Don''t go breakin'' my heart & U''s MEC

[x300Udriver]

Roy Freundlich, a U MEC spokesman''s, comments that we are angered by the company''s shifting of the funding that was supposed to go into our plan being transferred into the plans of other employees, is breakin'' my heart. If you''re a little miffed, Roy, try polling the thousands of U employees, like myself, who were put on the street.
Dave''s proposal to change from the old defined-benefits plan to a new defined contribution plan to keep the ship afloat sounds like a great idea to me. Senior pilots who have set some of their bloated salaries aside will weather the storm. Junior pilots will benefit in the long run when the storm passes and the economy recovers.
I can''t help but liken the current situation to an inflight emergency. The mark of true leadership is how one acts in the face of true adversity. Pilots get out front and lead, like the Eagles who have gone before you. Lead with your brains, and not with your pocketbook.
p.s. To those on the MEC who still need a little more comfort. Despite my 16,000 plus hours and years of U service, my new retirement check is well below PBGC minimums. I''m making it. Don''t worry you will too. You won''t miss any meals.

 

[PSA1979]

x300UDriver great post. You seem to see the truth in all this.
My Father retired as a U pilot in 1989 and he only gets $5000.00 per month. To me that seems like a fantastic retirement.
I took my salary in 1989 and his salary in 1989 and compared that to a f/a's salary in 2002 and a pilot's in 2002. Top pay for both and according to the rate the pilot's salary escalated in that 13 year period. To keep the same percentages, I should have been making $12,000.00 per month prior to the cuts. Well, we all know I could have never grossed that amount.
I think the good times are gone, and now reality must sink in. We have been over paid for years. The business travellers are just not willing to subsidise the airline industry. If it was just W/G who did this, then why are all the Big carriers in serious trouble also. Why are the lean low cost carriers making money?

 

[PITbull]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/31/2003 8:42:17 AM PSA1979 wrote:

x300UDriver great post. You seem to see the truth in all this.
My Father retired as a U pilot in 1989 and he only gets $5000.00 per month. To me that seems like a fantastic retirement.
I took my salary in 1989 and his salary in 1989 and compared that to a f/a's salary in 2002 and a pilot's in 2002. Top pay for both and according to the rate the pilot's salary escalated in that 13 year period. To keep the same percentages, I should have been making $12,000.00 per month prior to the cuts. Well, we all know I could have never grossed that amount.
I think the good times are gone, and now reality must sink in. We have been over paid for years. The business travellers are just not willing to subsidise the airline industry. If it was just W/G who did this, then why are all the Big carriers in serious trouble also. Why are the lean low cost carriers making money?
----------------
[/blockquote]

The carrier who is making money that is comparable to the major 6 is SouthWest and they are not a "low cost carrier" quite the contrary, they are a "low fare carrier". Just want to set that record straight. And SouthWest has quite a different business model than the big 6.
They also have quite a different mangement team that treats ALL employees with respect with an understanding of the "human condition/element". They are "employee incentive" oriented; one fleet type, no frills, get what you pay for; and consistent product producer. That is one of the primary reasons they make money and are successful in the softest economic times.

The reason the other carriers are now wanting bankruptcy attorneys and screaming lower costs for labor, is because they can no longer compete with U or UAL. Once we emerge from bankruptcy we will be able to compete against even the "Jet Blues"....like a lemonade stands in front of the Coca Cola Company, and Coke being able to compete against the most lowly of low carriers. (Thanks to labor).

You have to ponder how much is economy and how much is basic, raw comptetition threat with these other big carriers. How come they didn't think of bankruptcy and getting a "fresh start" before U? How come they didn't apply for an ATSB loan...are people under a conception that these huge carriers didn't see the economy softening, and threat of war? Why would they wait to be behind the 8 ball? They saw this U pull this off, and they want to be in that action.

U pulled off the biggest "diabolical Hiest" first, they saw it work, and now all the other majors are going to copy exact...they have no choice.

 

[Braveheart]

[/blockquote]
Pittbull, excellently written and explained.


x300Udriver [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/6.gif']

I'd be willing to betcha that you be a management person and was never put on the street. You probably don't even know what street life is.

Leading with your brains and forgetting about your pocketbook (which by the way is part of your lower extremities) would leave your body nude.

Walking around nude will lead you to an arrest for indecent exposure. So leading with one and forgetting about the other just put you in jail and cost you a lot of money and embarrassment.

You think Dave would miss any meals living below PBGC minimums? You betcha bottom dollar, Whoops, if you have a dollar to spare before your next pension check.

