Dave want's more $$$$

[geo1004]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/23/2002 10:40:47 PM UAL777flyer wrote:


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.
----------------
[/blockquote]


Great post. And accurate too. US can ill-afford to have some key individuals walk at this time.

How long would US last if it cleaned the CCY house and then had a bunch of very competent but brand new executives walking around asking, Where are the restrooms? and Wait, do we fly 737-400's or 737-500's? and Hey, can anyone tell me if the engines on our 757s are PW or RR?...

Time is NOT on US's side.

 

[KCFlyer]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/23/2002 10:40:47 PM UAL777flyer wrote:
[P]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.[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]It doesn't? How many CEO's has UAL had in the past year and a half?[/P]

 

[AOG-N-IT]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/24/2002 8:00:00 AM geo1004 wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/23/2002 10:40:47 PM UAL777flyer wrote:


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.
----------------
[/blockquote]


Great post. And accurate too. US can ill-afford to have some key individuals walk at this time.

How long would US last if it cleaned the CCY house and then had a bunch of very competent but brand new executives walking around asking, "Where are the restrooms?" and "Wait, do we fly 737-400's or 737-500's?" and "Hey, can anyone tell me if the engines on our 757s are PW or RR?"...

Time is NOT on US's side.

----------------
[/blockquote]
Geo, Time is not on our side..but the scenario you pose regarding people asking questions like that...would be a direct indictment on our hiring practices to begin with. Finding a restroom is one thing..but for a potential excecutive to have to ask about our fleet type? Tells me that somebody hired thier buddy...not someone that's ready to help re-shape our shakey little world.

 

[KCFlyer]

[BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/24/2002 8:00:00 AM geo1004 wrote:[BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/23/2002 10:40:47 PM UAL777flyer wrote: [BR][BR][BR]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.[BR]----------------[BR][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR][BR]Great post.  And accurate too.  US can ill-afford to have some key individuals walk at this time.[BR][BR]How long would US last if it cleaned the CCY house and then had a bunch of very competent but brand new executives walking around asking, Where are the restrooms? and Wait, do we fly 737-400's or 737-500's? and Hey, can anyone tell me if the engines on our 757s are PW or RR?...  [BR][BR]Time is NOT on US's side.[BR][BR][BR]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR]geo1004....There are a bunch of teenagers on airliners.net that can not only tell you what kind of aircraft US flies on any given route, they can give you the registration number, whether it's own or leased, then engine suppliers, etc. Any competent executive could be brought up to speed rather quickly on those issues. [BR][BR]But who said anything about cleaning house? All I am saying is why not wait until they actually DO something before rewarding them for staying? Give them a bonus after they show a decrease in losses and don't liquidate the airline? THe executive ranks are the only one I know of who have no skin in the game...previous company got liquidated?? Great job, we'd like to offer you six figures plus a signing bonus to join our company as Vice President in charge of golf ball covers. Utter failure in the executive suite is rewarded, but let just one gate agent get a complaint because he or she wouldn't upgrade a premier passenger and their job is on the line. [BR][BR]I swear, if a pilot is fortunate enough not to be killed in an accident that dents the plane because he misjudged an approach, then he won't be flying again for any airline any time soon. Mechanics have to sign their name on the dotted line stating that the aircraft is airworthy and ready to go...let an accident be traced back to some oversight and his job as an aircraft mechanic is gone. But let an executive run a company into the ground and he's given lucrative offers to join the team at another company. Except in the case of U, you've got a group of employees who are flying right, keeping the aircraft in top shape, and trying their damndest to keep a smile on their faces, and they are asked to give and give. Is it too much to ask the same of managment?

 

[UAL777flyer]

KCFlyer,

I believe we're talking about US Airways, not my dysfunctional company. What do you think would happen to US Airways chances of a successful reorganization if, say, 3-4 of Siegel's top managers left for other offers? It would significantly affect US Airways restructuring attempt. Granted, there are probably some poor US managers still around. But there are also probably some high quality people, especially those Siegel brought in. If they were to jump ship, it would hurt.

 

[diogenes]

UAL777,

I did say U's old guard - not Dave's team. The jury is still out as to whether he's good ol' Dave, or a Wolf in sheep's clothing.

As to the rest, I have had too much interaction up and down my chain of command to come to any other conclusion. When one out and out lies to you, and not just once, and the chain of commands justifies it, that's bu//sh*t, and they've got to go.

 

[repeet]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/24/2002 12:57:32 PM UAL777flyer wrote:

I believe we're talking about US Airways, not my dysfunctional company.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Actually we at US Airways have believed that United was a much more professionally run company than the Keystone Cop operation that we have had to work for.

As for the worth of upper management. We have both seen CEOs, Vice Presidents, COOs, and CFOs come and go. Yet we continue to operate the same equipment, with the same procedures, year after year.

Here's the way us maintenance guys see it.
If everyone who didn't touch the equipment, or interface with the customers, were taken out of the equation; the customers and we (the workers) wouldn't even notice until our paychecks didn't show up at the end of the week.

