Alpa Orders Nc To Obtain New Agreement
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
ah, A320 said that their ALPA legal advisors told them that. Hell, that was just to scare the "begeezus" out of the MEC cause this legal team just doesn't want to be placed in a position where they may have to do a "brief" in front of a judge defending the union...... 
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #48
Santorum is smart enough to know that taking sides in the US debacle isn't at all going to win votes. I suspect he'll be staying a bit quieter on the subject now that he has apologized.
Walmartgreeter
Veteran
- Mar 6, 2003
- 1,430
- 1,143
[ Just found out that the RC4 met with Specter and Santorum in DCA. Santorum apolized to the ALPA Reps and the RC4 graciously accepted. 
Santorum and Spector asked the RC4 if they all wanted to step around the corner and do a press release, the RC4 declined and said there is no need.
Thanks for that tidbit. Class act on the part of the reps. Why drag the pols through the mud when they have stepped up to the plate to help. Take care. Greeter.
Santorum and Spector asked the RC4 if they all wanted to step around the corner and do a press release, the RC4 declined and said there is no need.
[post="183713"][/post]
[/quote]Thanks for that tidbit. Class act on the part of the reps. Why drag the pols through the mud when they have stepped up to the plate to help. Take care. Greeter.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #50
We have a contestant.
Yes, HP shrank the fleet by about 1/3 during bankruptcy, including the 4 747,s they had (with only 2 Pacific routes). But they had orders for A320 series aircraft which offset those phased out relatively quickly. Within 2-3 years of exiting BK, the fleet was back to the same number of planes. With the growth after BK, profitability was possible.
So, the post-BK growth was the key...
Jim
Yes, HP shrank the fleet by about 1/3 during bankruptcy, including the 4 747,s they had (with only 2 Pacific routes). But they had orders for A320 series aircraft which offset those phased out relatively quickly. Within 2-3 years of exiting BK, the fleet was back to the same number of planes. With the growth after BK, profitability was possible.
So, the post-BK growth was the key...
Jim
I will reread it again, thanks
Umm, is that not what they have proposed here with Airways 3.0 as well...?
Sounds pretty much the same as HP. Get rid of widebodies, ramp up Airbus growth from a pre-existing order, ramp up a new code share alliance.
HP employees took a huge hit there too...
Umm, is that not what they have proposed here with Airways 3.0 as well...?
Sounds pretty much the same as HP. Get rid of widebodies, ramp up Airbus growth from a pre-existing order, ramp up a new code share alliance.
HP employees took a huge hit there too...
luvn737s said:
Yeah, they also dumped a lot of smaller cities, like Sioux City IA, and Lincoln, NE, and Springfield MO. They refocused on long-hauls to business markets, and signed the agreement with Mesa for America West Express.
Although, "first" implies a "second", and thus far, AWA has only been BK once.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #54
"Get rid of widebodies, ramp up Airbus growth from a pre-existing order, ramp up a new code share alliance."
A few widebodies (acquired in hopes of Pacific routes of which only 50% materialized and one of those consistently lost money) is somewhat different - at least in numbers and profitability. HP shrank about 33%. We've already gone from 400+ to 280+ planes - where's the profit? Going to 150 (nearly 2/3 less) will be the answer, alright.
A pre-existing order that has been defered till either 2006 or 2007 (I forget which and am too lazy to go look it up now) with no financing to acquire those planes. In that length of time, HP was already back to the pre-BK fleet size.
Ramp up a new code-share? Thru BOS I guess since that is the only "focus" city in the supposed plan that has significant international service from *A partners.
I stand by my statement - HP grew into profitability after fleet rationalization in BK. I see no sign of that in the "plan" put forth here.
A few widebodies (acquired in hopes of Pacific routes of which only 50% materialized and one of those consistently lost money) is somewhat different - at least in numbers and profitability. HP shrank about 33%. We've already gone from 400+ to 280+ planes - where's the profit? Going to 150 (nearly 2/3 less) will be the answer, alright.
A pre-existing order that has been defered till either 2006 or 2007 (I forget which and am too lazy to go look it up now) with no financing to acquire those planes. In that length of time, HP was already back to the pre-BK fleet size.
Ramp up a new code-share? Thru BOS I guess since that is the only "focus" city in the supposed plan that has significant international service from *A partners.
I stand by my statement - HP grew into profitability after fleet rationalization in BK. I see no sign of that in the "plan" put forth here.
BoeingBoy said:
Good question Boeing Boy... as the "CAL example" shrinkage was a result of their 1995 restructuring, not of the 1983 or 1991 bankruptcies.
IIRC, CAL Lite was around 1995, coinciding with GSO ramp-up and DEN closure... CAL Lite was folded in about a year, and assets redeployed to the remaining hubs at CLE/IAH/EWR. Of course, the major shrinkage here being the DEN hub closure. Perhaps DEN was slowly shrinking after the 1991 BK?
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #56
funguy,
To me, shuffling assets around is different from shrinkage - which is the fundamental question.
It has been postulated that "shrinking to profitability" is not only possible, but offers "twice the return". I'm just looking for justification of that statement (and know that you disagree with it).
Jim
To me, shuffling assets around is different from shrinkage - which is the fundamental question.
It has been postulated that "shrinking to profitability" is not only possible, but offers "twice the return". I'm just looking for justification of that statement (and know that you disagree with it).
