Airline's (pit) Departure May Ripple Outward

[AOG-N-IT]

USA320pilot is also speculating that U's work rules and contracts will be lowered to mirror that of Jet Blue's in another thread. Should the U employees' accept such measures...U might survive in name for awhile?....but we will then be ripe for a takeover instead of any kind of a merger.

I do not see a takeover scenario bidding well for the average employee...or any of the hubs or major focus cities we operate in currently. Basically we are screwed without binding language to prevent wholesale distruction of our infrastructure in a Merger/Takeover , UCT/ICT scenario.

Do not assume that anything agreed too with the Dave's , will save U as we know it...or You as an individual. I think the way they have manueverd around our current CBA's and other contracts should provide all the warnings a smart person should need.

 

[Cosmo]

Furthermore, an option is to combine the two companies and transfer the Pittsburgh assets to Dulles to fix United's problem.

USA320Pilot:

So, US Airways' PIT assets are no longer going to move west, contrary to your repeated assertions for months now? Well, there's a surprise!

 

[FlyingHippie]

USA320pilot is also speculating that U's work rules and contracts will be lowered to mirror that of Jet Blue's in another thread. Should the U employees' accept such measures...U might survive in name for awhile?....but we will then be ripe for a takeover instead of any kind of a merger.

I do not see a takeover scenario bidding well for the average employee...or any of the hubs or major focus cities we operate in currently. Basically we are screwed without binding language to prevent wholesale distruction of our infrastructure in a Merger/Takeover , UCT/ICT scenario.

Do not assume that anything agreed too with the Dave's , will save U as we know it...or You as an individual. I think the way they have manueverd around our current CBA's and other contracts should provide all the warnings a smart person should need.

AOG-N-IT absolutely. How many more hammers to the head will it take people to realize Dave and Co are not working with employee groups in good faith? Come on people! These buffoons spend more time in the courtroom trying to break the rules than actually working on making things right. They simply cannot be trusted. Problem is, what management types want to come in and clean up this mess? Nobody. This is exactly the scenerio Dave Siegel hoped it would come to. Back everyone into a corner and see what circus acts they will perform to keep their jobs. This time Dave is dealing with a big bunch of pissed off Bozos.

 

[skyflyr69]

Before a deal will proceed, US Airways must obtain new union contracts with work rule changes

...if new US Airways union accords are not obtained, then the Arlington-based airline could liquidate.

Don't be surprised to see some changes in the successorship clauses in your new contract.

Respectfully,
767jetz

yup, i think the liquidation scenario is more likely as the unions are stuck in the mud and will not move. to bad......

 

[ktflyhome]

Well, from what I have been reading of his post, it appears to me that he is slyly, methodically, and manipulatively insinuating that IF ALL DON'T BEND OVER BACKWARDS FOR THIS MANAGEMENT, then Crystal City is going to sell us down the river. That may be true, but I for one am not bending over anymore. My back is really beginning to pain me.

 

[robbedagain]

what kind of changes to teh cbas would take place and how would the folks like me in an expressed (or outsourced mainline) city be affected since it is the folks in these small cities that dont really count when it comes to the iam contract issues?

 

[Cosmo]

By the way, if US Airways liquidates that could insure United does not receive the loan guarantee. What's interesting is that the two companies are becoming more and more dependent upon each other and if one fails the other airline could too.

USA320Pilot:

Nothing could be further from the truth! The fortunes of United and US Airways are diverging with a rapidity that makes peoples' heads spin. Consider:

1. Though it's been a painful adjustment, United's management and employees (for the most part) are on the same page regarding the direction in which that carrier is heading; US Airways just seems to be floundering, with no readily apparent vision or goals by its management, and the employees are nearly in open revolt.

2. While still in bankruptcy proceedings, United has recorded monthly operating profits and positive cash flow; more than nine months removed from Chapter 11, AFAIK US Airways has done neither.

Finally, and most importantly:

3. By all appearances, United has a management that actually wants to run an airline; US Airways seemingly doesn't.

In summary, while US Airways may indeed require the United partnership to ensure its long-term survival, IMHO the reverse is clearly not true.

 

[USA320Pilot]

767jetz:

767jetz said: "Don't be surprised to see some changes in the successorship clauses in your new contract."

USA320Pilot comments: I doubt that will happen, now that the United pilots have contractually agreed to ALPA Merger Policy.

767jetz said: "95% of the people on this board dismiss his endless banter, since time has proven that it has no substance."

USA320Pilot comments: If that's true, then why does this topic generate more views that any other threads)? Moreover, why do certain United posters come out of the woodwork when the subject is discussed?

As I have said, once US Airways stabilizes its finances, the company reaches new accords with its unions focusing on work rule changes, and United can prove it can emerge from its in-court restructuring (which is uncertain now that the ATSB has begun leaking the company's preliminary loan guarantee application is insufficent), then a deal will proceed that will most likely be a merger.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[USA320Pilot]

Cosmo:

You're wrong.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[delldude]

Before a deal will proceed, US Airways must obtain new union contracts with work rule changes

...if new US Airways union accords are not obtained, then the Arlington-based airline could liquidate.

Don't be surprised to see some changes in the successorship clauses in your new contract.

Respectfully,
767jetz

yup, i think the liquidation scenario is more likely as the unions are stuck in the mud and will not move. to bad......

skyflr69:the unions are not stuck in the mud.if dave and his merry band of pranksters wish for more,the union will have to ask the membership.it is then that the members will decide whether or not they want more givebacks.IAM voted twice last time around.....it will only take one try this time.
so everyones fate will be decided individually.the way it should be.

have a nice day!

