Any thoughts Chip?

[Biffeman]

Cohiba, maybe yours does but not mine![BR][BR]
[P][SPAN class=BodyFont]Once again , Wings you are wrong, since 1983 when 1113 was enacted no company has broken one, and this language is in all the agreements:[BR][BR][BR][BR]Scotty Ford[BR]President and General Chairman[BR]International Association of Machinists[BR]and Aerospace Workers – District 141M[BR]321 Allerton Avenue[BR]South San Francisco, CA 94080[BR][BR]Re: Restructuring Program[BR][BR]Dear Mr. Ford:[BR]
[P align=justify]The modifications to the 1995 Mechanical and Related Agreement (the Modifications) reached in connection with the 2002 Restructuring Program of the US Airways Group, Inc. and US Airways, Inc. (together, the Company) were agreed to by IAM in furtherance of the Company’s effort to successfully restructure its operations and capital structure and in consideration of the Company’s waiver and agreements herein. The Modifications were embodied in the revised collective bargaining agreement between IAM and the Company described as the IAM Restructuring Agreement.[BR]
[P align=justify][BR]
[P align=justify]This Letter of Agreement is a part of the Modifications and the IAM Restructuring Agreement, and is effective only if and when the IAM Restructuring Agreement becomes completely and unconditionally effective, and there are no conditions subsequent to its continuing effectiveness.[BR]
[P align=justify][BR]
[P align=justify]The Company believes that:[BR]
[P align=justify][BR]
[UL][BR]
[LI]The Modifications are based on the most complete and reliable information available to the Company; [/LI][/UL][BR]
[P align=justify][BR]
[UL][BR]
[LI]The Modifications permit the Company to avoid irreparable harm and provide for all the appropriate modifications to the 1995 Mechanical and Related Agreement that are necessary to permit the successful restructuring and reorganization of the Company. [BR]
[LI]The balance of equities favors the IAM Restructuring Agreement and the Company’s adherence thereto. [/LI][/UL][BR]
[P align=justify][BR][BR][FONT style=BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00]The Company agrees that if a petition for bankruptcy is filed with respect to either US Airways Group, Inc. or US Airways, Inc., during the calendar year 2002 (the Filing):[/FONT][BR]
[P align=justify][FONT style=BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00][/FONT][BR]
[OL][BR]
[LI][FONT style=BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00]Neither the Company nor any affiliate will file or support any motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sections 1113, 1113 (e), 1114, 1114 (h) or any other provision of the Bankruptcy Code, seeking rejection or modification of, or relief or interim relief from, the IAM Restructuring Agreement.(a Motion). [/FONT][BR]
[P align=justify][BR][/P]
[LI][FONT style=BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00]The Company and its affiliates will actively oppose any such Motion if filed by another party. [/FONT][BR]
[LI][FONT style=BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00]It is expressly recognized and agreed that if the IAM Restructuring Agreement is not completely and unconditionally effective, and the 1995 Mechanical and Related Agreement therefore remains effective without the Modifications, the above two paragraphs are inapplicable and have no force or effect, and the Company may make or refrain from opposing any such Motion with regard to the 1995 Mechanical and Related Agreement. [/FONT][/LI][/OL][BR]
[P align=justify][BR][BR][BR][BR]In the event that the Company files a petition for bankruptcy and US Airways determines to request additional modifications to the IAM Restructuring Agreement to support reduced cash flows, to secure debtor-in-possession financing, and/or attract capital, the Company and IAM will meet to negotiate regarding such additional modifications to the mutual satisfaction of both parties within fifteen days of such determination. Neither party will be required to reach agreement regarding such modifications and the failure to reach such agreement will not affect the commitments in this letter.[BR][BR]Please indicate your agreement to the foregoing by signing below.[BR][/P][/SPAN]

 

[N786P]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/29/2002 3:36:19 AM AOG-N-IT wrote:

Chip, Nice job of putting this into perspective. I think you may have hit the nail on the head regarding the pension fund being the actual targeted cut of choice...that's massive as well as immediately tangible.

However, Like most whom have been following this latest turn of events closely...The part that fries everyone is the reversal on trying to keep things as "Friendly" as possible. sure this is a business....nobody expects "The Waltons"...but nor should they be subjected to Tyranical treatment either.

Dave came to us with "talk" of changes regarding U's horrible culture....and many end roads were being made....if in fact it was only from his personal efforts to communicate better with the employee's.

Dave may be working to save the airline , like any dedicated CEO should have been doing since prior to the first merger....but what he has managed to do is anger thousands and shred every once of credibility he had slowly accumulated with us to date. This I find very dis-heartening..and so should he in retrospect. Trust is hard earned...and easily lost in this company. The track record is lacking....and he just extended the losing streak by a damn sight.

