28yearsnojob
Advanced
- Jan 2, 2004
- 203
- 0
GET READY FOR SOME BIG ANOUNCEMENTS . he will not default on loan
Daves Message For The Week
- Thread starter 28yearsnojob
- Start date
OP
28yearsnojob
Advanced
- Jan 2, 2004
- 203
- 0
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #2
Dave do what you have to do to save this company,there are alot of retiredfolks counting on you.If you have cut wages and create more work rules do it.
If you have to MDA all small cities to keep this company intact do it. You have the workforce to do this . Those that want to leave let them.90% or better will stay
because they like working for a airline rather than a factory.A small % of the cryers will leave .This way the ones who are layed off if they chose can come back and work because they want to. In most cases if MDA and PSA are successfull
it will be cheaper to call back layed off ramp and customer service than to be
contracting out.DAVE DO WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO.
repeet
Veteran
28yearsnojob
I get it. Silly me thinking only about myself. I agree we ALL must give to save our airlinine. So:
Dave, please force all of the unions to open their contracts and agree to concessions. Let's start in an area so far untouched. Please rewrite the contracts so that those who are already retired will have their pension and benefits reduced 50%. After all, they are no longer productive, and just a vestigial burden. Also, I'm sure that they will agree to pick-up the entirety of their medical coverage costs. (Come on guys, do it for Dave! )
I agree 28yearSNOB, until all of us give, until we hurt, this company may not survive.
As for those of us who are on property. We have already given to the point that we cannot forgive ourselves. Let the cheerleading retirees like 28year-sno-job give.
As for the rest of us:
I get it. Silly me thinking only about myself. I agree we ALL must give to save our airlinine. So:
Dave, please force all of the unions to open their contracts and agree to concessions. Let's start in an area so far untouched. Please rewrite the contracts so that those who are already retired will have their pension and benefits reduced 50%. After all, they are no longer productive, and just a vestigial burden. Also, I'm sure that they will agree to pick-up the entirety of their medical coverage costs. (Come on guys, do it for Dave! )
I agree 28yearSNOB, until all of us give, until we hurt, this company may not survive.
As for those of us who are on property. We have already given to the point that we cannot forgive ourselves. Let the cheerleading retirees like 28year-sno-job give.
As for the rest of us:
OP
28yearsnojob
Advanced
- Jan 2, 2004
- 203
- 0
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #7
repeet its either give or --------no job
repeet
Veteran
So be it!
Oh Boy....Another threat by Dave!!!!!! Maybe it is all about the "big picture" many of us have heard about by nobody has ever seen. I guess he has never heard the phrase "respect must be earned". And from what I see he has no respect!!! And for all you dreamer's who believe Dave when he says he will take care of you when you give.......I remember him giving the same speech when there were 50000 employee's now we are down to 28000. Maybe next time around when he is giving the speech to the 14000 who are STILL left maybe then you will see the true "Big Picture".
robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
for those of us employees still working in an Expressed Mainline Station such as myself, what more could we give? We're down to 13.01 an hr after 12 yrs of service and doing a heck of alot more work than most other carriers.
T
Traveler
Guest
Like a snake charmers effect, Management has a knack for directing your focus. Profits, Profits, Profits. It’s a word. You know.... Efficiency, Efficiency, Efficiency is also a word. If you have a Corporate Model that capitalizes on that word – Profits will take care of itself. If “profitable†is necessary to meet the constraints of the ATSB Loan Guarantee. Sure – you can do that. You can throw enough concession money at the word “profitable†and make it happen. And thus, you’ll all get to keep your jobs. And Management gets a year end bonus along with a pat on the back. It was “Necessary†and the employees agreed. Isn’t life swell. But...
ALPA is conducting a review of Management's claim for necessary concessions. How is ALPA and Pollock handling this review? Is it merely a review of the “books†or a review of Management, Strategies and Business Models.
Is ALPA just counting the beans or conducting an analysis? If they’re just counting the beans, then you might save them some time. No, there aren’t enough. So does that establish the foundation for negotiations? Is ALPA focused on the number of beans or is ALPA asking if perhaps the beans have been left to rot in storage.
