Any Exit By Us Airways Troubles Suburbs
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
Lets see MrAeroman,
You have not been an employee for over ten years, never been involved with negotiations or being a union member, not a member of a union, so if you never done anything that I have mentioned your opinions mean nothing to anyone who has lived it and been there and done that have the paycuts to prove it!
You have not been an employee for over ten years, never been involved with negotiations or being a union member, not a member of a union, so if you never done anything that I have mentioned your opinions mean nothing to anyone who has lived it and been there and done that have the paycuts to prove it!
He is calling you a slacker, meaning you are lazy, and according to his post he left U in 1993, not worth anyone's time to respond from someone who is on the outside looking in and probably wanting his old job back.
speaking of slackoff...can ya front me a little of my SSA monies i've been paying for you there freind?due to recent contractual agreements by the company...i'm a little short on the mortgage payment this month...could you help out an old company pal??MrAeroMan said:The way I see it Pitbull is the slack off of the day belongs to you. Welcome to the club!
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
Hi PitBull,
700uw is apparently right - Aero left in the early 90's judging by his posts. Apparently he was in one of the non-union groups (at least non-union back then). If memory serves, those folks gave up more in that round of concessions than the unions did - vacation & sick rolled into PDO's, retirement, etc. Based on only that experience he may feel animus toward the unions. What he doesn't seem to understand is that management's job (as the name implies) is to manage, while the union's job is to represent the workers. It is by definition an adversarial relationship to at least some degree - the union tries to get the best deal for its members while management tries to get the lowest cost labor.
Jim
700uw is apparently right - Aero left in the early 90's judging by his posts. Apparently he was in one of the non-union groups (at least non-union back then). If memory serves, those folks gave up more in that round of concessions than the unions did - vacation & sick rolled into PDO's, retirement, etc. Based on only that experience he may feel animus toward the unions. What he doesn't seem to understand is that management's job (as the name implies) is to manage, while the union's job is to represent the workers. It is by definition an adversarial relationship to at least some degree - the union tries to get the best deal for its members while management tries to get the lowest cost labor.
Jim
Very well said Jim, but they voted for a union and it took the fourth time to gain representation, the only people they have to blame is themeselves, maybe they believe the Uncle Ed Gaurantee and still have their quarter.
I can see what clue you and your minions have about contract negotiations Pitbull. It's as evident as that chip on your shoulder. What you can't stand is when someone stands up and points out that the whole debacle is not just one sides fault. It takes two and you and I both know the unions have just as much blame to shoulder as the management. The difference is I can admit it and you can't. You're fine as long as it's pile on management but as soon as someone points out the mistakes made by union leadership your hair stands straight out and it's off to the terminal to hand out leaflets. The one that has no clue is you.
PS....Drive careful....I hear it's slippery out there. [/quote]
Change your screen name to "absolutely clueless" because you are. Pitbull has enough knowledge of negotiations that it puts the fear of God into this management team. When they identify an individual who they consider dangerous on these boards realizing that their union breaking and demoralizing efforts are in jeopardy, that they are no longer operating incognito and have been had, that the membership might just stick together because of this knowledge, well it scares the hell out of them. Your argument about the union membership is ludicrous given the fact that upper management and even mid level management is awarded very handsomely. I clearly remember when we all took concessions and at the same time all of management received bonuses. The top tier management has one big ambition and that is to become very rich and they plan on doing that by taking away everything labor has fought for the last 40 years. You have the balls to come on here and say we and not you are clueless, that we are over compensated. What do you expect? People to take concessions deep enough that they are required to work two jobs so upper management can become wealthy, do this and lay down without saying one word! It’s obvious you are part of the problem, called Siegel’s management brought to you by union breaking Mr. Glass operating as Senior Vice President Employee Relations the once incognito union breaker, now clearly identified.