TPA was stormed by "Jack-Booted Nazi's" for lack of better terms....and human beings were treated like garbage. This is no way to ralley the troops behind any proposed plans..or create a favorable enviroment for progress on any issues here forward. I hope "Friendly Dave" knows what he's doing on this issue? Remember that survivors of the masacre will transfer to other stations....and continue to live to tell the tale.

TPA should have been afforded the exact same respect and treatment as the good folks in MCO Res were afforded.....it doesn't make the pain of losing a job or relocating to another city/station any better...but at least it's treating them with the respect that any good person would show a common dog.

I hope that somehow something has been learned from all of this.....sure many in labor will say that they learned not to trust management a long time ago....but I hope Dave has learned something about honesty and credibilty the hard-way....or is at least prepared to learn.

I'm willing to bet....that if Dave's targeted need all along was suspension of the pension?...instead of threatening everyone with harsh draconian measures and out-sourcing of jobs....he might have gotten it a bit easier by being straight up with us? Sure many are angry..and sure many are ready to say the hell with this place too...but deep down nobody wants to see the airline scuttled , especially if there is a reasonable avenue to take to save it for the majority. With deep regret , that window of opprotunity may have come crashing closed with the results of less than honest and dignafied treatment of two major work groups. Only time will tell.....and time is running short for us all.
----------------
[/blockquote]
This chapter in U's history with ref. to TPA will the Wounded Knee of all the employees that are left,(you history buffs will understand:)[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/14.gif']

 

[ONTHESTREET]

Piney,

I am not a business major so maybe I have no idea what I am talking about, but in reference to your above post here goes.

First if I were Dave the #1 item on the agenda would have been to preserve what revenue that we had left. Do not drive off what customers that we had left. (His new tkt policies....bad move. recended most but damage done already.)

Second, Cost cutting (We did that) only problem was he cut revenue by about the same rate. We gave up markets that have been money makers for decades....and most importantly.....ours for decades. 30% cut from employees is nice, but when you cut your revenue by 30% also, your back to square one. JetBlue, Southwest, and Airtran thought those old routes of ours were valuable enough to be fighting over them. (the only three carriers doing decent in current market.)

Third, The RJ issue....Customers do prefer them to turbo-props.....Different story when you put them against 737's and 319's. U's Pilot group kept giving mgmt more RJ's, only problem was instead of replacing TP's with them, mgmt started pulling DC-9's and 737's. I mean come on, RJ's by the truckload out of NewYork LGA. Why would pax do that when they can step to the next counter and ride a 717, 737, or 319 for the same price.( Or less)

Fourth, I will catch heat here from some ALPA, IAM, and AFA hardliners but in current market, Southwests payscales are not bad at all. And it seems to work. But it's way too late to go there, too much bad blood between mgmt and labor. I know for sure the pilots would have gone for it 10 months ago. IAM and AFA would have come around to the idea. And oddly enough....Southwest's # of RJ's--ZERO, Southwests # of lay-offs--ZERO.

Fifth, If the hub and spoke system doesn't work anymore...and it appears that it does not. DO NOT CONTINUE TO DO IT. Begin a remodeling of the system and route's. Use the guys making money as a pattern. Major Airline mentality reminds me of Civil War era style of fighting, Line up and slaughter each other....eventually armys figured out that the weapons had advanced to the point that the european style of field combat was suicide. Internet pricing and access to information has made much of the way airlines tradionally operated, also suicide.

Well here are a few of my thoughts. But like I said what do I know I'm just an airplane driver.

 

[ExitPointer]

----------------
On 11/29/2002 237 PM Cohiba wrote:

Everyone, please take some time to read the fine print in the last contracts that we agreed to...


I do not think that many of the new concessions are up for vote. At least I know that they are not for the F/A's.


This is a direct quote from the Tentative Agreement and Contract Language, July 2002.


"" If this tentative contract is ratified, the Company and the union will negotiate cost-saving productivity improvements in ares as scheduling and reserve.""


Any others have wording as such?

-------------



Cohiba,

I believe that you have misread the contract. The language you quote is actually from the Summary section of the pamphlet distributed by AFA, and not the contract language itself.

The Productivity Improvement section (Section 30: General) on page 23 of the pamphlet has the accurate contractual provision and states that any productivity improvements are to be returned to flight attendants in INCREASED WAGE RATES.

The purpose of the section was to hopefully offset the 8.4% wage gash the company inflicted. The section does not, however, authorize the company to unilaterally alter productivity provisions without compensation.

Also note that those negotiations were to have commenced 30 days after ratification.

So much for that provision, huh?


