NWA cuts 2,500 jobs; hikes baggage, service fees

Source: Orlando Business Journal

Northwest Airlines Corp. will cut 2,500 employees and increase fees to address high fuel costs, the company announced Wednesday.

"Our fuel costs have more than doubled in the past year," Doug Steenland, president and CEO, said in a press release. "These reductions are a direct result of our extraordinary fuel costs and the necessary actions we must take to right-size our airline and eliminate unprofitable flying."

In June, the Eagan, Minn.-based company announced plans to reduce flights in the fourth quarter by 8.5 percent to 9.5 percent in comparison to the fourth quarter of 2007. As a result, the company is reducing front-line and management personnel in all employee groups through voluntary programs such as voluntary leaves and early-outs. Vin Parker, a Northwest spokesman, said furloughs will be a last resort if voluntary programs don't meet the targeted reductions.

Northwest Airlines Corp. agreed in April to merge with Atlanta-based Delta Air Lines Inc. (NYSE: DAL). Delta is the third largest airline serving Orlando International Airport, according to the Orlando Business Journal's 2008 Book of Lists.


Read more: http://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/stories/2008/07/07/daily33.html

great great memories...yella, dr. dre, MC Ren and Eazy-E

Shoulda known NWA would pull some gangsta shit like charging $100 to use a frequent flyer ticket

I think they behaved better than the airlines do, especially Northworst.

Are they going to strap the passengers to the wings and offer them an oxygen mask and blanket? They could remove the seats to save weight and the rest rooms.

that US Scareways was dumping on-flight movies to save fuel on the five hundred pounds of equipment it takes to show them. I really haven't bothered to watch one of these mindless cut-up pieces of shit for the last dozen flights I've taken anyway. Often, the jacks for the headphones are defective, and you can only get one channel of sound, anyway.

Now, if they really want to make a few extra bucks, move the children and the babies (the half-payers and non-payers) to the BACK of the aircraft, and offer seats in the front of the coach section for ten or twenty percent more. I'd gladly pay not to have my seat back kicked, or listen to some blood-curdling scream six inches from my ears, emanating from an overtired tyke.

That should be their side banner of truth .
I have only flown three times in my 59 year years and the last time was 1991. Can't say I liked it much. One flight I got a window seat over the wing and watched as what appeared to be a metal patch with one corner free and daring to come off , this distracted me from the movie the entire flight. On the way back the pilot used about a third of the runway on take off and the landing gear that we were above made a loud snap sound and I wondered if it would ever function again.

Now days forget it. I would not get on a plane if the flight were free.

i would much rather have movies removed than have my right to check bags removed but as northwest doesn't have movies to begin with they can't go this route

babies should not be allowed to fly for health reasons except in case of genuine emergency, and anyone who takes a seat, be they 2 years old or 82 years old, should pay the same price -- no half price fee for screaming toddlers, it just ain't fair (in my humble view)

:nuke: :scared:

has plans for that includes standing rows of passengers. The future does not look all that bright/

will they have the type of reestraints they use on the stand up roller coasters-

or will they be required to wear velcro suits and then just be attached to a bulkhead?

And you wanna go potty? That'll be a buck, please...

(Oh, and that's per visit, so do try to plan your urges accordingly. :hurts: )

That's AFTER the employees had taken 40 percent pay cuts. SOBs -- each and every CEO who cashes in on the backs of employees.

with the people working "very damn hard!" for money to live on, save, get educated on, et cetera...

Golden parachutes and other b.s. tactics like that seem to be ignored by most of those stations. Is government telling execs to be so greedy? Or to screw the business, get "fired" with multi-million golden parachute? Most workers who get fired aren't so lucky. If CEOs whine they deserve more because they make decisions that can break the company, how and where the heck did this quaint loophole get started?

The ticket itself was over $400, and that was the best I could do. Unbelievable. Luckily I have a free place to stay for five days, but between meals, golf and $500 to fly there and back, this one is easily going to cost over a grand. Ouch.

Not to mention all the golf balls I will leave in the woods and water. . .

that you can't stay in business when you sell your product for less money than it costs you?

Why does everyone think it would be the end of the world if it was expensive to fly on an airliner like it was for decades before deregulation?

Air travel was a fucking luxury, people, not a right or a necessity, during the decades when the world had the most growth in prosperity, ever.

Why should we EXPECT it to be different now?

Vacation's over.

Redstone

I vaguely remember the time before the airlines were deregulated, or it is more accurate to say I remember all the cheapy "fly by night" companies that took off (and crashed) in the 1980s.

Air travel was a luxury of the wealthy, the relatively few business travelers, or a rare treat for the middle class. People acted like it, and were treated like it. People dressed up to fly. The flight attendants (stewardesses then) wore skirts and nice blouses or blazers. Of course, the sexism is nothing to miss. Now, people wear shorts and flip flops on a plane, the flight attendants dress like camp counselors and are surly from their crappy pay and dealing with nasty people all day - taking the heat for their airlines' stupid policies.

Of course, we're spoiled now, by having twenty years of cheap airfares, so going back to expensive flights would be really tough. Families have moved away from each other thinking they would only be two hours away by plane, and could visit for $200. We had more job stability, and probably more vacation time, so taking a few weeks off to drive somewhere was still an option. After deregulation, a tourism industry grew and thrived on the availability of cheap airline tickets - after all, people can't come there if they can't get there.