PS....Drive careful....I hear it's slippery out there. [/quote]
Change your screen name to "absolutely clueless" because you are. Pitbull has enough knowledge of negotiations that it puts the fear of God into this management team. When they identify an individual who they consider dangerous on these boards realizing that their union breaking and demoralizing efforts are in jeopardy, that they are no longer operating incognito and have been had, that the membership might just stick together because of this knowledge, well it scares the hell out of them. Your argument about the union membership is ludicrous given the fact that upper management and even mid level management is awarded very handsomely. I clearly remember when we all took concessions and at the same time all of management received bonuses. The top tier management has one big ambition and that is to become very rich and they plan on doing that by taking away everything labor has fought for the last 40 years. You have the balls to come on here and say we and not you are clueless, that we are over compensated. What do you expect? People to take concessions deep enough that they are required to work two jobs so upper management can become wealthy, do this and lay down without saying one word! It’s obvious you are part of the problem, called Siegel’s management brought to you by union breaking Mr. Glass operating as Senior Vice President Employee Relations the once incognito union breaker, now clearly identified.
ClueByFour
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 3,566
- Reaction score
- 37
Maybe. But it's not like IND is a huge station these days, so you will probably be looking at more ferry flights than you have now (after all, if you take an AOG at PIT or CLT, it's but a short tow over to the house).delldude said:
I don't see US bailing on the big house in CLT--I seem to recall AOG or someone mentioning that it's both underutilized and very cheap for US to occupy.
The hangars at PIT (externally, anyway) remind me a lot of the old WWII era stuff that stood forever at MDT (remnants of Olmstead AFB).
However, given that little Dave is pissed about not getting the Airbus farmout, I can't see actually doing anything positive from an MX standpoint anytime soon.
yes uncle dave has a terrible temper when he loses...they are winners..he told me so.ClueByFour said:
i talked to several people at work and theyadvised the AA tulsa complex is set up as a maint.only base and it wouldn't be too out of place.they could move light chk's into clt/pit hangars and do RON repairs too while still maintaining the leases.it isn't totally out of the question.im refering to inday as engine change,hvy maint 737/bus facility.they could shut down pit and RON at clt and still do some light chks at indy too.
see ya 😉
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
BoeingBoy:
Chip said: Allegheny County built an airport based on old economic forecasts that did not pan out.
Jim said: did the ACAA decide to build the new terminal in a vacuum or was U a prime driver of that decision?
Chip responds: Jim, the parties negotiated a deal, but the economic climate has changed. Bankruptcy law permits the debtor to keep current agreements in place ,renegotiate new terms, or reject the agreement. US Airways is operating within the law.
Chip said: The world has changed and so far the ACAA has not been willing to change.
Jim said: haven't the ACAA, city, and state made offers that would reduce costs at PIT? Isn't it U who is sticking to the original demands and unwilling to compromise?
Chip responds: The ACAA counter provided capital improvements, but did very little to address the debt and cost problem. US Airways responded with a counter, but the information remained confidential at the mutual consent of the parties.
Chip said: However, just like at US Airways, everybody wants the other guy to take a haircut, but not me.
Jim said: again, it is U that is threatening to "take its marbles and go home" unless it gets everything it wants.
Chip responds: How do you know that? The last meeting was confidential with no public release, therefore, I believe an “absolute’ statement is incorrect. With that said, if the ACAA does not address the debt issue, then I believe US Airways will move its assets westward – in fairly short order. There is an alternate plan if the hub is rejected.
Chip said: US Airways must address its cost problem because domestic revenues will continue to fall.
Jim said: REVENUES are on the rebound as traffic picks up. YIELDS will continue under pressure due to the LCC's expanding presence.
Chip responds: System wide revenue is up, but the domestic RASM and yield (the amount of profit per ticket) as low cost carriers. In a presentation to the US Airways MEC last Tuesday, ALPA international E&FA told the MEC that industry revenue concerns for 2004 are rising – capacity growth without meaningful demand recovery (that is not yet visible) could disappoint earnings.
Chip said: US Airways' CASM must be below RASM and the ACAA has the opportunity to help US Airways balance that equation.
Jim said: once again, haven't offers been made that would do just that? Only Siegel's "give me everything I want or it's your fault" attitude is standing in the way.
Chip responds: Again, the offer was for capital improvements and barely addressed debt and cost reduction.
Chip said: The company has a good opportunity to move its assets to new areas, which have higher O&D traffic that may become available in the not-so-distant future."
Jim said: name one airport in the eastern half of the country with higher O&D traffic that doesn't already have a major hub tenent, significant LCC presence, or both.
Chip responds: I never said an eastern airport, in fact if the assets move, it will likely be westward.
Chip said: Industry consolidation is coming.
Jim said: quite possibly though not guaranteed. The bigger question is whether U will be a part of it if it comes.
