What's the harm?
- Thread starter USMCmech
- Start date
jhugz
Well-Known Member
because scumbag air is still making money off of work that shouldn't be flying
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
Are they?
Wouldn't chartering another jet result in a loss?
The tickets which have already been paid, and now "scumbag air" doesn't have to pay for fuel, fees, Mx, ect. They might be better off revenue wise to let the planes sit (for a while)
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Why would the airline charter a flight that would lose them money when they're already bleeding cash?
It just doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me. If they were going to lose MORE money on the flight, then why charter it? To be nice guys to their pax?
KLB
Well-Known Member
From my understading:
True the air carrier is losing money by having to charter out their flying, but so is the striking employee by not doing the flying. It's the air carriers hope that they can out last the employee and the employee will eventually end the strike and come back to work due to financial constraints. They use the air charters as a demoralizer more than anything.
True the air carrier is losing money by having to charter out their flying, but so is the striking employee by not doing the flying. It's the air carriers hope that they can out last the employee and the employee will eventually end the strike and come back to work due to financial constraints. They use the air charters as a demoralizer more than anything.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
Why would AA keep flying their entire system full of (mostly) empty planes when the FAs went on strike in 93?
The "lack of solidarity" from the AA pilots actually cost the company MUCH more money than it would if the pilots had joined the picket line.
What if "Acme air charters" took all the struck work from "scumbag air", and charged the scalpers prices that they can demand, resulting in a greater loss to scum air?
Planes sitting still don't cost nearly as much money as chartering from another company.
SpiraMirabilis
Possible Subversive
Even if it costs them a net amount of money, nobody knows for sure. It puts pressure on the strikers to cross the picket line. Look at Mesa's go!. It was consistently losing money (except for a couple of quarters) but it lasted a long time. The amount of money an airline would lose by cancelling a flight far exceeds the amount of money they'd be charged to charger it, especially when you consider during a strike it is vitally important for management to appear to be doing business as normal.
An airline needs a constant infusion of dollars, money is paid out as soon as it arrives in. So an airline depends on the seats being sold and paid for now for the future. If the impression is that business is being conducted as normal, or that the strike is weak, then customers will continue to purchase tickets. This income flow is vitally important for an airline.
An airline needs a constant infusion of dollars, money is paid out as soon as it arrives in. So an airline depends on the seats being sold and paid for now for the future. If the impression is that business is being conducted as normal, or that the strike is weak, then customers will continue to purchase tickets. This income flow is vitally important for an airline.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
I guess that makes sense.
Baronman
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't assume "making a buck," but perhaps losing less while maintaining a functioning airline and not having to declare, "Sorry but due to a strike ALL FLIGHTS CANCELLED."
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
Related question:
What if Acme air charters has a "one time special offer" that overlays Scumbag air's routes from Cleveland to Orlando. Acme isn't working for anybody, they just see a chance to make a quick buck.
If this is in no way related with scum air, is it struck work?
What if Acme air charters has a "one time special offer" that overlays Scumbag air's routes from Cleveland to Orlando. Acme isn't working for anybody, they just see a chance to make a quick buck.
If this is in no way related with scum air, is it struck work?
jhugz
Well-Known Member
From my understanding no.
For it to be considered struck work it has to benefit the company that is on strike.
KLB
Well-Known Member
They are more than likely losing quite a bit. Charters are expensive!
SpiraMirabilis
Possible Subversive
Really struck work is what is defined by the striking party. In the case of Spirit, the MEC welcomes this because it produces increasing pressure on Management as they lose market share.
Baronman
Well-Known Member
It's not struck work...Just the same way if AirTran decides to pick the same route it's not struck work because AirTran is pocketing the money, not funneling it back to Spirit. As someone said, this pressures Spirit because they potentially lose brand loyalty to AirTran.
figure if they use charters, then they don't have to refund and don't have pax angry words coming at them along with the pilots...if they don't have pax angry words, then they have an edge in comparison to the pilots...they get the pax on *their* side essentially showing the pax and media that they don't need the pilots to continue performing the service.
by not having the charters, they are "supposed to" refund unused tickets but they aren't because they can't afford to.
by not having the charters, they are "supposed to" refund unused tickets but they aren't because they can't afford to.
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
I have to go with Jtrain here. If an airline LOST money by hiring a charter to get their passengers where they are going, it would be one of the RARE instances of airlines doing right by their passengers. If an airline has pushed their employees to the point they strike, I doubt that same airline would suddenly have a change of heart and do right by the passengers.
Orange Anchor
New Member
Breaking a strike not only affects the group being broken but also ALL other employee groups and it permits the company an almost unrestrained hand in creating the environment, good or bad. So hiring charters is not solely about the current environment but also creating the new or next environment.
The odd thing is that many groups do not respect the amount of information a professional management group has on the employees. They know where the employees live, the life$tyle and what it costs to live there. They know LOTS and are able to tailor their pressure to those demographics.
It is also noteworthy that Baldanza is ex-USAir. They know how to grow 'em there.