If the airlines raised their ticket prices, people wouldn't fly. A healthy margin is not healthy at all if there's no volume. That's another economic principle. For years airlines have been able to make up in volume what they lost in margin. It is easier for airlines to make the seats smaller, lighter and less comfortable. It is easier to charge for every little thing - meals, checked bags, beverages, talking to a person (in India, no less) to make a reservation, fees for "paper" tickets (now this I agree with from an environmental perspective if nothing else). We use the internet to book now, and airlines want to have a base price as low as possible to hook you.

One good thing is airlines are cutting back flights. While this may pose some inconvenience for passengers, it was totally ridiculous for them to flying half-full planes. It was a waste of fuel and it led to logjams at the airports. In an effort to save fuel, maybe the airlines will finally have the economic incentive to schedule more responsibly, causing fewer volume delays.

Why should it cost me $25 for an extra bag (and possibly $15 for the first one) while some whiny screamer gets to fly on a parent's lap (kicking the person next to them, or the seat in front of them) for free? What benefit does an under two-year-old child derive from long distance travel?

I don't think they should allow lap children for free, but it doesn't have as much to do about money as safety. Why do they tell us to remain seated with the buckle fastened and allow a person to "hold" a child? We don't allow a person to hold a child in a car, and there are some very good physics principles to explain why. Those same principles apply on a plane - air pockets, turbulence, runway issues (I exempt other plane incidents because the seat belt isn't going to make a darn bit of difference). The babies should be required to be in a seat.

But, it is not that the baby benefits from long distance/air travel - it is the parents who may be going to visit family in another state. Of course, there are parents who believe that their 18 month old will enjoy the family vacation.

the last time i was on a "half full" flight was in 1982, there is no such animal in the modern flying environment

no offense, but i fly 50K miles plus a year, when is the last time you took ANY flight? flyers know that there are no half empty planes flying, haven't been for more than a decade

but when I have I remember lots of empty seats. It really turns into a good thing because the seats are so small, it's nice to have the one next to you empty. Even if you aren't a large person, it just feels less claustrophobic. My husband and I will reserve A and C, hoping no one will book the B seat. At least half the time, this has worked.

My most recent flight was a trip from Orlando to LA in February (Presidents' weekend). A Thursday evening flight out, a Monday red eye back. My husband and my little trick worked both times, for us and my parents who were also traveling.

Maybe it depends on when you travel, and where.

you simply don't know what you're talking about but don't mind talking about it anyway

welcome to the glorious internets

No, I don't fly frequently, only a few times a year. Also, I have relatives who take a few flights per year. Plus, my Mom is a travel agent. So, just because I don't have first hand experience doesn't necessarily mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

Of course, as a leisure traveler, I tend to go at off peak times to save money. This may also happen to be when flights are less full.

It as been a year or 2 since I traveled a lot. However, I had a 4 month stint across the country and I literally had the back 4 or 5 rows (I prefer sitting in the back) completely to myself on about 75% of the flights.

the flight you took pre-katrina in may 2005 is ancient history

and, in any case, the overwhelming majority of flights were at capacity THEN

"the plural of anecdote is not data"

or as i like to say -- if you don't know what you're talking about, try not talking

Just kidding, just kidding.

I have a pretty cheap ticket for September and I bet it cost less than the fuel for my portion of the trip. I guess I will be carrying a small bag.

If we really want to save airline fuel, just start weighing the passengers. I'll just start watching the travel channel then, instead of getting on a plane. And the business types will probably teleconference.

my family lives on four continents, and most people's families live on at least two

it ain't 1950 any more, and people do have a right to see their families once in a blue moon

cheap air travel is essential to business, to family ties, and to (corny as it may sound) whirled peas -- if your college kids is backpacking iran/pakistan/afganistan, you probably aren't going to be as pro-war as the average person

I'm thinking about that one. Whenever I fly what I see a lot of are college-aged kids flying to spring break on Mommy and Daddy's money, or flying off on a vacation because, OH MY GOD I am soooo burned out from school and studying and my life is so stressed right now. Also, I fly to Orlando to visit my son once a year and I see nothing but families with two-year olds going to Disney, as if those two-year olds will even remember ever going there.

Yes, I do believe that plenty of people fly to see their families like I do, but there's a lot of people who were able to fly just because airfare was so cheap. I'm one of those old fogies who'd like to see it get back to being a bit of a treat to fly somewhere. I'm sick of being treated like cattle and having to pay for it. And don't get me started on the silly TSA rules!

most people fly from real working cities be it new orleans, detroit, nagoya, frankfurt, to name a few i've flown from recently

the idea that people are flying to go to disneyworld is a comfortable illusion, enjoy it while you can because you are talking about a spoiled minority, the disney visitor ain't flying northwest, sheesh, just look at the routes !

the fact of the matter is, corporate business splits up families and moves the worker around from place to place, to distant states and, now, to distant countries, and if we want to be part of the global economy (and to be fair to the workers who have already been moved around this planet) we'll acknowledge this REALITY

I live in Detroit and fly out of Detroit Metro whenever I go somewhere. I flew to Denver recently to visit a dear friend, and there were plenty of college-aged kids going on a ski trip.

Please don't make assumptions.

Primarily because human beings can't actually fly, so it takes a lot of externalized cost to allow us to do so.

We better hope physical reality never catches up to us. People will be piiiiiissed.

Yes, it is returning to the days when flying is an expensive endeavor and 39.00 rt fares are history. It was particularly hard for us to take pay cuts at NWA and see the idiot fares they were charging. In 2006 a round trip fare from Minneapolis to Tampa was 10.00 LOWER then a "supersaver" was in 1979 when I started with them. The writing on the wall has been there for years. My prediction, you'll see one or two of the majors liquidate, and rest downsize big time. Sad.

(or was it given by the State, I certainly don't recall...)