Chip asks: How do you know that?
Chip said: Will Pittsburgh be a part of it or will the airport and its surrounding facilities be a vibrant operation or a white (empty) elephant?
Jim said: unfortunately for PIT, it is too close to the east coast to be a major hub for a true nationwide airline since they all have east coast hubs. AMR tried the mini-hub concept (RDU & BNA) and we all know how that worked out.
Chip comments: Agreed.
Chip concludes: US Airways mainline ASM’s will grow in 2004, however, one of the remaining questions is will Pittsburgh have any meaningful ASM’s in the fall? In my opinion, each day that goes by increases the odds US Airways will exit. Moreover, the current ACAA negotiating tactics are increasing the odds that Moon Township will have multiple “white elephantsâ€.
Regards,
Chip
Chip said: Allegheny County built an airport based on old economic forecasts that did not pan out.
Jim said: did the ACAA decide to build the new terminal in a vacuum or was U a prime driver of that decision?
Chip responds: Jim, the parties negotiated a deal, but the economic climate has changed. Bankruptcy law permits the debtor to keep current agreements in place ,renegotiate new terms, or reject the agreement. US Airways is operating within the law.
Chip said: The world has changed and so far the ACAA has not been willing to change.
Jim said: haven't the ACAA, city, and state made offers that would reduce costs at PIT? Isn't it U who is sticking to the original demands and unwilling to compromise?
Chip responds: The ACAA counter provided capital improvements, but did very little to address the debt and cost problem. US Airways responded with a counter, but the information remained confidential at the mutual consent of the parties.
Chip said: However, just like at US Airways, everybody wants the other guy to take a haircut, but not me.
Jim said: again, it is U that is threatening to "take its marbles and go home" unless it gets everything it wants.
Chip responds: How do you know that? The last meeting was confidential with no public release, therefore, I believe an “absolute’ statement is incorrect. With that said, if the ACAA does not address the debt issue, then I believe US Airways will move its assets westward – in fairly short order. There is an alternate plan if the hub is rejected.
Chip said: US Airways must address its cost problem because domestic revenues will continue to fall.
Jim said: REVENUES are on the rebound as traffic picks up. YIELDS will continue under pressure due to the LCC's expanding presence.
Chip responds: System wide revenue is up, but the domestic RASM and yield (the amount of profit per ticket) as low cost carriers. In a presentation to the US Airways MEC last Tuesday, ALPA international E&FA told the MEC that industry revenue concerns for 2004 are rising – capacity growth without meaningful demand recovery (that is not yet visible) could disappoint earnings.
Chip said: US Airways' CASM must be below RASM and the ACAA has the opportunity to help US Airways balance that equation.
Jim said: once again, haven't offers been made that would do just that? Only Siegel's "give me everything I want or it's your fault" attitude is standing in the way.
Chip responds: Again, the offer was for capital improvements and barely addressed debt and cost reduction.
Chip said: The company has a good opportunity to move its assets to new areas, which have higher O&D traffic that may become available in the not-so-distant future."
Jim said: name one airport in the eastern half of the country with higher O&D traffic that doesn't already have a major hub tenent, significant LCC presence, or both.
Chip responds: I never said an eastern airport, in fact if the assets move, it will likely be westward.
Chip said: Industry consolidation is coming.
Jim said: quite possibly though not guaranteed. The bigger question is whether U will be a part of it if it comes.
Chip asks: How do you know that?
Chip said: Will Pittsburgh be a part of it or will the airport and its surrounding facilities be a vibrant operation or a white (empty) elephant?
Jim said: unfortunately for PIT, it is too close to the east coast to be a major hub for a true nationwide airline since they all have east coast hubs. AMR tried the mini-hub concept (RDU & BNA) and we all know how that worked out.
Chip comments: Agreed.
Chip concludes: US Airways mainline ASM’s will grow in 2004, however, one of the remaining questions is will Pittsburgh have any meaningful ASM’s in the fall? In my opinion, each day that goes by increases the odds US Airways will exit. Moreover, the current ACAA negotiating tactics are increasing the odds that Moon Township will have multiple “white elephantsâ€.
Regards,
Chip
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
Chip,
Yes, U is operating completely inside the law - I didn't say otherwise. I only pointed out that ACAA built the new terminal in response to U.