That’s not how I define “Reviewâ€. I define “Review†as Hiring an outside Auditor working under the strictest confidentiality. An Independent Auditor selected by agreement between the Unified Employee Labor Groups and the Company to review and appraise the Airline Operations. Not Contracts, mind you – Operations. To objectively assess, with a acceptable degree of error, the efficiencies or inefficiencies of the Airline. The question is, How much money could have and should have and should be saved each day with current assets and current staffing and current contracts. Minimum target - $1Million a day.
“Profitable†should never be a convincing argument for us to throw more money at a problem. “Efficient Utilization†is the key. “Efficiency†translates to “profitsâ€. It works along the same lines as a parallel analogy that Richard Branson (of Virgin Airlines) uses. In an interview he stated, “My priorities at all of my companies are my employees first, my customer second and my Stockholders are a distant third. I never worry about the stockholder because if I take good care of those first two, they'll take care of the third for me.â€
An objective analysis is needed to determine if the company has given the Employees the necessary tools to work smart. If the Business Model and Operational Structure are efficiently maximized then the profits will be no concern. Like Branson’s analogy – One thing automatically takes care of the other with the right focus.
If impartial evidence reveals that the Company has made it’s best effort at Operational efficiency and stopping a One Million Dollar a day loss would evade the brightest Airline Executive, then it’s either go out of Business or offer temporary relief.
That’s the “realityâ€, a word which Management likes to throw at Employees. The employees have thrown Billions of Dollars at the problem. Now the employees are putting the spotlight on management. How efficiently have you used the tools given to you by the employees. An objective analysis will put the spotlight where it belongs. If it in fact lands on the employee, then so be it. If an objective analysis determines that the company has efficiently maximized Airline Operations through use of contractual agreements it obtained in Bankruptcy, then there is no Alternative.
If there is no Alternative, as determined by unbiased analysis, then it would be foolish to just wither and die. It would be foolish to put yourselves out of work for spite of Management. I’m not sure, but I believe the sentiment was that Employees would be willing to sacrifice if this Management team could be replaced by someone the employees could truly respect and trust.
Time is short, so without trust in this Management a compromise is needed. Short of getting new Executive Leadership, this idea of getting a second opinion from an outside audit/consulting firm, I think, is the only “bridge of trust†between this Management Team and the Employees. And such services are out there, you know. These firms have the software, models and trained personnel to conduct a rapid analysis.
Remember, Management has rarely shut down an Airline blaming themselves for ineptness. When an organization suffers from Mismanagement, it’s a normal convention to blame labor. Management cannot tolerate a spotlight on their deeds. But it’s imperative for the Employees to move the spotlight from themselves to Management not just to restrain convenient exploitation by Management but to allow the employees a satisfaction of truth in making the toughest decisions as reality presents itself.
What, you say!!! Don’t you know Management will merely affirm that the inefficiencies of the numbers and the workrules Employees operate under are the proof in any analysis? “Yes!!!, Damn you, don’t you see!!!â€, Management screams in jubilation. “If we get rid of half the employees and farm out the other half of the work to outside contractors, we would be profitable.â€
Sure. Why don’t you use only one/forth the employees doing all the work. Look at the economics. Certainly you could be profitable. You’ll have people working round the clock with bunks in their offices and break rooms. Maybe if you could get everyone down to a vegetable state, morale would improve from dreadful to an Orwellian state of dull obedience.
Nope. The IAM has put a foot jamb in the door to their Contract and the Company has hurt themselves banging into it. This opportunistic Executive team has also gotten themselves embarrassingly stuck in the crawl spaces of the AFA’s contractual agreements. ALPA has also successfully stopped the Company’s contractual battering ram with it’s bloodied face.
You’re not trying to determine if this Airline could generate a profit by dissolving every contract, firing every person on the property and raiding the talent of SouthWest’s and JetBlue’s employees, Assets and Routes - Siegel satisfyingly making them his own.