Braveheart

 

[x300Udriver]

>I'd be willing to betcha that you be a management person and was never put on the street. You probably don't even know what street life is.

From: x300UDriver: I guess I should feel flattered that you think I'm management. Actually, since my furlough/retirement, I'm Mr. Lawn & Garden at your local "Home Improvement Warehouse". The last year has gotten me in great shape emptying thousands of boxes from 18 wheelers. Blood pressure has never been lower.



Braveheart- I'm not to sure what this "Walking around nude" stuff is all about but I'm sure it's not something several years of therapy can't straighten out.

 

[nycbusdriver]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/31/2003 8:42:17 AM PSA1979 wrote:

I think the good times are gone, and now reality must sink in. We have been over paid for years. The business travellers are just not willing to subsidise the airline industry. If it was just W/G who did this, then why are all the Big carriers in serious trouble also. Why are the lean low cost carriers making money?
----------------
[/blockquote]


PSA -

I must take exception to some of what you say. Yes, the good times are indeed gone, but we have not been overpaid for years. We were paid what the market would allow and at a scale consistent with other carriers. The market will no longer allow it. It's just that simple.

 

[PITbull]

And I must agree with NYdriver. We were paid comparable to the other carriers; not more or less, and economic times warranted good negotiations. Folks should never think that the work they do is considered "over payment", no one is that generous. You should believe you earned your pay. You must have, you sound like a very loyal, dedicated employee for U.

 

[x300Udriver]

Okay, gang, I'll try once to get this thread back on track. I didn't say workers, like myself while at U, were overpaid, I said the salaries were and given the current economic environment are "bloated". To me, whether you "earn" your pay or not, is a matter of attitude. I sling my boxes at the warehouse all day, the best I can, and I come home satisfied that I "earned" my pay. But,let's get real, salaries industry-wide amongst the major carriers are "bloated".

This message is intended wherever leadership is found - VP's, senior pilots, senior mechanics or a senior agents. Tough times call for tough measures. Take the pension cuts and more, if that's what it takes to get the guarantee. But hope, hope, hoping you can make the touchhdown run looking like the Pillsbury doughboy hasn't won a game yet.

 

[Braveheart]

x300Udriver wrote:

Braveheart- I'm not to sure what this "Walking around nude" stuff is all about but I'm sure it's not something several years of therapy can't straighten out.

Therapy! What does therapy got to do with your head in one direction and no pants on because you ain't gots no pockets? I thought all body functions worked together in unison when needed!

Ok, I'll take the therapy if we stop avoiding the real world question? Do you think the Seigel dude would accept living on your salary and below PBGC pension benefits? Ya think he would work for $100,000 a year instead of $600,000? Will he take the same insurance benefits all the other empoyee's have?

What makes him more special than any employee? Because he got an edu-maaa-cation at a big time college? He puts his pants on the same way everyone else does!

He goes to work everyday just like every employee does. he DOES NOT risk his life everyday like the pilots, flight attendants, baggage handlers, ticket agents and the rest of the working staff does, but who cares, he still an employee just like everyone else.

Honestly, I give the man credit. As employees remain afraid of job lose and pension lose, he climbs the ladder. Allowing the $$$$$$ sign to keep going cha-ching, cha-ching, cha-ching so he can negotiate a multi-million dollar salary with another corporation after he disolves all union and lower management positions once he completes his task.

I think that's called psychological advantage 101. Lose job, lose home. Lose job, lose pension. My goodness what shall I do?

Did you ever wonder why the Wolfe dude is still on the board behind closed doors and closed mouth?

 

[Braveheart]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/31/2003 8:38:11 PM x300Udriver wrote:

Okay, gang, I'll try once to get this thread back on track. I didn't say workers, like myself while at U, were overpaid, I said the salaries were and given the current economic environment are "bloated". To me, whether you "earn" your pay or not, is a matter of attitude. I sling my boxes at the warehouse all day, the best I can, and I come home satisfied that I "earned" my pay. But,let's get real, salaries industry-wide amongst the major carriers are "bloated".

This message is intended wherever leadership is found - VP's, senior pilots, senior mechanics or a senior agents. Tough times call for tough measures. Take the pension cuts and more, if that's what it takes to get the guarantee. But hope, hope, hoping you can make the touchhdown run looking like the Pillsbury doughboy hasn't won a game yet.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Hmm, bloated salaries, what happen to the "P"? Are you saying his salary is not bloated? You mentioned everyone else? I smell a rat in the wood pile here! How come you ain't asking the "P" to do the same?

