JetBlue and Southwest
12-31-2005, 10:28 AM
#32
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: A320 PIC
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by Meworry?
You want some socialistic, regulated system that would keep your pay high but would keep 50% of today's flying public on the ground and cause the loss of tens of thousands of jobs, all while perpetuating lousy service and high fares. Now that is selfish. And you wonder why we are where we are. There's your clue.
Passenger enplanements started increasing significantly in 1960, approximately coinciding with the aging of the "baby boomer" generation. I'm sure some of todays travelers use the airlines rather than Grey Hound or Amtrack, because of the lower fares, but by no means would 50% of the flying public be grounded in a return to a regulated environment.
What we have in the deregulated environment are;
1. Lousy service. Reduced seat pitch, no meals...
2. Numerous fares for the same flight, depending on when or how the ticket
was purchased. Minimum overnight stays, required weekend layovers etc...
3. Fees for changing or cancelling a flight.
4. Hub and Spoke Fortress hubs, thus allowing one airline to "control" an
airport.
5. Numerous airlines operating under bankruptcy protection.
6. Steady downward trend in employee pay.
7. Loss of employee retirement programs.
8. Approximately 160 airlines have gone out of business since deregulation.
If each of these failed airlines had 800 employees, that results in a job
loss of 128,000. How is this better than the loss of "tens of thousands
of jobs" you claim a return to regulation of the industry would cause?
9. An industry that is projected to lose 7.5 BILLION dollars in 2005 alone.
In my opinion, deregulation is destroying the airline industry. What we have, as evidenced by the turmoil of the previous 27 years, is an industry with a never ending supply of start up carriers, undercutting the established carriers, resulting in downward pressure on costs. The established carriers can't match the start ups cost structure, and eventually fail. And the cycle continues...
12-31-2005, 12:08 PM
#33
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: A320, left
Posts: 37
Originally Posted by automatique
I respectfully disagree, SBR. We are already slated to expand, unless we cancel orders. I don't see the pay increasing for the company as a whole,...
I guess it's just a gut feeling I have that there are an awful lot of parallels between our situation now and Southwest's a few years after they started... and we've all seen what their potential up side was.
But really I'm just offering advice (about choosing between the two) from my personal perspective, in which pay is only a part of the total equation. And from that perspective, the decision b/w B6 and WN would come down to the excitement of being a part of something relatively new and growing rapidly vs. being a part of an outstanding company at the top of its game.
Plus, as I've said before, I believe in what we're doing with respect to trying to take care of our crewmembers and really working to make flying a positive experience for the customer. And having customer after customer come up to me after the flight saying "Thanks so much - that was great" "Please keep it up you guys!" etc. etc. is worth something to me.
01-03-2006, 05:29 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: A320 FO
Posts: 157
[QUOTE=automatique]I respectfully disagree, SBR. We are already slated to expand, unless we cancel orders. I don't see the pay increasing for the company as a whole, although I'm HOPING they increase the 190 pay to a livable wage, if that a/c proves a winner. Especially for the new F/Os.[/QUOTE]
Good point, the E190 pay is terrible. The 190 is not an RJ and it should not have RJ type of pay. Same job as a A320 so it should be the same pay, or at least better than it current form.
QUOTE=automatique]We're pretty much middle\lower end of the pack, paywise. We have 10 jillion apps onfile. Why in the world would they raise the pay?[/QUOTE]
Why should they? Because it is the right thing to do. Everyone here at JB is working hard to make things work and be more efficient. If they can project increased cost for MX/Ops/Fuel/etc, why can't they plan on an annual cost of living raise for all crew members? Isn't that fair? Why should we bear the cost of keeping JB profitable? If we are not making enough $$$, then we should raise ticket prices. Hey, hasn't it been the downfall of most of the major airlines who lower fairs to levels that lose money to keep market share? We should NOT follow thier example. If we raise fairs, we might lose a few pax, but I'll bet the other airlines will match our price increase and we remain about the same, but make more $$$.