No... Be it clearly understood... The employees want to know, given the current agreed-upon Staffing, Contractual Provision and Billion Dollar Concessions; Are we maximizing efficiencies of people, assets and markets? Has there been an appreciable improvement in Executive innovative operational strategies since Bankruptcy? Has the Company efficiently and expeditiously implemented it’s Business Plan? Has the Company aggressively adapted it’s business Model to compete with the LCCs? Could the Company recover One Million Dollars a day within the constraints of the Contracts it signed and agreed to by improving efficiencies? Could the Company go well beyond that Dollar breakeven point with growth and even greater employee and asset efficiencies?
You’ll not get believable answers from this Executive Team – Even if they are the truth. So there’s the quandary. Reasonable people will not destroy their own lives. But Management has no credibility with its People. The gulf between the two is a lack of trust. If Union Leadership and Management can’t find the Bridge, then everyone loses. Ideally, Mistrustful Management should be replaced, but a second opinion (Consulting Auditor) is an acceptable runner-up.
If an analysis reveals that current assets, staffing and contractual agreements allow for greater operational efficiency which would improve the financial figures... but, are not enough to sustain profitability in the past, present or future – Then concessions are necessary. If Management has done a sensible job of leading as best they could over the past year since Bankruptcy, then the employees need not trust management, but reasonably trust the analysis. However with the unfortunate requirement for additional sacrifice, Executives should lead by example -- “Everything is on the tableâ€, therefore everything should be negotiated.
If an analysis reveals that the strengths of Markets, current assets, staffing and contractual agreements have been misspent, wasted and squandered by management over the past year, then three things should occur.
1) Management should be accountable. Management should take a concessionary total compensation and benefit penalty, as they would have you do.
2) An analysis of Management’s organizational structure should take place with emphasis on Personnel Performance reviews along with recommendations for modifications or replacement.
3) A determination should be made as to whether profits are achievable, going forward, given current Markets, assets, staffing and contractual agreements.
If an objective Analysis reveals that Profits are not achievable, going forward, given current Staffing and Contractual Agreements because of a series of Managerial Missteps since emerging from Bankruptcy. Then, two thing should occur.
1) The employees should do only what’s temporarily, absolutely necessary, considering third party, objective analysis, to insure the survival of USAirways.
2) The employees should demand, as a part of this agreement, that Senior Executives validate their loyalty to this Airline and to it’s employees. Senior Executives, calling for additional concessions because of Managerial missteps in capitalizing on the tremendous sacrifices of Employees; should themselves accept no compensation of any kind until the Airline achieves Four consecutive quarters of Profitability. Those who choose not to validate their loyalty and commitment will have the option of resigning. “Everything’s on the Tableâ€.
The only way to bridge the gulf of mistrust between Management and the Employees is by a mutually agreed upon crisis analysis done by a third party review. In establishing a bridge of trust between Management and the Employees, Management must sacrifice until it hurts. If Management prefers not to place “everything on the tableâ€, then they can either; Attempt to explain to the Public why negotiations have failed because of an Executive unwillingness to meet the acid test of Loyalty and Dedication to the Employees and to the Company. Or, the Executive Leadership can just – leave.
1) The CEO, in the spirit of a new age of commitment, loyalty and dedication to the Airline, It’s Customers and It’s Employees, will lead by example. The CEO’s total compensation will consist of $1.00 per year until the airline reaches a goal of 4 consecutive quarterly profits. All Senior Executives will immediately accept a 30% reduction in total compensation. Thereafter, no Senior Executive will receive total compensation increases greater in percentage than those agreed upon by those amendable agreements with labor.
2) The CEO will place 50% of his total Equity stake of USAirways stock in a separate trust for the duration of new contract agreements. Other Chief Executives will also submit to the same formula of economic sacrifice. In addition, 50% of all future Executive distributions will be divided accordingly. This trust will be used to supplement and extend furlough compensation to any and all additional layoffs the company sees as necessary as a direct result of new Corporate initiatives. Should no additional furloughs be necessary, as deemed by Corporate Leadership, then these shares will be restored to Executive accounts upon the satisfaction of obligations of Federal Loan Guarantees according to the company’s POR.
