Bruce Lakefield Comments

[BoeingBoy]

MrAeroMan,

You are undoubtedly right - all the network carriers either have (AMR, UAL) or are (DAL, NWA) looking for employee concessions. The difference so far is that only U has gone to that well twice in the past and has a third time coming.

AMR's Arprey (sp?) has been publicly quoted as saying he will not ask the employees for more - time will tell it that holds.

UAL has not come back to the employees yet while trying to emerge from BK - unlike U.

DAL & NWA have lower unit costs than U without major employee concessions yet - when they come they'll be in much better shape.

To touch on Piney's point, yes, we've had management in the past that seemed to want to do anything but run the airline for the future. At what point do you suggest that the employees no longer have to subsidize that mismanagement? At what point do you suggest that employees stop enabling management to mismanage?

Several management teams have each been given the tools to "build this house", but each successive one insists on having more tools instead of building. To quote another prolific poster, "When is now a good time" to say "Stop collecting tools and build something!"

Jim

 

[funguy2]

A320Pilot:

Do you read what you post?

Q. How close are you to selling assets from US Airways? What will trigger a decision to sell?

A. Not asked, but consistently emphasized it was cheaper to keep everything.

PSA will likely be sold after LOA 91 is ratified, which has been explained over and over.

Q. Some say that you already have a plan for us, be it Chapter 11, liquidation, or merger, and this "reinvention" is just an exercise in filling the squares for liability purposes before you implement that plan. What would your response be to that?

A. “I am not here for a restructuring.â€￾

In regard to a pre-packaged bankruptcy, Lakefield will not preside over it, but that does not mean it will not occur.

>>>>> So who, if not the CEO, represents management to the BK judge? (Not that I am under any false notion that this will occur).

Bronner has said that the restructuring will go forward "with or without employees".

>>>>> Ever wonder if this means: I can either sell US Airways whole with the employees or break it up and sell assets without the employees... That is what I am beginning to believe this means.

-- At RSA, the UAIR investment is considered a bad investment.

>>>>> How many times do you throw money at what is considered "a bad investment"? At any rate, contrary to your we will invest more theory.

 

[funguy2]

There is another option: Pre-packaged bankruptcy where the equity is preserved or re-issued and the company rejects lease agreements and labor contracts (for those unions who do not cut a deal before the filing).

There is an ALPA message board post that a Chief Pilot said this was the likely course of action, but it is an unconfirmed rumor at this point.

Could this be the reason why Bronner said the new business plan will go forward "with or without employees"?

Regards,

USA320Pilot

Or could the reason Bronner says "with or without the employees mean"

A. I get concessions and sell the (still operational) company in one piece. (i.e with employees)
B. I do not get concessions and sell the companies assets (after ending operations) piece by peice. (i.e. without employees)

 

[funguy2]

Bob,

Just one minor point...

"The bottom line will be 28,000 jos will disappear from the airline industry in under a year OR some number of jobs LESS than 28,000 will be left largely intact with OK but not stellar wages."

Unlike steel, where many of the jobs disappeared offshore, in this industry many of the jobs will still exist. If we closed the doors tomorrow, folks like you who plan to travel next week, next month, or whenever, will still travel. Other carriers will fill in the void - not overnight in all places, but in fairly short order. In doing that, they will need people.

Not every U employee would find another job in the industry, but many could. Would starting over be a wonderful experience - not hardly. But I've seen many from 4 different airlines do just that, with quite a few over 50. And for many, starting over somewhere else is no worse than what's likely to be asked of them here.

Jim

Good point Boeing Boy... But... those jobs, the new ones created will be at about 1/2 of the wages of the former jobs... So I guess the decision almost comes down to this:

Do I work for 1/2 my former salary and keep my seniority OR
Do I work for 1/2 my former salary and lose my seniority

 

[Dizel8]

"Do I work for 1/2 my former salary and keep my seniority OR
Do I work for 1/2 my former salary and lose my seniority?"

Actually, you left this one out: Or do I start at half my former salary, but regain lost wages and seniority with a company that may have a brighter future?

U employees are being asked to slash wages for a third time and see more of their fellow employees hit the street. A selloff of at least one of the w/o appears to be about to happen, MAA could well be spun off to raise cash.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Dizel8,

You beat me to the punch. How long this job will be here is a big unknown at the present time - whether at half wages or not.

Jim

 

[MrAeroMan]

MrAeroMan,

You are undoubtedly right - all the network carriers either have (AMR, UAL) or are (DAL, NWA) looking for employee concessions. The difference so far is that only U has gone to that well twice in the past and has a third time coming.

