Another comment without any knowledge: Well done!
US air carriers DO get this, and would like to adapt. Unfortunately for them and the traveling public, union rules cripple older airlines; these airlines have the largest number of routes and so are clinging to life, but barely. The newer, more evolved airlines cannot take over the older routes until the old airlines die. Again, the traveling public suffers.
As an example, when AA wanted to reduce the time aircraft spent on the ground (which obviously increases profits,) the suggestion was made that flight attendants clean all aircraft during deplaning. The flight attendant union was all for this but wanted more money. The Ground Employee unions were against this because it would mean more job cuts. The option of making more money and perhaps avoiding premature death was too expensive to deal with, so airplanes sit longer and often take delays while some employees are paid to sit on their asses. Unions can be a good thing, but too often metastasize into what they are today.
Good job using a highly biased flying waitress association quote to defend the paranoid position that airline execs are out to steal from the employees. If you spend some time researching some competent sources, you might find that airline execs earn far less than their counterparts in other industries, even if they do get huge salaries and bonuses.
The argument can certainly be made that airline execs are often incompetent, but even that opinion should be backed by more than a quick Google search landing on whiny anti-company union claims.
At least "to a certain extent" was used. The truth is that that certain extent is close to zero. I worked for airlines for several years and the baggage systems of every airport and every carrier are different, but always complex. There is no direct shot from ticket counter to airplane, even if a carrier has only one flight out of an airport per day. That means that the FIFO idea is absolute rubbish, with all due respect. It makes sense on the surface, but once you take a ride on the belt system you see that the number of stops, checks, belt transfers, and human interactions make the system the cluster-f it is today.
The sad part of the United idea is that something like that is necessary; government regulation of airlines supposedly ended in the 80s, but government support for the unions mean that older carriers cannot compete with younger carriers with less senior employees and a shorter history of unions and companies f-ing each other over with every flip of the economy. The real looser is the traveling public, and even Soutwest will someday succumb to competition from airlines that will be created ten years from now.
Slashdot Mirror
Another comment without any knowledge: Well done! US air carriers DO get this, and would like to adapt. Unfortunately for them and the traveling public, union rules cripple older airlines; these airlines have the largest number of routes and so are clinging to life, but barely. The newer, more evolved airlines cannot take over the older routes until the old airlines die. Again, the traveling public suffers. As an example, when AA wanted to reduce the time aircraft spent on the ground (which obviously increases profits,) the suggestion was made that flight attendants clean all aircraft during deplaning. The flight attendant union was all for this but wanted more money. The Ground Employee unions were against this because it would mean more job cuts. The option of making more money and perhaps avoiding premature death was too expensive to deal with, so airplanes sit longer and often take delays while some employees are paid to sit on their asses. Unions can be a good thing, but too often metastasize into what they are today.
Good job using a highly biased flying waitress association quote to defend the paranoid position that airline execs are out to steal from the employees. If you spend some time researching some competent sources, you might find that airline execs earn far less than their counterparts in other industries, even if they do get huge salaries and bonuses. The argument can certainly be made that airline execs are often incompetent, but even that opinion should be backed by more than a quick Google search landing on whiny anti-company union claims.
At least "to a certain extent" was used. The truth is that that certain extent is close to zero. I worked for airlines for several years and the baggage systems of every airport and every carrier are different, but always complex. There is no direct shot from ticket counter to airplane, even if a carrier has only one flight out of an airport per day. That means that the FIFO idea is absolute rubbish, with all due respect. It makes sense on the surface, but once you take a ride on the belt system you see that the number of stops, checks, belt transfers, and human interactions make the system the cluster-f it is today.
The sad part of the United idea is that something like that is necessary; government regulation of airlines supposedly ended in the 80s, but government support for the unions mean that older carriers cannot compete with younger carriers with less senior employees and a shorter history of unions and companies f-ing each other over with every flip of the economy. The real looser is the traveling public, and even Soutwest will someday succumb to competition from airlines that will be created ten years from now.