3) The Corporation will rationalize headquarters requirements – location and space, more appropriate to the scale and economic downsizing of the Airline. CCY headquarters will move and consolidate to, less expensive existing offices, at one of USAirways’ main or secondary hubs.
4) If Senior Corporate Executives elect to sever relations with USAirways because of loyalties driven only by Economics of personal gain, then Employee Representation on the BOD will have the final say on the recruitment, selection and worthy compensation for new, more dedicated, more talented, more loyal – Executive leadership.
ALPA is conducting a review of Management's claim for necessary concessions. How is ALPA and Pollock handling this review? Is it merely a review of the “books†or a review of Management, Strategies and Business Models.
Is ALPA just counting the beans or conducting an analysis? If they’re just counting the beans, then you might save them some time. No, there aren’t enough. So does that establish the foundation for negotiations? Is ALPA focused on the number of beans or is ALPA asking if perhaps the beans have been left to rot in storage.
That’s not how I define “Reviewâ€. I define “Review†as Hiring an outside Auditor working under the strictest confidentiality. An Independent Auditor selected by agreement between the Unified Employee Labor Groups and the Company to review and appraise the Airline Operations. Not Contracts, mind you – Operations. To objectively assess, with a acceptable degree of error, the efficiencies or inefficiencies of the Airline. The question is, How much money could have and should have and should be saved each day with current assets and current staffing and current contracts. Minimum target - $1Million a day.
“Profitable†should never be a convincing argument for us to throw more money at a problem. “Efficient Utilization†is the key. “Efficiency†translates to “profitsâ€. It works along the same lines as a parallel analogy that Richard Branson (of Virgin Airlines) uses. In an interview he stated, “My priorities at all of my companies are my employees first, my customer second and my Stockholders are a distant third. I never worry about the stockholder because if I take good care of those first two, they'll take care of the third for me.â€
An objective analysis is needed to determine if the company has given the Employees the necessary tools to work smart. If the Business Model and Operational Structure are efficiently maximized then the profits will be no concern. Like Branson’s analogy – One thing automatically takes care of the other with the right focus.
If impartial evidence reveals that the Company has made it’s best effort at Operational efficiency and stopping a One Million Dollar a day loss would evade the brightest Airline Executive, then it’s either go out of Business or offer temporary relief.
That’s the “realityâ€, a word which Management likes to throw at Employees. The employees have thrown Billions of Dollars at the problem. Now the employees are putting the spotlight on management. How efficiently have you used the tools given to you by the employees. An objective analysis will put the spotlight where it belongs. If it in fact lands on the employee, then so be it. If an objective analysis determines that the company has efficiently maximized Airline Operations through use of contractual agreements it obtained in Bankruptcy, then there is no Alternative.
If there is no Alternative, as determined by unbiased analysis, then it would be foolish to just wither and die. It would be foolish to put yourselves out of work for spite of Management. I’m not sure, but I believe the sentiment was that Employees would be willing to sacrifice if this Management team could be replaced by someone the employees could truly respect and trust.
Time is short, so without trust in this Management a compromise is needed. Short of getting new Executive Leadership, this idea of getting a second opinion from an outside audit/consulting firm, I think, is the only “bridge of trust†between this Management Team and the Employees. And such services are out there, you know. These firms have the software, models and trained personnel to conduct a rapid analysis.
Remember, Management has rarely shut down an Airline blaming themselves for ineptness. When an organization suffers from Mismanagement, it’s a normal convention to blame labor. Management cannot tolerate a spotlight on their deeds. But it’s imperative for the Employees to move the spotlight from themselves to Management not just to restrain convenient exploitation by Management but to allow the employees a satisfaction of truth in making the toughest decisions as reality presents itself.
What, you say!!! Don’t you know Management will merely affirm that the inefficiencies of the numbers and the workrules Employees operate under are the proof in any analysis? “Yes!!!, Damn you, don’t you see!!!â€, Management screams in jubilation. “If we get rid of half the employees and farm out the other half of the work to outside contractors, we would be profitable.â€
Sure. Why don’t you use only one/forth the employees doing all the work. Look at the economics. Certainly you could be profitable. You’ll have people working round the clock with bunks in their offices and break rooms. Maybe if you could get everyone down to a vegetable state, morale would improve from dreadful to an Orwellian state of dull obedience.
