 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Destinations USA and CanadaEuropeAustralia and NZAsiaLatin AmericaCaribbean IslandsAfricaTravel Types Air TravelCruisesRV Travel |
Travel Forum / Travel Types / Air Travel / December 2005United Swamped With Flight Attendant Applications
"Bankrupt United Airlines said on Monday it received about 7,500 applications for flight attendant jobs on Sunday, the first day of a round of hiring that will add 2,000 jobs at the carrier. A spokes- woman for the airline said the number of applications on Sunday was more than seven times the expected response." http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1132056175.html This directly contradicts the generally-held, but naive belief that the American economy is doing well. > This directly contradicts the generally-held, but naive belief that the > American economy is doing well. You need to use a bit more caution when establishing a cause and effect in the job market. At the minimum you are making the assumption that all those who applied are currently unemployed. >> This directly contradicts the generally-held, but naive belief that the >> American economy is doing well. > > You need to use a bit more caution when establishing a cause and effect > in the job market. At the minimum you are making the assumption that > all those who applied are currently unemployed. I'm just using well-informed common sense. Headhunters have told me that back when the economy was booming, ordinary jobs like secretary jobs would only garner 20 or so resumes. Now those same jobs attract hundreds of resumes. One headhunter told me that a really good job attracted many, many thousands of resumes. In good times it would have attracted hundreds of resumes. Your point about applicants is correct, but misleading. You probably are unaware that the DOL reports people with a part-time job, or a job giving them less hours than they need, as being employed, with the natural assumption by typical Americans that this means full-time. Yes, many of those applicants are probably employed by the DOL's definition, but not employed anywhere near the level they need to survive. My point still stands: if the economy is so great, then UA's ad would have attracted far fewer applicants. UA's expectation that only 1/7 as many people would apply only strengthens my case. > I'm just using well-informed common sense. Headhunters have told me > that back when the economy was booming, ordinary jobs like secretary > jobs would only garner 20 or so resumes. Now those same jobs > attract hundreds of resumes. One headhunter told me that a really good > job attracted many, many thousands of resumes. In good times it would > have attracted hundreds of resumes. Wrong. The only thing the hiring numbers might suggets is that there may be high unemployment in the airline field. But even this must assume that a large percentage of those who applied have either a background or training in that specific field. Correlate the UAL application numbers with responses for hiring in other professions. Do they demonstrate the same application ratio to positions available? And if not, can that then be attributed to a stable economy? A social economist might deduce that the number of applications to UAL indicate that the public now believes that the airline industry is on the rebound. Using 'well-informed common sense' requires recognition that the politically acceptable answer is not always the correct one. Six years ago, at this level of "unemployment", my Fortune 500 firm was paying retention bonuses to the engineering staff. Now, it's "Survivor" ... gld > "Bankrupt United Airlines said on Monday it received about 7,500 > applications for flight attendant jobs on Sunday, the first day of a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > This directly contradicts the generally-held, but naive belief that the > American economy is doing well. That's a rather wildly absurd statement, don't you think? The fact that airlines are in trouble and that a lot of people are applying for jobs doesn't have anything to do with the overall state of the economy. Unemployment is down (well below historical averages). Growth is good and steady (and sustainable rather than being a bubble). Companies are profitable. I'm not sure how you call that a "naive belief". >> "Bankrupt United Airlines said on Monday it received about 7,500 >> applications for flight attendant jobs on Sunday, the first day of a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I'm not sure how you call that a "naive belief". From an economist's perspective (or that of a demographer), one might classify PI as the holder of "naive belief". I suspect that FA applications have more to do with a long period without FA hirings by the majors plus the traditional appeal, psychological rather than financial, of the "profession", still one that draws folks whose aspirations have more to do with emotion than good fiscal sense. Application list lengths for astronauts and cheer leaders traditionally are unrelated to the economy, either, but do reflect published notice that the waiting lists are open.... TMO >> "Bankrupt United Airlines said on Monday it received about 7,500 >> applications for flight attendant jobs on Sunday, the first day of a [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >I'm not sure how you call that a "naive belief". What planet do you live on? Unemployment is extremely high in the US. The