PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
And you sound like management.
Another US red flag?
- Thread starter Mrs. McFly
- Start date
And you sound like management.
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
US Labor is not looking for another complicated merger.
If they can't get past their BK pay scales...they will STRIKE!
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
..
I don't believe we've ever had NON-contractual raises in my 25 years.
However, we did have "side letters" agreed upon by both parties that became part of the contract e.g. The Voluntary furlough 1 program was not a negotiated item during sec. 6 negotiations. Gangwal agreed upon this post 9/11. We went into discusions on furloughs to adjust the staffing levels, and agreed upon a new voluntary furlough program bid and awarded in seniority order, taken in increments of 6 months at a time so that the financial burden was not thrusted upon the junior work force because of longstanding, existing involuntary furlough language. We negotiated Unemployment with this volunary furlough program with the state and negotiated with the company 6 months of medical, and seniority accrual as "active status", also the f/as were able to use their flying privileges while on this status as well. Twenty four hundred f/as took this furlough in 2001-2002, and we had 6 more after that. Many of these f/as kept extending their fulough every 6 months for 4-5 years. The company liked this idea as it saved them more money by allowng a furlough from top to bottom v.s most junior to senior. The idea of a voluntary furlough program was then offered to other labor groups not only at US Airways, but other airlines offered this to their employees as well. In those days, and with a different management than today, labor could sit down with management and not fear threatened that management would try to steal everything, or that the contract was entirely opened. We just sat down and reasonably discussed how we could help the company save money and be fair to our group in a real negotiation that would not necessarily change the existing contract. We were encouraged and invited to share our ideas with management who didn't demand, but asked us to help them reach a cost savings. And we did.
Those were the days at U when management and labor could sit down and create cost saving ideas that were more balanced, fair and reasonable to both parties..when you could shake hands across the table, leave the table and feel you got something out of it for your group.
Today, you have an entirely different element that is called "management" who have been schooled to beat down, blame, threaten, take, devalue, disrespect, and disengage with labor.
Those were the days at U when management and labor could sit down and create cost saving ideas that were more balanced, fair and reasonable to both parties..when you could shake hands across the table, leave the table and feel you got something out of it for your group.
You mean like "pull together win together" ?
You mean like "pull together win together" ?
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
I hate to actually agree with WT (mostly), but the point is that pilot seniority list integration has nothing to do with the total pilot cost.
The total pilot cost is independent of SLI (mostly). Cost neutral SLI was a stipulation of the company accepting an SLI... of course there is an exception that may causes the NIC to be a different cost than DOH.. if a large number of 5-year pilots become Captains rather than remaining F/Os, forcing the 12+ year pilots to remain F/Os rather than upgrade---it would dramatically affect costs differently than a DOH method. But if everyone was at top of scale then yes, WT is correct, there is no difference who is senior to who as far as total pilot costs are concerned.
But mostly the company is just content to blame the SLI union dispute so they can continue to reap the cost savings of having so many workers on bankruptcy wages.
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
Observation of the year... except it is all legal because labor and other groups keep capitulating their rights in the form of contracts, ie. it isn't an investment strategy.
Bernard Ponzi Parker Madoff??? Step on the Peddle and close your eyes!
- Banned
- #38
Guess you dont understand that AA would not have bought TWA if all the LPPs were left in place, that was specifically stated.
And ALPA and the IAM waived LPPs otherwise TWA was going into chapter 7.
What are you smoking?
http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/54309-poll-for-us-pilots-do-you-want-to-merge-with-aaapa/page__mode__show
Phoenix
Veteran
- Apr 16, 2003
- 8,584
- 7,430
Your link is a message board poll, supposedly for US Pilots to vote in, but votes can be cast by ANYONE from ANY COMPANY (labor or management), or any passenger, or anyone else. I hope you are not representative of AA logic... if Parker gets a shot at you.. never mind...
Exactly... If Parker gets a shot at us, we stand a strong chance of ending up like "U".
wings396
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 3,672
- 1,122
Like your better off now. Nothing more than the typical AA mentality that you are better than everyone else in the industry, well guess what your not. You are in BK as were most of your peers. Now the thought of lousy ole US taking you over is killing you. It was all good when your precious AA took over and dismantled others though. Wake up to reality.
Really? Thats all you got? Thats your position?
"Like you're better off now"---- Well. yes we are.. Much better than LCC, thank you very much. Better assets, network, fleet.. Much brighter future even minus the consolidation you crave. Even with the 1113c.. And you can't deny that.
"Nothing more than the typical AA mentality that you are better than everyone else in the industry, well guess what your not." --- Then why the fatal attraction and obsessive desire for AA? Go after Frontier, or DAL, or...?
"You are in BK as were most of your peers. Now the thought of lousy ole US taking you over is killing you.". --- No, it's not. the thought of an industry bottom feeder believing it is 'just what the doctor ordered' is what I find laughable. Sure, there are analysts clamoring for consolidation, some purely driven by DP's screaming from the mountaintops.. It doesn't matter what color the jets are painted.. What I see is an airline with a questionable (high cost) route network (even post merger) coupled with abysmal (lowest paid in the industry) labor relations, that hasn't been able to complete a seemingly benign combination of two smaller airlines for approaching a decade, ... Its what LCC brings (more importantly, what is being OVERSTATED that they bring to the table) that I have a problem with. We are talking about an airline that couldn't make it in NYC, the largest business market in the US.
DP doesn't have the history, talent or experience to be the US anchor of a Global alliance airline. IMO
Now here's the opprotunity to talk your own advise: "It was all good when your precious AA took over and dismantled others though. Wake up to reality."
We'll likely see a good portion of LCC diminish as the integration happens, should a merger happen. All of LCC debt comes along for the ride too.
From me personally, ... No thanks! Try and look past the powerpoints that don't include the merger +1 year pictures...
Ya, I know, AA NEEEEEDDDDDS LCC!
If Parker had a legitimate future, long term with LCC, we never would have heard a word from him about a merger.. Neither would have UAL or DAL..
robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
in the days leading up to bwi for aa being outsourced a number of those folks at aa said they prefer a merger with us and have us mgmt run the show..... but for way to long you at aa have lost something like millions a quarter as much as i know a lot of dont or do want a merger its not up to us but to the creditors and they will get what they want and that is good return and if its done via a merger than so be it but if its not i think us is positioned to be around for a long time