Just axing a simple question!!!

BRAVEHEART -

 

[x300Udriver]

Braveheart - Your question of "what happened to the P" is a valid one. I've pondered that one myself and don't have a quick answer. I guess I figure that most P's cut their teeth on the same playbook that says, "Under no circumstances when you reach the plush office will you initiate a serious paycut to yourself-you'll make the rest of us look bad". I never really bought into the "just call me Dave" line - he answers to his own conscience and shareholders. Below "P", however, are lines of leadership which I can understand. Though not in their ranks, I feel it's those movers and shakers, the one's that I mentioned, that will really make or break U. Their willingness to lead, take the tough cuts, and more, may be U's only chance.

 

[Braveheart]

x300Udriver:

Your point is well taken. Seigel is by far not a leader. He is a puppet to a man behind the scenes. The others, all 32 VP's are not willingly going to go into Seigel’s office and say "Hey give me a pay cut".

I myself have a hard time seeing employees suffer while the VP's and Seigel continue to demand but not produce. If he wants to be a leader and truly save the company, he should have been the very “FIRSTâ€￾ to demonstrate himself as a prime example so his troops would follow.

If he wants to be a dictator, he should join an airline industry in China. When Reagan terminated all those Air Traffic Controllers, every UNION in this Country should have walked off the job until he reinstated all those people. Ever since that fateful day, Union’s continue to be destroyed and remain separated. These International Representatives need to get their act together and stop being pansies.

It appears the motto has been: If it does not affect me, don’t bother me. If it affects me, please help me.

 

[speedlever]

All this chatter over pay reminds me of a story I heard the other day about a comment a reporter made while out to cover the Super Bowl. I wish I could remember the story better.. but here's the gist of it.

He was in a bar and observed some clean cut folks quietly enjoying the night. The reporter struck up a conversation, and during the course of it, someone brought up how players of a ballgame were fussing over making just $6 MM/yr vs the $7 or $8 MM they should be making.

These clean cut folks turned out to be young military shipping out the next day to parts unknown, and literally risking their lives for... $14k/year.

Kinda puts a different perspective on things, doesn't it?

 

[MrAeroMan]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/2/2003 1:30:29 AM Braveheart wrote:

x300Udriver:

Your point is well taken. Seigel is by far not a leader. He is a puppet to a man behind the scenes. The others, all 32 VP's are not willingly going to go into Seigel’s office and say "Hey give me a pay cut".

I myself have a hard time seeing employees suffer while the VP's and Seigel continue to demand but not produce. If he wants to be a leader and truly save the company, he should have been the very “FIRST” to demonstrate himself as a prime example so his troops would follow.

If he wants to be a dictator, he should join an airline industry in China. When Reagan terminated all those Air Traffic Controllers, every UNION in this Country should have walked off the job until he reinstated all those people. Ever since that fateful day, Union’s continue to be destroyed and remain separated. These International Representatives need to get their act together and stop being pansies.

It appears the motto has been: If it does not affect me, don’t bother me. If it affects me, please help me.


BRAVEHEART [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/11.gif']
----------------
[/blockquote]
How can you say Seigel has not produced? Look what he's accomplished! He took an entity with one foot in the grave and one on a banana peel on a slippery slope and has it one step away from the most solid footing it's had in years. His perfomance has been masterful. I've noticed how you attack Dave on everything from his salary to his healthcare to his education. Sounds a lot like envy to me. Why should Dave accept a salary of $100,000 from his reported $600,000 salary when no one else has taken such a large percentage cut? Did you forget he gave up a $750,000 bonus he had qualified for? Dave's education from that big time college you say qualifies him for the position he has. His position comes with bennies and a large salary. While he doesn't risk his life each day does that mean he should accept less pay? What about a pro athlete? Does slamming a basketball, hitting a fastball or throwing a touchdown pass risk ones life? They command the salaries they do because that's what the market sets as a salary they can pull in. Pilots were in the same situation for many years and now the market has shifted. Business people no longer are willing to pay inflated fares to subsidize leisure travel. It's a fundamental shift that the carriers have to deal with if they want to stay competitive.

 

[ClueByFour]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/31/2003 7:35:01 PM nycbusdriver wrote:

I must take exception to some of what you say. Yes, the good times are indeed gone, but we have not been overpaid for years. We were paid what the market would allow and at a scale consistent with other carriers. The market will no longer allow it. It's just that simple.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Wrong. You were paid in accordance with what your union could extract from the company under the skewed playing field provided by the RLA. Don't confuse it with market economics--it's not even close.