economy is sluggish, at best. The US has incurred a series of staggering trade deficits, war debts, etc. You're just plain wrong. > What planet do you live on? Unemployment is extremely high in the > US. The economy is sluggish, at best. The US has incurred a series > of staggering trade deficits, war debts, etc. > You're just plain wrong. Let me guess here, ... you're the first one in line when it comes to believing any program on PBS/NPR, and any report by the mainstream media. Is federal spending too high? You bet. Has the economy tanked? Depends on whose definition you prefer to use. According to the political left we are in the midst of a depression and will soon be waiting in soup lines. > >That's a rather wildly absurd statement, don't you think? The fact that > >airlines are in trouble and that a lot of people are applying for jobs [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > You're just plain wrong. Unemployment is at record low levels in the US (around 5.0% give or take a tenth) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm and not just that, but at levels below other industrialized countries. http://www.insee.fr/en/indicateur/analys_conj/conj_resume.htm GDP growth is close to 4% - better than any of the OECD countries. Trade deficits are in part BECAUSE of a GOOD economy, not because of a bad one - remember, it takes money to afford imports - and as such, the US can afford much more than Germany, Italy, or China.. The price of oil hasn't helped matters, but we are far from alone in this. As far as debts are concerned, as a proportion of GDP, the deficit is unremarkable and compared to other countries, hardly different. http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0 http://www.lordabbett.com/usa/insights/article.jsp?OID=14962 Data. Just data. gees. >> >That's a rather wildly absurd statement, don't you think? The fact that >> >airlines are in trouble and that a lot of people are applying for jobs [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Unemployment is at record low levels in the US (around 5.0% give or >take a tenth) That's wrong too. While 5 percent is right, we're not at the record low levels seen in the 90s. >That's wrong too. While 5 percent is right, we're not at the record >low levels seen in the 90s. The 90s is a long time. In 1990, the unemplyment rate was 5.6%, rising to 7.5% in 1992. By 1994, it had slowly drifted down to 6.4%. It continued to drift down to just below 5% by 1998. 1999 and 2000 were the lowest at 4.2%, from which its bounced up and down a bit. http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm >What planet do you live on? Unemployment is extremely high in the US. >The economy is sluggish, at best. The US has incurred a series of >staggering trade deficits, war debts, etc. Clearly not the same planet you live on. On my planet, US unemployment is staying right around 5%, pretty much the historical norm through presidents of either persusion. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm The economy is sluggish at best? On my planet, the Gross Domestic Product just increased by almost 4% in the third quarter, and that includes the spike in fuel prices (which are now falling): http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm >You're just plain wrong. Perhaps you might consider reading publications that provides facts and analysis rather than rote ideology? <snip> > >> This directly contradicts the generally-held, but naive belief that the > >> American economy is doing well. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > What planet do you live on? Unemployment is extremely high in the US. No it's not. It's less than 5%. Historical average is about 5 1/2%. In France and Germany it's close to 10%. Unemployment is average to low in the US. > The economy is sluggish, at best. Growth has been consistently in the high 3+% range (3.5-3.9) for several years. Again, slightly better than average. And certainly better than the +10% one year followed by -5% the next which is what happens in a bubble. Again, US growth is twice (or better) greater than most other 1st world countries. > The US has incurred a series of > staggering trade deficits, war debts, etc. Actually the current debt is lower than it was 15 or so years ago (based on constant dollars). The current budget deficit is (once again) about average taken as a percent of GDP. > You're just plain wrong. And you've been listening to too many Michael Moore rants. > What planet do you live on? Unemployment is extremely high in the US. > The economy is sluggish, at best. The US has incurred a series of > staggering trade deficits, war debts, etc. Actually, the EMployment rate is a more ambiguouse measure ... and the US is in the middle of the pack. The stock market has been trading sideways for 5 years. The national debt has burst over $8 Trillion. The US debt-to-GDP is about to jump over that of France and Germany, with only Japan and Italy in the G7 higher. )-; gld > > What planet do you live on? Unemployment is extremely high in the US. > > The economy is sluggish, at best. The US has incurred a series of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The stock market has been trading sideways for 5 years. ??? Which stock market? The Dow Jones has gone up roughly 38% in 3 years (July, 2002 it was at 7702, now it's over 10,600). > The national debt has burst over $8 Trillion. Which as a percent to GDP isn't all that bad. > The US debt-to-GDP is about to jump over that of France > and Germany, with only Japan and Italy in the G7 higher. ??? The US debt-to-GDP *was* above France and Germany. The US debt rate is now below France and Germany and dropping while the French and German rates are rising. > ??? Which stock market? The Dow Jones has gone up roughly 38% in 3 > years (July, 2002 it was at 7702, now it's over 10,600). And where was it in July 2001? July 2000? Most of us who have been in the market for longer than five years are just trying to recover. >>The national debt has burst over $8 Trillion. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is now below France and Germany and dropping while the French and > German rates are rising. This just happened and there's no guarantee of a trend (for the US, nevermind France or Germany). That it is even at 64.5% when it was under 50% not that long ago is the worry. http://www.econotarian.org/1128066556/index_html gld > > ??? Which stock market? The Dow Jones has gone up roughly 38% in 3 > > years (July, 2002 it was at 7702, now it's over 10,600). > > And where was it in July 2001? July 2000? Most > of us who have been in the market for longer than > five years are just trying to recover. So what? How many things can you get wrong at one time? First, the claim was that the economy was bad. We went through a recession in 2001 and the market went down. The fact that it has gone up 38% in the past 3 years is an indicator that the economy is good *NOW*. Do you understand that? Further, those of us who have been in the stock market more than 5 years are doing just fine, thank you. The market went down in 2000 and 2001 but it had gone up in previous years during the bubble. Overall for the last 15 years or so it has been increasing at it's typical 8-10% rate. > >>The US debt-to-GDP is about to jump over that of France > >>and Germany, with only Japan and Italy in the G7 higher. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > This just happened That's right!!! The economy is good now whereas it was bad 4 years ago. Which pretty much disproves your premise. > and there's no guarantee of a trend (for the US, nevermind France or > Germany). That it is even at 64.5% when it was under 50% not that long ago is the > worry. Of course there are no guarantees. The economy could turn bad. But you tried to say that the economy is bad *NOW* and it simply isn't. Quit reading MoveOn.org and pay attention to reality. >> ??? Which stock market? The Dow Jones has gone up roughly 38% in 3 >> years (July, 2002 it was at 7702, now it's over 10,600). [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >gld Your reference is to a September article. It is now almost the end of November. Can't you quote more recent figures? > Your reference is to a September article. > > It is now almost the end of November. > > Can't you quote more recent figures? You can't get more recent than October 2005 since today is November 20 as I post ... so I did your Google search for you ... http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2005/10/oct_2005_gdp_na.html Good news: it didn't go up. Bad news: it didn't go down. Still, one must wonder about the 20 percentage-point run-up over the past five years. Getting back to the original posting title, with all the people who "left" the workforce, we are seeing mass applications for positions like the UA FA's when the last time we had 5% unemployment, your phone was ringing from head- hunters. gld >> ??? Which stock market? The Dow Jones has gone up roughly 38% in 3 >> years (July, 2002 it was at 7702, now it's over 10,600). > > And where was it in July 2001? July 2000? Most > of us who have been in the market for longer than > five years are just trying to recover. Get real, what was it BEFORE 2000? It increased dramatically in the few years prior to 2000. That supercharged stock market increase was substantially influenced by factors other than REALITY. You've been watching too much Michael Moore... get into the real world. > What planet do you live on? Unemployment is extremely high in the US. > The economy is sluggish, at best. The US has incurred a series of > staggering trade deficits, war debts, etc. > > You're just plain wrong. >>> "Bankrupt United Airlines said on Monday it received about 7,500 >>> applications for flight attendant jobs on Sunday, the first day of a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >The economy is sluggish, at best. The US has incurred a series of >staggering trade deficits, war debts, etc. I'm no fan of Bush, but to say unemployment is extrememely high is nuts. In fact, we're close to a "job seekers" market again. The final November unemployment numbers were 5 percent -- that's pretty darn close to full employment for the U.S. >You're just plain wrong. Fraid not. Please do some research. www.bls.gov is your friend. > "Bankrupt United Airlines said on Monday it received about 7,500 > applications for flight attendant jobs on Sunday, the first day of a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > This directly contradicts the generally-held, but naive belief that the > American economy is doing well. People don't generally apply for those jobs because of the money. Many do it for the flight benefits for themselves, their families, their friends. If you can qualify for a job as a UA FA, you can get a job doing something else for more money -- it's not the money. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.