 

[ClueByFour]

Any substance to that? Or just rank speculation (the "you're wrong" part)?

What would U ALPA do in the event that management makes requirements in terms of change-of-control sections to the pilots' contract?

Hmmmmmmmm.

 

[AOG-N-IT]

Cosmo:

You're wrong.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

USA320pilot,

No Sir !!!! , You are wrong !!! USAirways may not be around at all , regardless of what UA does or doesn't do?

USAirways is a rudderless ship.....and even if we all worked for free , the collection of Harvard educated "Simp's" running this place could not lead a horse to water.

You need to be more concerned about your job...or a J4J let down....and at the rate we are going , even the J4J agreements won't keep you in a U uniform much longer.


Our one and only concern with UA is this at present....they seem to be getting greater benefit from the codeshare agreement....and they are eating ways at our market area with Express flying. RDU to DEN is the latest back door intrusion they've pulled....This not only impacts RDU , but RDU/GSO connections to our hub in CLT.

 

[sfb]

The thread starter's linked article (from the Tribune-Review) seems to be just fraught with shallow, meaningless analysis which looks more at bullet points on fact sheets than at the actual meaning behind the figures. Take the cited (and accurate) figure of 104 non-stop destinations from the PIT hub. US Airways could cut at least half of these and have little perceptible impact on travelers to and from Pittsburgh itself. Very, very few people actually fly (as O&D traffic) from PIT to places like AOO, ERI, CAK, CLE, LBE, FKL, BFD, IPT, MGW, JST, etc. Only 57 domestic cities generate traffic to and from PIT of more than 25 passengers each way, per day, as of 3Q2002. Of those, only 48 are served non-stop daily from PIT by US Airways or US Airways Express, and only 34 are monopoly routes for US. And that said, it's likely that other airlines would move in and replaced dropped US Airways service on stronger routes (i.e. ATA to LAX/SFO, United to DEN, America West to LAS, Alaska to SEA, AirTran to BWI, etc. -- and that doesn't take into account the possibility of Southwest entering PIT in response to a "market opportunity."

The real issues here are the effects of a hub closure on smaller communities in the region (i.e. towns and cities whose only air service is to PIT) and jobs (not to mention the quality of those jobs) in Pittsburgh. If the future of PIT is to be to US what CVG is to Delta, then that's not so bad. But if PIT is going to look more like Delta at DFW or CO at CLE, then the jobs being "saved" aren't the high-paying jobs most people expect. It seems obvious to me that the ultimate plan for PIT is to have virtually all of the domestic flying (aside from West Coast, LAS & PHX, Florida, and PHL/CLT/LGA/ORD) done on EMB-170's, CRJ-700's and smaller RJ's/props. ATL is PIT's 3rd-largest market and all PIT-ATL flights on US are currently US Express RJ's.

A merger with US Airways will not bring United's costs down. How would adding a bunch of high-seniority (and thus, high pay-scale) employees, yet another fleet type (the A330), and a load of debt (including the $1 billion ATSB-backed loan) help UAL's cost structure? How would the inevitable acrimony among the labor groups contribute to a successful airline (no matter which name would survive in the ICT=INSANE Corporate Transaction)? If you want to make it easy for WN to take over PHL, just distract management and employees with a merger!

The arguments about European service from PIT seem to be a bit disingenuous as well. Currently, PIT only has year-round service to FRA; given that Bayer is headquartered in Frankfurt, it seems likely that LH would add service to PIT to replace service on US if it became necessary.

 

[USA320Pilot]

According to a presentation I attended given by Stephen Wolf, United's strategic analysis conducted by their E&FA Department concluded the previous merger would have generated an additional $1.6 to $1.9 billion per year.

That's additional revenue to the combined business entity. Granted, post September 11 and in light of the in-court restructurings, the number would be lower, but if the revenue is just half of the E&FA analysis, the additional combined incremental revenue would see a dramatic increase.

Wolf went on to say the economy of scale cost savings would be significant, however, he did not provide a specific number. Cost cuts would be obtained from common facility use, joint purchasing, joint advertising, reduced parts inventory, reduced distribution expense, streamlined work forces, etc.

What's interesting is that in order for each company to survive -- the two companies will merge.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[AOG-N-IT]

According to a presentation I attended given by Stephen Wolf, United's strategic analysis conducted by their E&FA Department concluded the previous merger would have generated an additional $1.6 to $1.9 billion per year.

That's additional revenue to the combined business entity. Granted, post September 11 and in light of the in-court restructurings, the number would be lower, but if the revenue is just half of the E&FA analysis, the additional combined incremental revenue would see a dramatic increase.

Wolf went on to say the economy of scale cost savings would be significant, however, he did not provide a specific number. Cost cuts would be obtained from common facility use, joint purchasing, joint advertising, reduced parts inventory, reduced distribution expense, streamlined work forces, etc.

What's interesting is that in order for each company to survive -- the two companies will merge.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

Quotes from Wolf ????.....are you daft?

The world has changed a million times over since Wolf's visions had any substance..and if Wolf had been keeping his eye on running this company instead of trying to play your continued boardroom games , Just maybe , We might not be where we are now?

I swear you have got to be joking....pulling Wolf out of your posterior to try to validate your own "Fractured Fairy Tales" Give it a rest "Bullwinkle" :down:

Using your way of thinking....maybe the military should tap Saddam for lessons on military tactics too?