Nope. The IAM has put a foot jamb in the door to their Contract and the Company has hurt themselves banging into it. This opportunistic Executive team has also gotten themselves embarrassingly stuck in the crawl spaces of the AFA’s contractual agreements. ALPA has also successfully stopped the Company’s contractual battering ram with it’s bloodied face.
You’re not trying to determine if this Airline could generate a profit by dissolving every contract, firing every person on the property and raiding the talent of SouthWest’s and JetBlue’s employees, Assets and Routes - Siegel satisfyingly making them his own.
No... Be it clearly understood... The employees want to know, given the current agreed-upon Staffing, Contractual Provision and Billion Dollar Concessions; Are we maximizing efficiencies of people, assets and markets? Has there been an appreciable improvement in Executive innovative operational strategies since Bankruptcy? Has the Company efficiently and expeditiously implemented it’s Business Plan? Has the Company aggressively adapted it’s business Model to compete with the LCCs? Could the Company recover One Million Dollars a day within the constraints of the Contracts it signed and agreed to by improving efficiencies? Could the Company go well beyond that Dollar breakeven point with growth and even greater employee and asset efficiencies?
You’ll not get believable answers from this Executive Team – Even if they are the truth. So there’s the quandary. Reasonable people will not destroy their own lives. But Management has no credibility with its People. The gulf between the two is a lack of trust. If Union Leadership and Management can’t find the Bridge, then everyone loses. Ideally, Mistrustful Management should be replaced, but a second opinion (Consulting Auditor) is an acceptable runner-up.
If an analysis reveals that current assets, staffing and contractual agreements allow for greater operational efficiency which would improve the financial figures... but, are not enough to sustain profitability in the past, present or future – Then concessions are necessary. If Management has done a sensible job of leading as best they could over the past year since Bankruptcy, then the employees need not trust management, but reasonably trust the analysis. However with the unfortunate requirement for additional sacrifice, Executives should lead by example -- “Everything is on the tableâ€, therefore everything should be negotiated.
If an analysis reveals that the strengths of Markets, current assets, staffing and contractual agreements have been misspent, wasted and squandered by management over the past year, then three things should occur.
1) Management should be accountable. Management should take a concessionary total compensation and benefit penalty, as they would have you do.
2) An analysis of Management’s organizational structure should take place with emphasis on Personnel Performance reviews along with recommendations for modifications or replacement.
3) A determination should be made as to whether profits are achievable, going forward, given current Markets, assets, staffing and contractual agreements.
If an objective Analysis reveals that Profits are not achievable, going forward, given current Staffing and Contractual Agreements because of a series of Managerial Missteps since emerging from Bankruptcy. Then, two thing should occur.
1) The employees should do only what’s temporarily, absolutely necessary, considering third party, objective analysis, to insure the survival of USAirways.
2) The employees should demand, as a part of this agreement, that Senior Executives validate their loyalty to this Airline and to it’s employees. Senior Executives, calling for additional concessions because of Managerial missteps in capitalizing on the tremendous sacrifices of Employees; should themselves accept no compensation of any kind until the Airline achieves Four consecutive quarters of Profitability. Those who choose not to validate their loyalty and commitment will have the option of resigning. “Everything’s on the Tableâ€.
The only way to bridge the gulf of mistrust between Management and the Employees is by a mutually agreed upon crisis analysis done by a third party review. In establishing a bridge of trust between Management and the Employees, Management must sacrifice until it hurts. If Management prefers not to place “everything on the tableâ€, then they can either; Attempt to explain to the Public why negotiations have failed because of an Executive unwillingness to meet the acid test of Loyalty and Dedication to the Employees and to the Company. Or, the Executive Leadership can just – leave.
1) The CEO, in the spirit of a new age of commitment, loyalty and dedication to the Airline, It’s Customers and It’s Employees, will lead by example. The CEO’s total compensation will consist of $1.00 per year until the airline reaches a goal of 4 consecutive quarterly profits. All Senior Executives will immediately accept a 30% reduction in total compensation. Thereafter, no Senior Executive will receive total compensation increases greater in percentage than those agreed upon by those amendable agreements with labor.
