USA320Pilot said:
USA320Pilot comments: With all due respect, I fully understand the bankruptcy process and I have held discussions with union officials, advisors, and money managers on this very point.
Actually, I was speaking to "The Truth"'s lack of understanding of the bankruptcy process, but I'll go ahead and give you a scenario to analyze:
Let's assume that UAIR management lucks out and gets Judge Mitchell should they choose to pursue bankruptcy relief subject to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Let us further assume that ALPA bends over and gives the company everything it wants while the IAM, AFA, and CWA reiterate their stance that "the concession stand is closed." And we'll go even further and take your prediction that the judge will rule for the company in all labor matters, allowing it to reject its agreements with the latter three unions. You can bet that one or more of these groups (and I'd bet the chances with the IAM are above 99%) would choose to strike rather than accept the contract the company imposes, and they'd be pretty much out of business. The unions still have the right to self-help, and a strike at an airline in Chapter 11 would very likely lead in rapid succession to that filing being converted to Chapter 7.
USA320Pilot said:
The (comprehensive) plan makes several changes to our business model, including creating a hybrid operation in Philadelphia, increasing aircraft utilization, flying to passengers’ top destinations from LaGuardia, Boston, and DC, and increasing Caribbean and European flying. The Plan also establishes an aggressive new marketing strategy that lets our customers know that US Airways’ fare structure has been simplified and lowered, giving us a competitive product to challenge anyone, anywhere,†Pollock noted.
...
SFB, Pollock has seen the plan and confidential information. With all due respect, I find it interesting that your uninformed perspective is in conflict with Pollock's.
Oh, I don't doubt that the "Transformation Plan"
could work if management were actually able to execute it and if they managed to get the pilots to cough up $300-400 million/year in wages and got another $100-200 million from the other represented groups. After all, the company's operating loss was a shade over $250 million for the last three quarters taken together (they had an operating profit in 2Q03 but that was skewed by the government compensation and conflict in Iraq), and the reduction in wages for the pilots alone would swing that to a profit.
What boggles my mind is that all of those changes envisioned as part of management's so-called "comprehensive" plan require little or no changes to employee compensation! Increasing aircraft utilization; moving flying to LGA, BOS, and DCA; increasing flying to the Caribbean and Europe; marketing the company more agressively; simplifying and rationalizing the fare structure; and moving to a "hybrid" (whatever
that implies) operation at PHL could all have been done a year ago! If these moves would help save the company,
why hasn't management moved forward with them yet?? Matching WN fares from PHL and increasing frequency on routes against WN does not count as "transforming" the company! If the plan will truly lead to improved revenue for the company, it ought to have been implemented already.
For his faults, at least Don Carty could point to meaningful changes that were made in AMR's operation before they came after the employee groups for concessions. It's been clear that cuts in wages and benefits will be a last resort (under current management) at CAL. But at UAIR, cuts in wages to below LCC levels are critical, even though US Airways currently has the least exposure to LCC's of any network carrier save perhaps NWA. Why is this?
I actually fail to see how the company can manage to wring savings of $100 million per year from its flight attendants even if they were knocked down to AA Eagle or Mesa wages. And Pollock's endorsement of the "Transformation Plan" doesn't change the fact that a reduction of 2 cents/ASM in labor CASM represents a 45 percent reduction in labor expense, and I cannot see most of US Airways' labor groups (ALPA aside) agreeing to that magnitude of cut. I realize that "productivity improvements" will supposedly help to reach this cost-cutting goal, but again, these productivity improvements do not, for the most part, require the labor contracts to be reopened, and could have been implemented months ago.
Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that the company manages to improve employee productivity by 20% across the board; i.e. they could have generated 156 million ASM's for the same $577 million in labor expense last quarter. That would have given a labor CASM of 3.70 cents, a reduction of 0.74 cents/mile. To get to the company's targeted reduction of 2 cents, labor would still have to bear cuts of 34% even while being 20% more productive. WN's current labor CASM is 3.20 cents (1.24 cents lower than US); most of the company's non-fuel unit cost differential of 3.45 cents with WN is not in labor.
Please explain to me (since I clearly have an "uninformed perspective") why Wall Street seems to be in agreement with me as to the airline's chance of survival with its current lack of a viable business strategy aside from "hammer on the unions again." UAIR's share price is sitting at $1.50, 47 cents above bankrupt UAL's soon-to-be-cancelled shares -- this is not a resounding endorsement of the company's future prospects. If I were Dr. Bronner and I believed that US Airways had a good chance of escaping a second bankruptcy, I'd be buying up even more of the company at this bargain price. He's a smart guy, he knows a good business opportunity when he sees it, right?
Again, please feel free to enlighten me as to how the company will reach a non-fuel CASM of 6 cents when the non-labor, non-fuel CASM last quarter stood at 5.58 cents.