141 Update

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

Arguing about the number of people used for R&D is stupid.

Regardless if you use 3 or 5 ramp agents to unload/load the aircraft, they're probably not doing anything during the 2 minutes or less it takes to park the aircraft before unloading the bags, or the 2-5 minutes it takes to push an aircraft out. The incremental cost of having them work the pushout is probably next to nothing, especially when compared to having a mechanic do R&D.

The only way that this cost would be lower using a mechanic is if the mechanic were also a working member of the ramp crew, which would probably never happen...

The reason you see more than one person doing pushouts at different carriers is due to wing-walkers. UAL doesn't seem to believe in them, AA and other carriers do. Again, since they're using ramp agents to do the work, and they're not doing anything immediately following the load process, there's little to no cost is having wingwalkers vs. not having them. They certainly do cut down on the number of aircraft which are pushed back into ground equipment or other aircraft...

 

[Bear96]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/20/2002 9:07:34 AM UAL777flyer wrote:

What I'm curious about is what level (if any) of bankruptcy protection did each union get in their negotiations with the company? By that I mean this: we're probably only within a couple of weeks of having to file for bankruptcy if we don't get the ATSB loan or can't extend the Dec 2nd debt payment (which is nearly impossible considering it's publicly held EETC debt). So, with time being short, if the ATSB turns us down or merely stalls for time, and we're forced to file for bankruptcy, have any of the unions gotten 1113 letters from the company promising that they would not seek deeper cuts or full abrogation of contracts in bankruptcy?
----------------
[/blockquote]

I have not yet gotten my hands on the actual AFA TA but I understand that AFA did negotiate an 1113 letter of agreement with the company agreeing not to seek additional cuts in Ch.11. However its protections are not very strong. I understand this 1113 letter is void after November 30, 2003; if we go to war with Iraq; or if UAL's actual revenue stream is significantly worse than the forecast in the recovery plan submitted to the ATSB in October.

Don't know about the other work groups.

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

[blockquote]
wts54 says:
Mechs dont or cannot work for a ramp sup
or any other sup who doesnt have a license.
Read the FAR's.
[/blockquote]

I don't see anywhere in the FARs where an airline is prohibited from cross-utilizing a mechanic with a ramp agent, or in any other workarea for that matter.

That sounds more like a result of the this is my work, this is your work language in some union contracts.

 

[wts54]

The fars say everbody on maintenance side
from mech to vp has to have a license.
So no working for any sup unless he has one.
Read them again.They tried it with the shuttle
before I got to swing shift they were going
to make these little shuttle teams but didnt
when this fact was pointed out.Some of the sup's
were ramp,and ramp sup's cant supervise aircraft
mechanics.What do you think about that?

 

[UAL777flyer]

wts54 and Bear96,

Thanks for the info on the S.1113 letters. I'm curious about what the company's position on this would be. To negotiate and agree to S.1113 letters with each union now take away a significant amount of their leverage with bankruptcy. In other words, they wouldn't be able to dangle the threat of petitioning for abrogation of contracts. My view is that if the concessionary T/A's that have been negotiated, combined with our new Business Plan, aren't enough to get approval of the ATSB loan guarantee, we'll have no choice but to file for bankruptcy. And in that situation, I would think the pressure would increase for the company to seek better agreements from the unions. And if they can't dangle the threat to petition the judge for contract abrogation, how much leverage do they have in getting the unions to agree to deeper cuts? None, in my view. So I'm left wondering how ironclad these S.1113 letters are.

 

[Boomer]

Machinists, United Airlines
Agree on Recovery Terms


Washington, D.C., November 20, 2002 - The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) announced tentative agreements today on terms for IAM member participation in United Airlines’ recovery program.

The agreements, covering 37,500 IAM members at United under five separate contracts, follow weeks of intense discussion aimed at finding the best way to prevent a bankruptcy filing and develop a financial recovery plan for the nation’s second largest airline.

Too many airlines have been forced into bankruptcy, never to return, said District 141 President Randy Canale. Too many good airline careers and families have been destroyed. Despite obstacles and unprecedented economic pressures, I still believe our greatest days lie before us.

The tentative agreements call for wage and vacation accrual modifications providing $1.5 billion in cost savings over five-and-one-half years. Additional details with explanations will be posted on the two IAM District websites at www.iam141.org and www.iam141m.org as soon as they are prepared.

United Airlines is struggling to overcome the combined effects of 9-11 and an unrelenting worldwide travel recession, said District 141-M President Scotty Ford. Our long-term objective is to see United Airlines rebuilt into a company worthy of the employee sacrifice that went into saving it. We tried to balance United’s urgent need to avoid bankruptcy with our members’ needs for job security and proper compensation for the vital services they provide United Airlines.

The terms of this recovery proposal will help protect United Airlines, our members and their families, said Canale.

Informational meetings for members are being scheduled and voting will take place on November 27, 2002.

IAM District 141 represents United Airlines’ 24,500 Ramp & Stores, Public Contact, Food Service and Security employees. IAM District 141-M represents United’s 13,000 Mechanic & Related employees.

