Dave want's more $$$$

[UAL777flyer]

And allowing top quality management personnel (of which there are many at every airline) to leave while you're presently in Ch.11 trying to reorganize successfully is going to significantly affect your company's ability to emerge from bankruptcy. This industry is prone to stereotypes. All pilots are overpaid egomaniacs. All flight attendants are glorified waitresses. All mechanics and rampers are lazy, inefficient malcontents. All management are do-nothing, overpaid incompetents. We've heard them all. And none of them are true. There are a few bad apples in every bunch. Like it or not, a CEO gets paid to make the big decisions. Some of those decisions are deciding in his/her mind who the top managers are that you can't afford to lose at such a critical time. I suspect that is what Siegel has done. It is a bitter pill for everyone to swallow. I wouldn't like it anymore than the next guy. But considering the circumstances, it's necessary. If all of a sudden key US personnel left the company, it could very well jeopardize your ability to avoid being liquidated.

 

[Bob Owens]

Whats better to keep; one competant but greedy manager or thousands of workers who feel that they are being treated fairly? Its definately easier to replace one than thousands. I dont care who they are. I agree with KC Flyer. Throwing this money at top managers while those at the bottom are asked to do with even less will hurt morale. Poor morale =poor performance.

 

[KCFlyer]

[P]UAL777flyer - I'm not an airline employee...and I was in Siegals corner when he came on board. I had hoped that labor would give him the benefit of the doubt. So far they have. He seemed to be pretty up front with what was going to have to be done at U. IMHO, he should have been up front about managment bonuses. Not too long ago there was a rumor that he would get a performance bonus for getting labor concessions. I was pretty adamant that one shouldn't believe the rumor mill. But lo and behold, he got labor concessions and now it's time to retain quality managment by providing bonuses. Nevermind that the bonuses may well be laden with all kinds of stipulations that the executive must return any bonus should he leave the company within X number of months. Bottom line, he has done exactly what the rumor mill had suspected - reward management for achieving labor concessions. Abstively, posilutely the worst possible thing he could have done. What labor sees is that the money and benefits they gave up are not going to stem any losses...no, labor sees this as their hard earned money that they gave up is going to pay leadership first, and save the airline second. They are not wrong in this view either. And it's not the message you want to send to the troops. [/P]
[P]I've been pretty critical at some of the balking from labor groups concerning concessions, but they gave back, just like managment asked them to. It's happening over at your airline right now...what impact do you think a similar move from UAL managment would have on the overall labor force? [/P]
[P]If an executive is willing to jump ship for greener pastures because a headhunter is promising them $$$$$, I say that the airline is better off without him. You've got just as much chance of heading off liquidation with a bunch of young turks out to prove themselves as you do with the former CEO (Wolf) consulting on the sidelines, just looking for ways to speed up the liquidation. His job was supposed to be to find a buyer. Who's buying? [/P]
[P]Bob Owens is right...poor morale=poor performance. U employees needed to feel that they are all in this together. THe sad reality is - they aren't.[/P]

 

[Flydrive1]

It's been said that if Edison had been an MBA he wouldn't have invented the lightbulb, just a larger candle...

 

[MCORORES]

Bob Owens and KCflyer....AMEN!!!!!!!

 

[AOG-N-IT]

KCFlyer, I agree that Poor Morale usually equals Poor Performance....but we seem to be an exception to this rule. Morale is lower than a Snakes Fanny in a Wagonwheel track...but our overall performance is setting company records. We are also looking pretty darn good in the Industry ratings too. I'm not defending the bonuses being awarded to anyone....and I think we should expect nothing less than complete candor and honesty from our leadership group. We are afterall kinda in need of one anothers best efforts. Honesty will help take the sting out of things. I would rather someone take from me or the company honestly...than keep changing the level of the playing field...and continue to take! Siegel was in up-state New York today , trying to mend fences that Wolf destroyed with our customers there...Siegel told the local politicians that he was there to listen...and see what could be done? He closed with a statement along the lines of...I've heard your views...but I can make no promises. Hearing the views is nice..but he needs to be in a position to be able to make promises to both our customers...and the employee's ..and deliver on them. Siegel came to the employee groups for concessions....We had but one choice according to him. With some reluctance , We delivered!!...based on his figurative needs for our survival. I'm sure those figures presented by him , had to be based on the advisement of the so-called Talent Pool he's defending and rewarding Now we are hearing that more lay-offs and additional concessions may be needed? I have to say wait a minute!! We worked with you in every respect....and we are setting records in performance with fewer people and less pay. What are your Bonus-babies doing? Obviously not a heck of a lot!!!! One has to wonder where the loyalties should lie? Should it be with those that can deliver ? ...or with those that are being nothing but takers...and delivering nothing tangible in return? Dave has also made comments about the needed changes in corporate culture...to date I have not seen any evidence of this taking place....Things are only getting worse... the faces are getting longer with fears of furlough or not being able to make the monthly bills. Something needs to change....and not in any one single area either!! Change comes from the top....and that is where it needs to be changing at a quicker pace!! The mold needs to be re-cast. Dave was IMHO a good find for us...to date 35% of the upper echelon has changed....that means that we are still 65% of the same old mindset. That mindset is a proven loser!! The facts and figures of our net worth...and present condition says it all.