Jim
jimntx
Veteran
I was living on the edge of IAH at the time and flying on CAL all the time. I question the term "shrinking" in relation to closing the DEN hub. Other than local employees and counter space, etc., IIRC there was no reduction in a/c or related employees. And, lord knows, they are larger today than they were 9 years ago.funguy2 said:
In the UAIR case, the company is talking about cutting the number of a/c--the raison d'etre of an airline--in half. There is no possibility that this will not result in a serious reduction in both employees and routes. Now that's "shrinking" to me.
OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #58
What's interesting is that Mwereplanes and WalmartGreeter are confusing the September 20 proposal and the S.1113(e) filing.
The S.1113(e) filing will provide immediate cash flow relief that are required to meet the ATSB unrestricted cash requirements. The September 20 proposal is what the company could seek under S.1113©. It's quit clear why these two men are concerned since one fly's the B767 and one the B737, which are two fleets that could be eliminated by the creditor's due to RC4 actions.
By the way, now the RC4 are running scared for a very good reason it's interesting to see the tune of certain posters change.
Let's see what they have accomplished for potential losses:
A pending 23% pay cut.
Loss of all notional DC Plan monies.
Elimination of the DC Plan and a 10% 401(k) instead.
Elimination of scope including fragmentation, CAR's, minimum fleet count, no furlough clause due to productivity changes, out of seniority furloughs, no severance pay, and no further MDA J4J.
Yep, the RC4 have done a crack up job.
It's too bad that both Mwereplanes and WalmartGreeter could be furloughed before me, with one senior to me and one junior to me, which could have been avoided if the RC4 had listened to the ALPA president, both ALPA professional negotiators, ALPA's lead economic analyst, ALPA's outside counsel, ALPA's legal contract administer, ALPA's financial analyst, the NC's CPA/fraud examineer, all 3 MEC officers, 8 MEC members, and at Tuesday's MEC meeting where 118 out of about 120 pilots in attendance were against the RC4.
Either every key ALPA official is wrong or the RC4 are wrong. Hummm...
By the way, I thought Mwereplanes said there would not be a deal without the DC Plan intact. Want to bet?
Regards,
USA320Pilot
The S.1113(e) filing will provide immediate cash flow relief that are required to meet the ATSB unrestricted cash requirements. The September 20 proposal is what the company could seek under S.1113©. It's quit clear why these two men are concerned since one fly's the B767 and one the B737, which are two fleets that could be eliminated by the creditor's due to RC4 actions.
By the way, now the RC4 are running scared for a very good reason it's interesting to see the tune of certain posters change.
Let's see what they have accomplished for potential losses:
A pending 23% pay cut.
Loss of all notional DC Plan monies.
Elimination of the DC Plan and a 10% 401(k) instead.
Elimination of scope including fragmentation, CAR's, minimum fleet count, no furlough clause due to productivity changes, out of seniority furloughs, no severance pay, and no further MDA J4J.
Yep, the RC4 have done a crack up job.
It's too bad that both Mwereplanes and WalmartGreeter could be furloughed before me, with one senior to me and one junior to me, which could have been avoided if the RC4 had listened to the ALPA president, both ALPA professional negotiators, ALPA's lead economic analyst, ALPA's outside counsel, ALPA's legal contract administer, ALPA's financial analyst, the NC's CPA/fraud examineer, all 3 MEC officers, 8 MEC members, and at Tuesday's MEC meeting where 118 out of about 120 pilots in attendance were against the RC4.
Either every key ALPA official is wrong or the RC4 are wrong. Hummm...
By the way, I thought Mwereplanes said there would not be a deal without the DC Plan intact. Want to bet?
Regards,
USA320Pilot
UseYourHead
Veteran
- Apr 1, 2003
- 720
- 0
Of course thats true, but without BK and MAJOR cost slashing they would have been toast 3 times over...at least!
There is little premium revenue left out there now, we must adapt and make money in this revenue enviroment.
There is little premium revenue left out there now, we must adapt and make money in this revenue enviroment.
WorldTraveler said:
Ummm, missed one thing A320
Seems to be zero mention of CLT in your "150" Plan. That seems a little far fetched. Even if they no longer utilized the hub system per se. I would be surprised if it did not at least remain a "focus city".
Second thing I wondered, if Airways were transitioned to a point to point model, there would be far less (to almost no) need for the services of both the Contract and Affiliate Express carriers... How would that play into the equation...? Many LGA and DCA slots are "commuter" aircraft specific, are they not?
And what would replace the international flying...? Star Alliance...?
Just seems like an awfully radical departure from the previous ToP. I am not saying it is impossible, just a real horse pill to swallow.
Seems to be zero mention of CLT in your "150" Plan. That seems a little far fetched. Even if they no longer utilized the hub system per se. I would be surprised if it did not at least remain a "focus city".
Second thing I wondered, if Airways were transitioned to a point to point model, there would be far less (to almost no) need for the services of both the Contract and Affiliate Express carriers... How would that play into the equation...? Many LGA and DCA slots are "commuter" aircraft specific, are they not?
And what would replace the international flying...? Star Alliance...?
Just seems like an awfully radical departure from the previous ToP. I am not saying it is impossible, just a real horse pill to swallow.
