are way more affected then me. What do you think? Will they ever be able to convince you or I that it was done in circumstance a or b?
In all seriousness, I can't see how cutting more than the number of guys who are getting paid not to work is really going to be profitable in the long run, esp if revenues are increasing. There may well have been some efficiencies realized in Worldport, larger aircraft, 2- vs. 3-crew a/c, trucking 2nd and 3rd day air shipments in some markets, etc. However, if loads are really increasing (particulary in overseas markets like China where you can't truck the stuff to Worldport) then I can't imagine how cutting pilots is a sustainable business model (from a growth standpoint).
I think the best metric you and I can use to tell a or b is: time. If they put me on the street next month and then put no more out and start callbacks before peak, I would make a strong case the whole thing was just a ploy -- either to scare the IPA into contract concessions, make use of RIF bid or both. If they put me out next month, and follow up with 15-20 a month until they get to 300, then 1. they're blithering idiots and will pay (Wall St) for their stupidity or 2. they really can increase profit by parking pilots.
From a strict business perspective: does it make sense to you to have a number of guys getting paid to fly in a plane that UPS no longer operates? Seriously, if you opened up a pizza joint in your spare time from flying and posting on APC, would you think it would be more or less profitable to pay a bunch of kids to NOT make pizza in your shop? Before anyone starts: I know it's contractual, UPS shoulda seen it coming, they ran the vacancy/displacement bids, blah blah. I have no quarrel with any of that and I am 100% IPA. But from an economic point of view, I understand why the company would try to find a way to mitigate a cost that produces no value for them.
As far as addressing the long-term cost of employee badwill, that's tough to do for anyone and I fear they're not even considering it -- esp in Atlanta (Louisville may be but are too afraid to yell too loud or they'll get rif'd). If you're really interested in such things, PM me -- I can send you some interesting HBR articles on studies on employee satisfaction/productivity vs costs to companies who under-compensate. If you're just jerking my chain with rhetorical questions, then-- well that's what I get on an anonymous board! Cheers.
#37
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Position: Thermopylae
Posts: 93
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post