Hey, if JB had to train hundreds of additional pilots to replace those that leave and go some where else (other airlines, non flying jobs, etc) that would cost the company big bucks. And it could happen more (some have already left). When mangements say "we can't give you a raise, and why should we? We have 10,000 app on file of people who want to work here" You should take that as the threat it is. They are saying "If you don't like it, you can leave" I don't take kindly to threats and I take that type of threat as a reason to get a UNION on property (not ALPA) to protect our group.
QUOTE=automatique]Don't count on making much money on JB stock, unless you're a daytrader. It seems to be a good vehicle for that. (Up a buck, down a buck...)[/QUOTE]
You are right on on this point.
QUOTE=automatique]At it's heady heyday, I never saw much profit sharing $. After over 3 years, it's less than $16,000, total. We can't touch it, anyway.
Don't they project a loss for 2005? That 16K isn't going to grow this year.[/QUOTE]
Right on again. Profit sharing is always a maybe. It is not money in the bank nor is it a pay raise. You can't use it to pay the bill that keep increasing due to inflation. That is why we need a definite cost of living raise program.
Just my opinion....
FNG
Good point, the E190 pay is terrible. The 190 is not an RJ and it should not have RJ type of pay. Same job as a A320 so it should be the same pay, or at least better than it current form.
QUOTE=automatique]We're pretty much middle\lower end of the pack, paywise. We have 10 jillion apps onfile. Why in the world would they raise the pay?[/QUOTE]
Why should they? Because it is the right thing to do. Everyone here at JB is working hard to make things work and be more efficient. If they can project increased cost for MX/Ops/Fuel/etc, why can't they plan on an annual cost of living raise for all crew members? Isn't that fair? Why should we bear the cost of keeping JB profitable? If we are not making enough $$$, then we should raise ticket prices. Hey, hasn't it been the downfall of most of the major airlines who lower fairs to levels that lose money to keep market share? We should NOT follow thier example. If we raise fairs, we might lose a few pax, but I'll bet the other airlines will match our price increase and we remain about the same, but make more $$$.
Hey, if JB had to train hundreds of additional pilots to replace those that leave and go some where else (other airlines, non flying jobs, etc) that would cost the company big bucks. And it could happen more (some have already left). When mangements say "we can't give you a raise, and why should we? We have 10,000 app on file of people who want to work here" You should take that as the threat it is. They are saying "If you don't like it, you can leave" I don't take kindly to threats and I take that type of threat as a reason to get a UNION on property (not ALPA) to protect our group.
QUOTE=automatique]Don't count on making much money on JB stock, unless you're a daytrader. It seems to be a good vehicle for that. (Up a buck, down a buck...)[/QUOTE]
You are right on on this point.
QUOTE=automatique]At it's heady heyday, I never saw much profit sharing $. After over 3 years, it's less than $16,000, total. We can't touch it, anyway.
Don't they project a loss for 2005? That 16K isn't going to grow this year.[/QUOTE]
Right on again. Profit sharing is always a maybe. It is not money in the bank nor is it a pay raise. You can't use it to pay the bill that keep increasing due to inflation. That is why we need a definite cost of living raise program.
Just my opinion....
FNG
Last edited by FNG320; 01-03-2006 at 05:35 PM.
01-03-2006, 07:09 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Posts: 758
Originally Posted by Captain Dad
My goal is to be happy. Simple, but it involves many complicated issues. I am torn and need help. Do I focus on the tried and true that has never furloughed and pays better or the new folks in big debt that may blow the doors off the joint in the next ten years?
Only you can answer the question you pose, because only you (and your significant others) are able to assess your tolerance to risk.
The investment people always include the "prior performance is no GUARANTEE of future performance" phrase as a way to cover their behinds, but prior performance is a DARNED good predictor of future performance. From that perspective, SWA is the clear winner for someone who wants the sure thing. JetBlue doesn't have the history, but they are obviously the real deal, and with youth comes uncertainty. You can upgrade more quickly at Blue and possibly gain QOL quicker because of the likely upward movement.
For me, I can't afford to work as a JB newhire Embraer FO. I could only make a job switch if I could go into a setting where first year money is good, and SWA offers that, at least that's what I hear. Dittos to CAL, great company but the first year pay stinks.
Good Luck,
01-03-2006, 07:12 PM
#39
Self Employed.