2) The CEO will place 50% of his total Equity stake of USAirways stock in a separate trust for the duration of new contract agreements. Other Chief Executives will also submit to the same formula of economic sacrifice. In addition, 50% of all future Executive distributions will be divided accordingly. This trust will be used to supplement and extend furlough compensation to any and all additional layoffs the company sees as necessary as a direct result of new Corporate initiatives. Should no additional furloughs be necessary, as deemed by Corporate Leadership, then these shares will be restored to Executive accounts upon the satisfaction of obligations of Federal Loan Guarantees according to the company’s POR.
3) The Corporation will rationalize headquarters requirements – location and space, more appropriate to the scale and economic downsizing of the Airline. CCY headquarters will move and consolidate to, less expensive existing offices, at one of USAirways’ main or secondary hubs.
4) If Senior Corporate Executives elect to sever relations with USAirways because of loyalties driven only by Economics of personal gain, then Employee Representation on the BOD will have the final say on the recruitment, selection and worthy compensation for new, more dedicated, more talented, more loyal – Executive leadership.
repeet
Veteran
Traveler,
Excellent!!!
Labor Coalition, nominate your choice for Auditor.
Until such a review is accomplished:
Excellent!!!
Labor Coalition, nominate your choice for Auditor.
Until such a review is accomplished:
This team will never accept such terms as you put forth here.Traveler said:
Why should they when they can sell us out and run with their cash in hand.
What incentive is in it for them, the risks are too high the rewards to low when other options are right in front of them and immediate.
The whole airline is on the auction block for that very reason.
They sell us out meeting the required obligations, they don’t get hurt and possibly make themselves a few bucks, all without the risks or headaches of a senseless gamble dealing with the nightmares they created.
Good idea, but this one won’t fly.
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
Traveler,
Once again...you are the "man"!
I promise you that THE NUMBER #1 ISSUE WILL BE MANGEMENT CONCESSIONS that will be precedent setting in this industry. If all criteria is met, and the members of the respective unions decide that their leadership should go to any type of negotiating table, the VERY FIRST issue before any talks on any level can commence will be management concessions, with your ideas brought forward.
They will need to have their commitments it in writing and we as labor will have to agree that it is fair.
You all can take that to the bank...
Management needs to get their personal finances in order so that they may "weather the financial-sacrifice storm" that has to occur from themselves. If they can not, they need to find other employment.
Here's looking at YOU, management!
h34r: We are comin at ya!
Once again...you are the "man"!
I promise you that THE NUMBER #1 ISSUE WILL BE MANGEMENT CONCESSIONS that will be precedent setting in this industry. If all criteria is met, and the members of the respective unions decide that their leadership should go to any type of negotiating table, the VERY FIRST issue before any talks on any level can commence will be management concessions, with your ideas brought forward.
They will need to have their commitments it in writing and we as labor will have to agree that it is fair.
You all can take that to the bank...
Management needs to get their personal finances in order so that they may "weather the financial-sacrifice storm" that has to occur from themselves. If they can not, they need to find other employment.
Here's looking at YOU, management!
h34r: We are comin at ya! RowUnderDCA
Veteran
- Oct 6, 2002
- 2,123
- 1
Are you going to have a provision that prevents 'management' from quitting and taking a better, easier, less annoying job elsewhere?PITbull said:Traveler,
Once again...you are the "man"!
I promise you that THE NUMBER #1 ISSUE WILL BE MANGEMENT CONCESSIONS that will be precedent setting in this industry. If all criteria is met, and the members of the respective unions decide that their leadership should go to any type of negotiating table, the VERY FIRST issue before any talks on any level can commence will be management concessions, with your ideas brought forward.
They will need to have their commitments it in writing and we as labor will have to agree that it is fair.
You all can take that to the bank...
Management needs to get their personal finances in order so that they may "weather the financial-sacrifice storm" that has to occur from themselves. If they can not, they need to find other employment.
Here's looking at YOU, management!