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/20/2002 2:56:21 PM wts54 wrote:

The fars say everbody on maintenance side
from mech to vp has to have a license.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Irrelevant to what I was saying. This isn't about supervisors. This is about the mechanic doing R&D also throwing bags, dumping lavs, and everything else that the ramp crew working the flight would do. Instead of standing around waiting for something to break.

 

[wts54]

So for example tomorrow I will have three gates and tailwatch
in addition I should dump the lavs,throw the bags,well why dont
I just take the tickets to and while I'm at it maybe UAL will
pay for my flying lessons !

 

[GGpillow]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/20/2002 2:58:52 PM UAL777flyer wrote:

wts54 and Bear96,

Thanks for the info on the S.1113 letters. I'm curious about what the company's position on this would be. To negotiate and agree to S.1113 letters with each union now take away a significant amount of their leverage with bankruptcy. In other words, they wouldn't be able to dangle the threat of petitioning for abrogation of contracts. My view is that if the concessionary T/A's that have been negotiated, combined with our new Business Plan, aren't enough to get approval of the ATSB loan guarantee, we'll have no choice but to file for bankruptcy. And in that situation, I would think the pressure would increase for the company to seek better agreements from the unions. And if they can't dangle the threat to petition the judge for contract abrogation, how much leverage do they have in getting the unions to agree to deeper cuts? None, in my view. So I'm left wondering how ironclad these S.1113 letters are.
----------------
[/blockquote]


My understanding is that the company's acceptance of the proposed ERP plans is hitched to the approval of the atsb loan. This wording was put into all the t/a's to my understanding. This, in my view, would make the 1113 letters a moot point, as, if the atsb never gives their approval, then the agreements will never have been in effect, thus allowing the company to abrogate any contract it feels it needs to.
I could be mis-informed though, perhaps someone has more information?

 

[atabuy]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/20/2002 7:12:45 AM wts54 wrote:

I will try to make this a decent place until I leave if thats possible.See ya


----------------
wts54,
I like your thinking.

Someone already made the point to you that having 5 people out there during pushback will not cost the company any more than having 10 if they are already on the clock and have no other function at that time, other than to make sure they don't push the aircraft into something.
You can look at it another way too. It takes 5 people to do what 2 mechanics did. lol
In better times attrition could have handled the r&d problem, but we are not in better times and I am afraid layoffs will occur in many departments.
If r&d is one of the concessions, I am sure it will be counted against the total giveback for 141m.

Well it looks like all of our speculation will soon come to an end as we see what we really have to give up to help Ual get to where it use to be.

One way to look at the concessions is this; Lay offs are going to happen, and voting the concessions in, will make Ual a healthy airline again who will have to recall a lot of the workers as we grow.
Let's hope we all can accept the bitter pill and keep going until the economy comes back. You will be helping yourself and the ones going to the street.

I still reccomend buying stock to off set your concessions. If you don't wait too long. You will be able to buy in for a lot less than next week if concessions are voted in.
Good luck to us all!!

 

[wts54]

A BIG YES VOTE for me.I think all things considered
it is a great compromise.I agree about rd coming out
of scope language and someday it should,but not just
by slashing.Instead a lot of old timers are leaving
and not replaced we can give it up.I have no problem
with a logical solution.I have already been selling it
to people who are no votes and will continue to do so.
For all their shortcomings I think the IAM held out
and got us a deal I can live with.Hopefully you can
to.

 

[wts54]

Well all you guys should my amigo
said were keeping pushbacks.
It is supposed to be a 7% paycut,
one week vacation loss.Sorry to
disappoint the people who dislike
us doing r+d.

From mornings Chicago Sun Times
The 51/2-year agreements with United call for unspecified wage cuts and vacation accrual modifications.
Hopefully thats it.

 

[atabuy]

Personally I would have given up more than this if needed. I have a lot to lose in BK. Did you buy any stock? I tell you a lot of people will get rich if we avoid the bk.
There will be a few millionaires if the stock hits 10 and a lot at 20. I screwed up and have to wait till 40.
We still need that loan guaranty.
Good luck to us all.

 

[atabuy]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/21/2002 7:38:41 AM wts54 wrote:

Well all you guys should my amigo
said were keeping pushbacks.
It is supposed to be a 7% paycut,
one week vacation loss.Sorry to
disappoint the people who dislike
us doing r+d.

From mornings Chicago Sun Times
The 51/2-year agreements with United call for unspecified wage cuts and vacation accrual modifications.
Hopefully thats it.

----------------
[/blockquote]
wts54,
I never said I did not like you doing R&D. I said this could be a savings if others did the pushback. Maybe it will be through attrition. Eventually it will come out of the scope for mechanics. I know it is job security and a way to escape from midnight shift.
When you look at the reality of it, It's a lot like having 40 some vice presidents. Maybe they will all go at the same time.

Can you vote for the concessions now that we are not in the dark anymore? This is the big question.

 

[wts54]

I have my esop shares and I will buy all
the shares possible at the agreed upon
strike price.Personaly I would not have
liked being 50 years old and unemployed
in this economy.