 

[UAL777flyer]

I don't agree with the system either, but I see why it's necessary. The comments from most in this thread fly directly in the face of demands for US to bring in quality managers and leaders. I think Siegel fits the bill. And I think the changes he made in the management ranks have been a positive for US Airways. Granted, I'm sure there are many opinions of who else should go, but you simply cannot turn over a significant number of management personnel and not feel the affects. So I find it ironic that employees consistently scream for quality leaders to run the company, and then complain when a bonus program is implemented to keep the top talent from leaving for a better offer. It's not the greatest situation in the world, but would you rather your company be run by the Keystone Cops again? You might as well turn out the lights now.

 

[KCFlyer]

[P]UAL777 - The thing is timing. Doing this immediately after gaining concessions from labor makes it appear that the dollars they gave up are not going towards saving the airline. It appears that management is being rewarded for gaining labor concessions. The line folk are stuck because of union contracts - they can't go somewhere else without starting over at the bottom. Labor knows this...no matter how much they might have *****ed and moaned about concessions, they recognize that they just can't go somewhere else and start over, so they voted for the concessions. It appears that managment is taking advantage of that. [/P]
[P]I know they say life isn't fair - but this whole thing goes beyond fairness....it's a morality issue...and IMHO it's morally WRONG to ask an entire group of people to change the lifestyle they have become accustomed to in the form or pay and benefit concessions while at the same time pushing for a bonus for a group of people who already live better than 99.9% of the people that took the cuts. If someone in managment is lured away by money today, they'll be just as likely to be lured away by money tomorrow. Let them go. The ones who feel that their purpose is to do something constructive and stay are the ones you want. They are the ones who WANT the airline to emerge from bankruptcy. The ones you bribe to stay are the ones who did little more than tweak the Mission Statement, and who really won't put their heart and soul into reviving the company. [/P]

 

[UAL777flyer]

I agree with you. The timing stinks. But something like that will always have bad timing. But of course it's worse right on the heels of employee concessions. But I honestly think it would be worse if you simply allowed your top talent to waltz out the door for greener pastures at the most critical time in the company's history. US doesn't have the luxury of making mistakes at this juncture. The slightest glitch could send the company into Ch.7. The bonus program stinks to high heaven. But I can understand why it's necessary. The same thing happened when AA announced their acquisition of TWA. Many senior TWA mgmt personnel were offered bonuses to stay on until the transition was completed. Had that not happened, key personnel would have left and jeopardized the transition. So it's almost a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Bottom line is it stinks. But I think instead of focusing on the simple aspect of bonuses being given to senior mgmt on the backs of employee concessions, one must take a look at the bigger picture of why those bonuses may be necessary and the ramifications to US Airways if they weren't given.

 

[KCFlyer]

UAL777 - I still maintain that there may well be some diamonds in the rough who's ideas don't make it to the boardroom because that's not what we've done in the past. Perhaps those guys could really shine, given the opportunity of a position made available to an exec who might bite at that headhunters offer. Guess we'll never know. All I know is that managment had better have some sort of labor bonus system in mind, sort of like Bethune at Continental that can show labor some immediate rewards (read that as $) for achieving the goals set by managment.

 

[diogenes]

UAL777

None of U's old guard is worthy of retention. I'd take my chances with darts thrown at a phone book.

And no, I'm not a 'all management is evil' guy. I've worked at a place where I liked and respected many of my superiors, and respected those I disliked, with one or two exceptions. I know the difference in corporate cultures, and U's sucks. Not near enough heads have rolled, and it's looking like the only ones whose are, are the hardworking grunts who have really kept this airline aloft the past decade.

 

[UAL777flyer]

diogenes,

With all due respect to you, the views of front-line employees towards senior management should always be taken with a healthy grain of salt, no matter what airline we're talking about. Just because certain individuals are viewed to be under-performing to some employees, doesn't mean that those individuals aren't held in high regard by the CEO, and even the majority of employees. But it's my opinion that most worker bees at an airline, whether it's ramp, f/a's, mechanics, CSR's, pilots, low level management, etc., are always critical of the job senior management is doing, especially in times like this. I'm not saying that it's not warranted. But I am saying that sometimes, it's unfair criticism.

 

[Bob Owens]

Hogdriver;
Why is it prudent to cut everyone elses pay and give those at the top a bonus? Are you saying that all the skill is at the top? The only people who could possibly try to justify such BS are the ones who are likely to be on the receiving end. No one is irreplaceable, especially greedy executives.

 

[Bob Owens]

Ual777Flyer;
Is it wrong for lower paid employees to expect the same commitment that they have given from higher paid employees?

 

[UAL777flyer]

Bob Owens,

No, of course it's not fair. But as unfortunate as it is to realize, losing several mechanics, or pilots, or f/a's or rampers, etc., is easy to overcome without missing a beat, even in bankruptcy. But if you lose a few key executives while you're attempting to reorganize, it could significantly derail or delay your efforts at a time when you can least afford it. Put aside the emotion and anger for a moment and allow yourself to objectively see why the program was put in place. I'm not saying that they're more deserving than front-line worker bees. What I'm saying is that losing several front line employees happens each and every day through normal attrition. That kind of attrition doesn't happen at the top of the ranks. If it did, your airline's situation would be a whole lot worse.