AMR's Arprey (sp?) has been publicly quoted as saying he will not ask the employees for more - time will tell it that holds.

UAL has not come back to the employees yet while trying to emerge from BK - unlike U.

DAL & NWA have lower unit costs than U without major employee concessions yet - when they come they'll be in much better shape.

To touch on Piney's point, yes, we've had management in the past that seemed to want to do anything but run the airline for the future. At what point do you suggest that the employees no longer have to subsidize that mismanagement? At what point do you suggest that employees stop enabling management to mismanage?

Several management teams have each been given the tools to "build this house", but each successive one insists on having more tools instead of building. To quote another prolific poster, "When is now a good time" to say "Stop collecting tools and build something!"

Jim

I agree with you. The time to show results are way overdue and it's not something that can be extracted solely out of the employees pay and bennies. It's definitely time to take a look at the so called plan and see where it's supposed to lead the company but I'm suspecting it will be long on givebacks and short on revenue building. I'm not convinced this team will right the ship or even if the ship is salvageable but one thing is for sure and that is they hold most of the cards.

 

[BoeingBoy]

"they hold most of the cards"

I guess that is an individual decision. There are undoubtedly some who will be willing to give up almost anything as long as they still have a job. There are others (like me) who see very little difference between "forced retirement" if the doors close or normal retirement in 2-1/2 years - it's not like one results in cat food and the other caviar. For the first group of individuals, management does indeed hold all the cards and they could end up working for whatever management deems suitable if their voice carries the day. For the latter individuals, what can management threaten?

Decisions will be make on a group by group basis. Those that can live with the group's decision will stay, those that cannot will leave. And there may be some groups faced with a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" decision - the IAM and Utility come to mind.

Jim

 

[BoeingBoy]

Bob,

I guess the difference between you and I comes down to expectations. You see the choice as being between no concessions/doors close and concessions/long term survival. I see the choice as being between no concessions/doors close sooner and concessions/doors close a little later.

You see, I am personally convinced that Siegel's last plan was fundamentally flawed. From the hints so far, Lakefield's plan appears no different.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone working here who isn't either prepared or getting prepared for life after U is deluding themselves.

Jim

 

[pitguy]

The job for Mechanics is not worth doing for any less. That includes any lose of seniority through cutting of heads which effects everyone for work schedules, vacation time off, lose of benefits or through direct cash compensation. So either deal with that or close the doors. This decision is not made out of haste or desperation. It is how tons of Mechanics feel at 'U'. Like it or not that is fact. Working condition are extremely lousy for the Mechanics and when we see more and more going out the door each week either by layoff or by quitting they all have smiles on their faces. So "full pay until the last day".

 

[NYPD]

Absolutely pitguy!

I've been saying this for months. Talk all you want about RJ's, flight schedules, hub flying, point to point flying, CASM's, SW this, SW that. It's all a moot point when you get shut down by the FAA because you're not willing to maintain your aircraft.

Bottom line is, the mechanics have gotten the message from upper management. They have said quite loud and clear through their actions that they do not want mechanics (and related) on the property. They WANT us to go away. The company has not once even tried to convince us that they want maintenance around for the "transformation". How in the world could a sane person "vote" for more concessions when it will mean nothing but lower pay until we're kicked out the door. FULL PAY TO THE LAST DAY!

Ok...we will go away - with our airline so to speak! The other labor groups need to "get over it" as well and start looking for gainful employment at a REAL COMPANY.

Hey pilots...remember '92? We do.

 

[avek00]

Bob,

I guess the difference between you and I comes down to expectations. You see the choice as being between no concessions/doors close and concessions/long term survival. I see the choice as being between no concessions/doors close sooner and concessions/doors close a little later.

You see, I am personally convinced that Siegel's last plan was fundamentally flawed. From the hints so far, Lakefield's plan appears no different.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone working here who isn't either prepared or getting prepared for life after U is deluding themselves.

Jim

Let's face it - for all their faults, W&G got it right the first time around: There is NO PLAN B for US Airways. The efforts of US management and labor alike must be used towards keeping the ship afloat until industry conditions improve enough for a decent merger or sale of the company to take place. The alternative is a haphazard metldown whereby the company closes its doors and a lucky few employees find themselves on temporary contracts until furloughees from other airlines are positioned to take over desirable parts of the US route system.

 

[Walmartgreeter]

there are plans to bring on-board the EMB-190 possibly as a Group 3 aircraft

Finally, a rumor that makes me happy. I only wish it could happen sooner than later, and maybe include the 170's. Greeter.