[PHXFlyer]

Originally Posted by bah humbug

When did Airtran lay off 2000 employees? That is so not true......

I did some checking. 169 pilots and 480 other personnel back in Sept. '08. That doesn't seem to equal 2000 and internet searches didn't come up with any other significant workforce reduction at AirTran since then.

The OP was just as factual in his other post about TSA rules, etc. Apparently he knows how to post half-truths and mis-information on forums but lacks the skills to do a simple Google search.

[Jetliner]

Air Tran has NEVER laid off even close to 2,000 people. As for the layoffs lest September that were mentioned, most (if not all) are back. Most of those were voluntary leaves for that one month alone.

He says he's o former legacy carrier employee. That wouldn't happen to be Delta would it?

[justme]

I said it in another post, I'll repeat it here. My original statement that Airtran laid off 2,000 people may have been incorrect, but non-the-less, has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. I did not ever say that Airtran should not spend money on advertising, I never said that laying people off to cut costs was wrong. I only posted to bring to light the idea that funding "stunts" so soon after you have had any lay offs may not be the best idea. As for which airline I have worked for in the past, in fact it's more than 1, I didn't say for a reason. It will stay that way.

[Jetliner]

Originally Posted by justme

I only posted to bring to light the idea that funding "stunts" so soon after you have had any lay offs may not be the best idea.

OK, but as pointed out already you need to check your facts before you post. AirTran never laid off anywhere near that number of people, most of the layoffs were for a one month period only, and how do you know how much they spent on this? The never paid for lodging since he slept on the plane. They never paid for food, as I understand it people brought him stuff. Also someone on the inside told me that he always had someone else flying with him (who do you think was holding the camera for all that video of him on the planes) - that person probably also got food. So in the end, the only real expense would have been paying Mark himself. How much of that would realistically covered payroll for how many employees?

Something else you have to keep in mind is that AirTran has signed on quite a few sports figures in the past (Danica Patrick, Dan Wheldon, Jake Delhome, and prior to the doggie incident Michael Vick), plus a few others. They didn't pay them with money. They gave them a certain number of plane tickets. Not every flight they would take is going to be 100% full, so that means that not every flight is loosing one seat of revenue, so this is a hell of a lot cheaper than paying them outright. Now it looks like this guy's frequent flier credits are being donated, but I'm willing to bet he still has a few free flights ahead of him.

[justme]

Originally Posted by Jetliner

OK, but as pointed out already you need to check your facts before you post.

Correct. I should have. Lesson learned.

Originally Posted by Jetliner

They never paid for lodging since he slept on the plane. They never paid for food, as I understand it people brought him stuff. Also someone on the inside told me that he always had someone else flying with him (who do you think was holding the camera for all that video of him on the planes) - that person probably also got food. So in the end, the only real expense would have been paying Mark himself. How much of that would realistically covered payroll for how many employees?

Here's the problem with that logic. First, if he was sleeping on airplanes, he would have needed an airline ID, and an airport security ID. Who do you think paid for that? If he didn't have either, he had to have an escort the whole time, which means AirTran was paying overtime for someone to babysit. Another money spending aspect of the publicity stunt. Second, you say there was more than just him staying on the airplane, yet the only cost would be for Mark. Did the camera man not take up a seat, not eat, not need an ID? The more people there are, the more it costs, in any situation. Your math that says two people only cost as much as one doesn't make sense. As far as "someone on the inside" telling you the details, I guess we'll have to call it even, I know people, you know people. I don't care who can pee the farthest. Third, undoubtedly whatever cost was incurred to feed him, get him an ID, etc. would not have been enough to save someones job. Again, the point was NOT that they shouldn't have done this in order to save several peoples jobs. BUT, that money could have been spent to get an actual employee an ID, or the seat used for a crew member going to training, etc.

Originally Posted by Jetliner

Something else you have to keep in mind is that AirTran has signed on quite a few sports figures in the past (Danica Patrick, Dan Wheldon, Jake Delhome, and prior to the doggie incident Michael Vick), plus a few others.

Very true, the airplane with Danica Patrick on it looks great. The problem is, that these people that have had airplanes painted for them are celebrities that passengers know and RECOGNIZE. How many people do you think are looking at the airplane with Mark "the comedian and record breaker" and saying "Who the hell is that guy?"

In the end, the point is this. If you were laid off, or being forced to take pay cuts then had to watch your company (IMO) waste money on some Joe Schmoe who wants to break a record, wouldn't you be even a little upset?

[bah humbug]

Off the wall things like this attract attention, be it humorous, crazy or just plain stupid. If Airtran had to "pay" for the kind of publicity this "stunt" got it would have cost millions. Obviously it cost money for advertising, all airlines still advertise (newspapers, radio, tv) even during difficult times. This so called "stunt" cost Airtran way less and reached more people than any other form of advertising would have.

......and by the way, I know this is redundant, but Airtran has NEVER even come close to laying off 2000 employees, nor have they given any pay cuts...the fact is ground crew has received a pay increase every year for the last 10 years. So hard to pay attention to those who have no idea what they are talking about.

The reason you have worked for more than 1 legacy carrier is probably because you lost YOUR job to lay offs. Had you been working with Airtran instead of hating them, you would most likley be an employee, not a former employee.

[justme]

How many freaking times do I have to eat crow pie. Jesus H. Christ, I know that Airtran didn't lay off 2000 people. It was an exaggeration to make a point. And just so you know, I have never been laid off or fired from any job I have ever held. The reason I have worked for more than one airline is because I have lived in lots of different places. And for the record, I would never in a million years voluntarily work for AirTran. Every person I have ever talked to that has either worked for in the past or currently works for AirTran hates the company more than genital warts. From what I hear, AirTran treats their employees like garbage, but then again, you only hear the bad stories. I'M GOING TO SAY IT ONE MORE TIME. I KNOW AIRTRAN DID NOT LAY OFF 2000 PEOPLE. I WAS TRYING TO MAKE A POINT. LIKE IT OR DON'T, I REALLY DON'T CARE. As far as you thinking I have no clue what I'm talking about, if you want to read a post from someone who has no clue what they're talking about, read some from PHXFlyer.

[Jetliner]

Originally Posted by justme

Here's the problem with that logic. First, if he was sleeping on airplanes, he would have needed an airline ID, and an airport security ID. Who do you think paid for that? If he didn't have either, he had to have an escort the whole time, which means AirTran was paying overtime for someone to babysit.

Not really the case. I'm sure there had to be a background check, but keep in mind he flew back to Atlanta every night. They have full time maintenance on duty. And as long as he was escorted onto the plane, and did not get off, then actually as long as someone has view of the plane, no babysitter needed. It's on the edge, but it's legal since it was set up by the upper management of the airline.

He said somewhere that he was awakened by the moving of the plane. The mechanics were towing from one gate to another and forgot he was on board.

Regardless of all of this, I know that you now understand that there were not 2000 employees laid off. But you still contend that there were some. Again, not true at this point, since the furloughed employees have since been called back. It would have been one thing if they had paid whatever at the same time there were laid off employees, in which case your argument could hold at least some water (though not much with the other posts), but the two didn't happen at the same time. So the bottom line is your entire first post is completely wrong, not just the numbers.