That's the type of upper management cuts we are expecting.

Having a DEPARTMENT full of analysts to produce a report of chart and graphs, at the expense of not having enough people on the ramp to efficiently turn a flight around, is the type of management and decisions that we would love to see stolen by our competition.

 

[KCFlyer]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/24/2002 12:57:32 PM UAL777flyer wrote:
[P]KCFlyer,[BR][BR]I believe we're talking about US Airways, not my dysfunctional company.  What do you think would happen to US Airways chances of a successful reorganization if, say, 3-4 of Siegel's top managers left for other offers?  It would significantly affect US Airways restructuring attempt.  Granted, there are probably some poor US managers still around.  But there are also probably some high quality people, especially those Siegel brought in.  If they were to jump ship, it would hurt. [/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]Indeed we are. But I was responding to your comment[/P]
[P][blockquote] 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. [/blockquote][/P]
[P] While UAL may not yet be in bankruptcy, they are pretty darn close, and I'd be willing to bet that UAL has seen more attrition at the CEO position than they have in mechanics or pilots positions. At what point in the financially troubled life should the bonus program kick in to retain the high level execs?[/P]

 

[KCFlyer]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][BR]----------------[BR]On 10/24/2002 2:17:57 PM UAL777flyer wrote:[/P]
[P][BR]KCflyer,[BR][BR]Are you honestly trying to tell me that you'd bet there has been more attrition at the UA CEO position than at pilot or mechanic positions over the same time period?  And again, I'm not saying I agree with the bonus program.  I don't.  It stinks and it's lousy timing no matter when you do it.  But I am saying that I can understand why it is done.[/P]
[P]----------------[/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]Short answer - yes, as long as you don't include those furloughed in the attrition numbers. [/P]
[P]Note to administrators...is there any way to get rid of these @!#$%(@#$%& [STRONG] [/STRONG] in quoted posts????[/P]

 

[UAL777flyer]

repeet,

You greatly underestimate the job that analysts do for an airline. If you think the work of a ramp serviceperson is more valuable to an airline than analysts, than you obviously have never been exposed to some of the stuff those analysts do on a daily basis. And you're right, executives come and go. But we're talking about DURING BANKRUPTCY when you have to get approval for all major decisions. Having key senior executives leaving during such a critical time can have serious repurcussions. I'm not talking about in a normal, non-bankrupt environment. If that were the case, Siegel wouldn't be able to justify the bonus program in that context. But US Airways current situation is entirely different from a normal environment.

KCflyer,

Are you honestly trying to tell me that you'd bet there has been more attrition at the UA CEO position than at pilot or mechanic positions over the same time period? And again, I'm not saying I agree with the bonus program. I don't. It stinks and it's lousy timing no matter when you do it. But I am saying that I can understand why it is done.

 

[KCFlyer]

Who's talking about the past 4 years...I'm only talking about the past 18 months...

 

[UAL777flyer]

KCflyer,

We've had 4 CEO's in the last, say, 4 years or so. Do you honestly believe that in that 4 years, we've had less than 4 pilots and/or mechanics leave the company for other than furlough reasons? I can tell you conclusively you're dead wrong, especially in regards to the mechanics. We've had many leave other than for furlough reasons, especially in high cost cities like SFO and New York. UPS recruited away a number of our mechanics from Newark not too long ago. So much so that changes were made to the maintenance requirements built into each schedule.

 

[Bob Owens]

UAL777 flyer says;
That kind of attrition doesn't happen at the top of the ranks and We've had 4 CEO's in the last, say, 4 years or so.

How many CEOs does a company have? One I beleive right? So the turnover rate for CEOS is 400% for the four year period. How many pilots are there? Thousands. Mechanics? Thousands. The turnover rate for those workers, while I cant give a specific number, I would say is condiderably less. Probably single digits. I would say that the the majority of the workforce saw all those CEOS come and go. If the turnover rate was as high for these employees training costs and the inability to operate would have Bankrupted the company prior to the downturn.

 

[UAL777flyer]

I wasn't talking about turnover rate. I was merely referring to number of people leaving. Of course the percentages for one are different from the other.

 

[UAL777flyer]

I'm not so sure companies can easily survive a high turnover rate at the top. Changing CEO's often entails bringing in someone with a different vision for the company and a different strategic direction. In the case of airlines, it can throw things into turmoil pretty easily in the short-term as focus is shifted to other priorities and changes made. However, there is certainly some merit in your comments.

As for demanding bonuses, I'm pretty sure it's more along the lines of Siegel recognizing the possibility of losing some of his key people at a time when US can ill afford it. So therefore, he convinced the court to earmark the bonus money.

Once again, I am not saying I agree with this type of program. In fact, I'm against it. It stinks and it sends the wrong message. But considering the circumstances under which the program was instituted, I can understand why Siegel felt it was necessary. You can bet your pal Carty would do the exact same thing if AA were ever in such a situation.