[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/14.gif'] [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/14.gif'] [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/14.gif']

 

[Falco]

The hub and spoke system does work, just not with 7 airlines doing it in a lot of places that don't have the O & D to support it. Think PIT, CLT, CVG, MEM, CLE, CMH, SLC.

 

[gogogadget]

A company can end a plan on its own ownly if it has enough money to pay all benefits accrued by retired employees and those who are vested in the plan. Retired employees are not affected, but if you are an active employee, you will stop accumulating benefits the moment the plan ends. And your monthly benefit at retirement reflects the number of years you worked and your salary AT THE TIME THE the plan was terminated, even if you continue to work at the company years longer. You won't receive either monthly payment benefits or lump sum, however, until you reach the retirement age specefied in the plan.

The PBCS's maximum payout for a person retiring at age 65 under the single-employer plan may fully cover all people earning roughly less than $115k , under a typical benefit formula. Some early retirees, however, may not find their benefits quite so sweet. If you retire at age 60 instead of 65, for example, your benefit will be capped at a much lower figure.

For multi-employer plans, usually the result of collective bargaining agreements, payments are much much lower.

Whats more, should the business clomate deteriorate, some corporations may go bankrupt or come under intense pressure to terminate their plans. Such an eventuality can affect those already retired and would prevent current employees from collecting any more at retirement than the amount they have already accumulated.

Consumer reports, October 2002 page 11 and 12
(exerpts)

 

[Cohiba]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/29/2002 4:32:46 PM ExitPointer wrote:


Cohiba,

I believe that you have misread the contract. The "language" you quote is actually from the "Summary" section of the pamphlet distributed by AFA, and not the contract language itself.

The Productivity Improvement section (Section 30: General) on page 23 of the pamphlet has the accurate contractual provision and states that any productivity improvements are to "be returned to flight attendants in INCREASED WAGE RATES."

The purpose of the section was to hopefully offset the 8.4% wage gash the company inflicted. The section does not, however, authorize the company to unilaterally alter productivity provisions without compensation.

Also note that those negotiations were to have commenced 30 days after ratification.

So much for that provision, huh?


[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/14.gif'] [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/14.gif']
----------------
[/blockquote]
COHIBA REPLIES:


Exitpointer-

COMMENCE: by definition is to begin, start or to initiate. The antonym of commence is terminate.

The company did COMMENCE negotiatins within the 30 days following ratification. They also offered the early-out or Voluntary Seperation Incentive Program (VSIP)prior to Voluntary Furlough (VF2)

The agreement does not state when the negotiations will TERMINATE. However, the company has reserved the right, after ratification, to make changes to scheduling and reserve.(page 5) The agreement was worded this way to leave the door oper in these areas provided that such changes are a cost savings. Notice that the new requests are all related to scheduling and reserve productivity. Therefor, upon raftification, you gave up the right to vote on said issues.

Besides, how do you expect to return a vote by the close of business Monday? The company can, and will terminate the defined contribution/pension plan under a distressed Termination, which they will have no trouble putting to the PBGC. They can, and will, terminate by employee groups, one and/or all if they see fit.

Rock and a hard place...[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/14.gif']

 

[ExitPointer]

----------------


COHIBA REPLIES:



Exitpointer-


COMMENCE: by definition is to begin, start or to initiate. The antonym of commence is terminate.


The company did COMMENCE negotiatins within the 30 days following ratification. They also offered the "early-out" or Voluntary Seperation Incentive Program (VSIP)prior to Voluntary Furlough (VF2)


The agreement does not state when the negotiations will TERMINATE. However, the company has reserved the right, after ratification, to make changes to scheduling and reserve.(page 5) The agreement was worded this way to leave the door oper in these areas provided that such changes are a cost savings. Notice that the new requests are all related to scheduling and reserve productivity. Therefor, upon raftification, you gave up the right to vote on said issues.


Besides, how do you expect to return a vote by the close of business Monday? The company can, and will terminate the defined contribution/pension plan under a "distressed Termination", which they will have no trouble putting to the PBGC. They can, and will, terminate by employee groups, one and/or all if they see fit.


Rock and a hard place...
----------------
[/blockquote]


ExitPointer Replies:


The Tentative Language Contract Begins on page 18. However, you keep placing import on a summary synopsis written from by some AFA wonk. Page 5 means absolutely nothing, has not been incorporated into our contract, and can, at best, be only used as collateral support of contractual intent.

As for the rest of this mess, all I can say is that AFA, as our collective bargaining agent, has a far more impressive array of decision making/contract modifying powers than the vast majority of flight attendants know. As these new negotiations begin, and as flight attendants begin to ask, can the AFA really do that without my vote?, I feel confident that that a growing discontent will quickly come to the surface.

Best.