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Corporate Pilot
Posts: 7,119
Capitalism
Originally Posted by R1830toIAE2500
I disagree with your assertion that deregulation helped the airline industry.
Passenger enplanements started increasing significantly in 1960, approximately coinciding with the aging of the "baby boomer" generation. I'm sure some of todays travelers use the airlines rather than Grey Hound or Amtrack, because of the lower fares, but by no means would 50% of the flying public be grounded in a return to a regulated environment.
What we have in the deregulated environment are;
1. Lousy service. Reduced seat pitch, no meals...
2. Numerous fares for the same flight, depending on when or how the ticket
was purchased. Minimum overnight stays, required weekend layovers etc...
3. Fees for changing or cancelling a flight.
4. Hub and Spoke Fortress hubs, thus allowing one airline to "control" an
airport.
5. Numerous airlines operating under bankruptcy protection.
6. Steady downward trend in employee pay.
7. Loss of employee retirement programs.
8. Approximately 160 airlines have gone out of business since deregulation.
If each of these failed airlines had 800 employees, that results in a job
loss of 128,000. How is this better than the loss of "tens of thousands
of jobs" you claim a return to regulation of the industry would cause?
9. An industry that is projected to lose 7.5 BILLION dollars in 2005 alone.
In my opinion, deregulation is destroying the airline industry. What we have, as evidenced by the turmoil of the previous 27 years, is an industry with a never ending supply of start up carriers, undercutting the established carriers, resulting in downward pressure on costs. The established carriers can't match the start ups cost structure, and eventually fail. And the cycle continues...
Passenger enplanements started increasing significantly in 1960, approximately coinciding with the aging of the "baby boomer" generation. I'm sure some of todays travelers use the airlines rather than Grey Hound or Amtrack, because of the lower fares, but by no means would 50% of the flying public be grounded in a return to a regulated environment.
What we have in the deregulated environment are;
1. Lousy service. Reduced seat pitch, no meals...
2. Numerous fares for the same flight, depending on when or how the ticket
was purchased. Minimum overnight stays, required weekend layovers etc...
3. Fees for changing or cancelling a flight.
4. Hub and Spoke Fortress hubs, thus allowing one airline to "control" an
airport.
5. Numerous airlines operating under bankruptcy protection.
6. Steady downward trend in employee pay.
7. Loss of employee retirement programs.
8. Approximately 160 airlines have gone out of business since deregulation.
If each of these failed airlines had 800 employees, that results in a job
loss of 128,000. How is this better than the loss of "tens of thousands
of jobs" you claim a return to regulation of the industry would cause?
9. An industry that is projected to lose 7.5 BILLION dollars in 2005 alone.
In my opinion, deregulation is destroying the airline industry. What we have, as evidenced by the turmoil of the previous 27 years, is an industry with a never ending supply of start up carriers, undercutting the established carriers, resulting in downward pressure on costs. The established carriers can't match the start ups cost structure, and eventually fail. And the cycle continues...
SkyHigh
01-03-2006, 11:30 PM
#40
On Reserve
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: SWA CA
Posts: 20
This from a DIE HARD SWA FO who loves it here:
The money is great! 125K 4th year ( for me anyway). The people are Awsome. Our CEO is a HERO.
BUT- Upgrade drawing in on 7 years
- I can't crack the code on how to get hired now
JetBLue- All my friends that work there like it
- Pay not as good but quick upgrade
- Nice A/C and Crews
- WILL be around for a while
The big thing is that you don't have a choice until the choice is there. I personally would still pick SWA. Everything I heard about SWA is true and more. But in reality, the one that hires you is the right choice.
Good luck!
The money is great! 125K 4th year ( for me anyway). The people are Awsome. Our CEO is a HERO.
BUT- Upgrade drawing in on 7 years
- I can't crack the code on how to get hired now
JetBLue- All my friends that work there like it
- Pay not as good but quick upgrade
- Nice A/C and Crews
- WILL be around for a while
The big thing is that you don't have a choice until the choice is there. I personally would still pick SWA. Everything I heard about SWA is true and more. But in reality, the one that hires you is the right choice.
Good luck!
Last edited by LUVGuppy; 01-04-2006 at 07:20 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