ACAA has made an offer - that means that they haven't been unwilling to change as you said. Since neither of us knows what was in the confidential counteroffer, neither of us can judge whether U is willing to change their position or how much. And my statement was no more "absolute" then yours.
The terms "revenue", "yield", and "RASM" are not one and the same, though if you use them interchangably we are saying the same thing. Revenue, barring another terrorist attack, etc., will continue to rebound. Yield and RASM will probably be impacted by LCC expansion.
I never said an eastern airport either. I said an airport in the eastern half of the country. I could probably expand that to an airport east of the Rockies.
I don't pretend to know whether consolidation is coming or not. It would probably be good from an industry standpoint, but that doesn't mean it's coming - at least in the near term. 10-20 years down the road who knows. I also believe (not know) that U might not be around to be a player if it does come in the near term. (see the Aviation Week article I posted on the ALPA board).
Like you, I see U's ASM's growing in 2004 - MDA (or name du jour), Caribbean, and hopefully European expansion will see to that. How many of U's ASM will flow thru PIT is certainly an open question. However, Pit will have ASM's - other carriers are already filling in some of the void we've left. Didn't the ACAA say a while back that the other carriers were seeing double-digit growth in passenger count. Ironic, isn't it, that while U negotiates for lower costs(and sees its costs per pax increasing), the other carriers are seeing per pax costs decline by carrying the people we used to carry.
PIT will undoubtedly have short term problems if U pulls the hub out. But it will survive and probably even prosper. Look at RDU and BNA after AMR closed their mini-hubs (and that's really all PIT is for U). They both built new terminals, primarily for their hub tenent, and both seem to be doing pretty well now without being a hub.
I will make one "absolute" statement in closing. If I were the ACAA, I would be leery of making long term commitments to what could be a short term tenent. I would look at these two possibilities - offer cost concessions to high cost high fare US Airways or offer the same to LUV, JBLU, AWA, AirTran, etc to come in. The first may not be around in 6 months and keeps fares high, the second brings the benefits of low fares. Which would you choose?
Jim
Yes, U is operating completely inside the law - I didn't say otherwise. I only pointed out that ACAA built the new terminal in response to U.
ACAA has made an offer - that means that they haven't been unwilling to change as you said. Since neither of us knows what was in the confidential counteroffer, neither of us can judge whether U is willing to change their position or how much. And my statement was no more "absolute" then yours.
The terms "revenue", "yield", and "RASM" are not one and the same, though if you use them interchangably we are saying the same thing. Revenue, barring another terrorist attack, etc., will continue to rebound. Yield and RASM will probably be impacted by LCC expansion.
I never said an eastern airport either. I said an airport in the eastern half of the country. I could probably expand that to an airport east of the Rockies.
I don't pretend to know whether consolidation is coming or not. It would probably be good from an industry standpoint, but that doesn't mean it's coming - at least in the near term. 10-20 years down the road who knows. I also believe (not know) that U might not be around to be a player if it does come in the near term. (see the Aviation Week article I posted on the ALPA board).
Like you, I see U's ASM's growing in 2004 - MDA (or name du jour), Caribbean, and hopefully European expansion will see to that. How many of U's ASM will flow thru PIT is certainly an open question. However, Pit will have ASM's - other carriers are already filling in some of the void we've left. Didn't the ACAA say a while back that the other carriers were seeing double-digit growth in passenger count. Ironic, isn't it, that while U negotiates for lower costs(and sees its costs per pax increasing), the other carriers are seeing per pax costs decline by carrying the people we used to carry.
PIT will undoubtedly have short term problems if U pulls the hub out. But it will survive and probably even prosper. Look at RDU and BNA after AMR closed their mini-hubs (and that's really all PIT is for U). They both built new terminals, primarily for their hub tenent, and both seem to be doing pretty well now without being a hub.
I will make one "absolute" statement in closing. If I were the ACAA, I would be leery of making long term commitments to what could be a short term tenent. I would look at these two possibilities - offer cost concessions to high cost high fare US Airways or offer the same to LUV, JBLU, AWA, AirTran, etc to come in. The first may not be around in 6 months and keeps fares high, the second brings the benefits of low fares. Which would you choose?
