Alpa Mec Meeting Update

[autofixer]

I am just curious, but why will this round of cost cuts have such a profound effect on CASMs? The last two rounds had negligible effects, what makes this round any different? Has the corporate culture changed (Other than devestating employee morale)? Just what has changed in fact?

 

[USA320Pilot]

PitBull:

I would expect the AFA, IAM, and CWA to have arguments prepared to defend their membership. ALPA will have Richard Seltzer there too, but if the court does not agree to the company's motion the airline will likely liquidate.

Today oil prices closed at over $51 per barrel. Each $1 increase in the price of oil raises US Airways' annual fuel expense by $24 million. How are AFA's bankruptcy counsel going to argue against this additional expense and the need to further cut cots?

In the company's S.1113(e) motion the airline said that the business plan supports oil at $44 per barrel. Therefore, the company is already $7 per barrel behind its plan, which equals $168 million per year or about the additional $150 million in labor cost cuts now sought by management.

Therefore, I expect "imposition" for any union who does not have a deal.

In regard to ALPA rank-and-file sentiment, there were very few pilot's at today's meeting, if any, who support the RC4. Furthermore, nobody who spoke supports the RC4.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[PITbull]

I am just curious, but why will this round of cost cuts have such a profound effect on CASMs? The last two rounds had negligible effects, what makes this round any different? Has the corporate culture changed (Other than devestating employee morale)? Just what has changed in fact?

[post="188065"][/post]​

As soon as the co. starts to take on more little RJs, the CASMS will be bad again.

 

[USFlyer]

With oil at $51/barrel, more than just US is in trouble. Even AWA forecast "substantial" losses in q3 and q4 as a result. To my knowledge, only WN is adequately hedged.

 

[USA320Pilot]

The company is not going to take delivery of any more 50-seat RJs and maybe no more 70 seaters.

The ALPA TA permits the delivery of 60 EMB-190s with a 97-seat limitation, of which 25 can be flown at an affiliate that is believed to be Chautauqua, and CRJ-900s with a 90-seat configuration substituted for CRJ-700s per LOA 91.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[CapnCockroach]

So when the judge hands down his rooling, which side will say:
Labor or Management?

[post="188064"][/post]​

What's a "rooling"?

 

[WestCoastGuy]

Just a thought, what happens if all groups sign agreements, have pay reduced, have benefits thrown out, etc, etc...then oil hits $75 or more per barrel? Then to company come crying back wanting more pay cuts?????

 

[spacewaitress]

What customers don't want is your lousy attitude towards them and what you believe they think and want.

[post="188063"][/post]​

He's telling the truth, Pitbull. Take a look at the industry today. Are you really saying that people make travel decisions based on anything other than cost and time spent in an airplane?

I certainly don't see it. All you have to do is look at the customer today. They are a lot different than they were 3+ some days years ago. No way do they want to pay anymore than they have to.

 

[michael707767]

The company is not going to take delivery of any more 50-seat RJs and maybe no more 70 seaters.

The ALPA TA permits the delivery of 63 EMB-190s with a 97-seat limitation, of which 25 can be flown at an affiliate that is believed to be Chautauqua, and CRJ-900s with a 90-seat configuration substituted for CRJ-700s per LOA 91.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

[post="188071"][/post]​

Wait a minute, some of the 190s can go to Chautauqua? I thought they were going to MDA. No wonder the RC4 is not happy about this TA. Some of the 190s won't even be flown by USAirways pilots.

 

[28yrsnojob]

:down: unions must fight this one if you vote for paycuts you are working
for nothing,if you dont your still working for nothing .take you chance with the judge,

 

[USA320Pilot]

Michael:

The September 6 proposal that the RC4 would not send out for vote required all 90-seat RJs, the EMB-190/195 and the CRJ-900s to be flown at MDA and PSA, respectively.

As the advisors have said, every new proposal will be worse and this is just one more example.

The Chautauqua EMB-190s require a 50-50 J4J split.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[PITbull]

PitBull:

I would expect the AFA, IAM, and CWA to have arguments prepared to defend their membership. ALPA will have Richard Seltzer there too, but if the court does not agree to the company's motion the airline will likely liquidate.

Today oil prices closed at over $51 per barrel. Each $1 increase in the price of oil raises US Airways' annual fuel expense by $24 million. How are AFA's bankruptcy counsel going to argue against this additional expense and the need to further cut cots?

In the company's S.1113(e) motion the airline said that the business plan supports oil at $44 per barrel. Therefore, the company is already $7 per barrel behind its plan, which equals $168 million per year or about the additional $150 million in labor cost cuts now sought by management.

Therefore, I expect "imposition" for any union who does not have a deal.

In regard to ALPA rank-and-file sentiment, there were very few pilot's at today's meeting, if any, who support the RC4. Furthermore, nobody who spoke supports the RC4.

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

[post="188068"][/post]​

USA320,

I am not walking down the same path with you...worrying about employees now having to cover the fuel prices...So does every other airline.

Fuel is a congressional problem. If you can't stay in business; they need to fold.

That is accepting reality; no band-aid here.

 

[Rico]

I have a great Attitude towards our passengers. I want to see us have low fares and quality service.

If there is something anti-passenger about that, feel free to explain yourself PHLBull (you know will have to change you name here real soon )

CLTBull, LGABull... Let us know after you are displaced.

Anyways, like I pointed out before, passengers do not care about what management does or does not do in regards to employees, they only care about the product we deliver and the price they pay.

They look to price first. The internet is making it very easy for them to compare, while it makes little contrast between carriers. BosBull is quite mistaken (as usual) in saying I ever called any passenger dumb, rather I am saying that today's passengers are far more savvy and have a easier time comparison shopping online for the lowest fares. That's not dumb, that's smart.

As much as I like our carrier, we are not that different enough to charge a substantial premium over the LCC's anymore. I work with some of the best F/A's I have ever seen, but they will be the first to admit that the company has a hard time getting an extra $100 a ticket just for having employees of their caliber.

Fact is that LCC's are able to deliver a product close enough, to our own to force us to have to drop our prices to compete. That being the case, we meet their costs, or we cease to exist.

So get real people...

Except you DCABull, you can stay the same, your askew view is an entertaining break from reality for the masses. h34r:

 

[USFlyer]

Just a thought, what happens if all groups sign agreements, have pay reduced, have benefits thrown out, etc, etc...then oil hits $75 or more per barrel? Then to company come crying back wanting more pay cuts?????

You're toast. No point in even contemplating this scenario. US will no longer exist. And, if it stays that high for too long, UA and DL are gone too.

 

[TransatlanticFlyGuy]

:blink: :blink: Good god, I get the biggest headaches reading the banter between some of you damm ne're do wells. Some of you seriously need to get a life!