Jim
Reservation Agent
Senior
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 406
- Reaction score
- 0
The New Pittsburgh International Airport was built at the urging of USAIRWAYS...And part of that agreement was to help pay the costs of the construction...The landing fees were not increased on USAIRWAYS...USAIRWAYS saw the opportunity to break their agreements , just like the aircraft leases during bankrupcy motions...US has decided to underutilize the airport by overstuffing flights into Phila & Charlotte...
I believe if USAIRWAYS exits Pittsburgh as a hub there, will be an announcement of another airline with expansion in mind....to grab it.....
I believe revenue problems continue due to the fare structure...overabundance of complex fares...loss of the business traveller....aircraft size and lack of marketing..
There's no need for more than about 8-10 fares in each market....
In each market have ::::: One 21 day adv purchase fare....One 14 day adv purchase fare.....One 7 day adv purchase fare....One 3 day Fare....One weekend (Sat/Sun) fare...One Senior Fare....One AARP Fare...One Breavement/Medical Emergency fare....(And in unrestricted fares...A 3 day and a same day "Full Coach Y8 " and "First Class F8 Fare".....)
Also is a revenue loss from opportunitys to fill more seats with planes less than 1/2 the size of a 737....I believe "if" regional jets were the answer, we would still be calling the airline.... Allegheny Airlines....
With the national economy improving, and travellers going back to flying, I believe the commitment should be to a mostly all "Airbus" fleet for standardization and comfort rather than a mixture of: CRJ's, ERJ's, Embraliers, DH8's, 737's, 757's, 319's, etc.....
We had a large market share on the East Coast and that is being squandered....plus giving up markets on the West Coast to United in the name of code-sharing....
That's just my opinion...
I believe if USAIRWAYS exits Pittsburgh as a hub there, will be an announcement of another airline with expansion in mind....to grab it.....
I believe revenue problems continue due to the fare structure...overabundance of complex fares...loss of the business traveller....aircraft size and lack of marketing..
There's no need for more than about 8-10 fares in each market....
In each market have ::::: One 21 day adv purchase fare....One 14 day adv purchase fare.....One 7 day adv purchase fare....One 3 day Fare....One weekend (Sat/Sun) fare...One Senior Fare....One AARP Fare...One Breavement/Medical Emergency fare....(And in unrestricted fares...A 3 day and a same day "Full Coach Y8 " and "First Class F8 Fare".....)
Also is a revenue loss from opportunitys to fill more seats with planes less than 1/2 the size of a 737....I believe "if" regional jets were the answer, we would still be calling the airline.... Allegheny Airlines....
With the national economy improving, and travellers going back to flying, I believe the commitment should be to a mostly all "Airbus" fleet for standardization and comfort rather than a mixture of: CRJ's, ERJ's, Embraliers, DH8's, 737's, 757's, 319's, etc.....
We had a large market share on the East Coast and that is being squandered....plus giving up markets on the West Coast to United in the name of code-sharing....
That's just my opinion...
ClueByFour
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 3,566
- Reaction score
- 37
Just so that we are clear:
U actually had the cajones to suggest to the county and state that they levy a higher hotel tax or impose a rental car tax to pay for bailing U out. While U tried to keep it quiet, that was their suggest for debt relief.
Fortunately, Rendell, Roddey, and likely Onorato will tell U to stick it where the sun don't shine. Since U is not getting anything at ORD, I'm still waiting to hear where they are going to exit the hub to with higher O&D and a limited LCC presence.
ACAA has offered $25 million/year debt relief for 5 years. Sound pretty generous, but my ego fits inside a small head, unlike Little Dave.
U actually had the cajones to suggest to the county and state that they levy a higher hotel tax or impose a rental car tax to pay for bailing U out. While U tried to keep it quiet, that was their suggest for debt relief.
Fortunately, Rendell, Roddey, and likely Onorato will tell U to stick it where the sun don't shine. Since U is not getting anything at ORD, I'm still waiting to hear where they are going to exit the hub to with higher O&D and a limited LCC presence.
ACAA has offered $25 million/year debt relief for 5 years. Sound pretty generous, but my ego fits inside a small head, unlike Little Dave.
wnbubbleboy
Veteran
WOW! We're rude in Pittsburgh. Well let me be the first Pittsburgher to say it. We are sorry. We didn't mean it. Please forgive us. We won't do it again. If you must go though we understand, we have offended you. I am sure you will not meet any rude people in Charlotte. Have a great day and take care of yourself. We'll miss you.marco90821 said:
