Dueling rumors

Thomas:

There is no employee more than myself who is pragmatic and attempts to understand the macroeconomics of US and the industry than me, but the company must honor its agreements -- just like people must pay their mortgage or car payments.

In ALPA''s opinion, this is not occuring with the company and its pilots. Management has asked for significant contractual relief again and if the company would agree to honor all parts of the contract, they might get support in other areas, but not until ALPA''s concerns are met.

On June 26, US Airways pilots spokesman Roy Freundlich said, "Senior VP, Corporate Development Bruce Ashby; Director, Labor Relations—Flight Tony Bralich; and Captain Paul Morell, Director of Flight Training, addressed the MEC on Wednesday on several issues."

Freundlich continued, "Management also updated the MEC on US Airways’ current SJ operations and reviewed the Company’s recent SJ aircraft order. Management asked the MEC to consider several RJ issues: First, to approve Republic Airlines as a Jets For Jobs carrier. Republic Airlines and Chautauqua Airlines are operated by the same parent company. The Chautauqua pilots, who are represented by IBT, conditionally approved a Jets For Jobs agreement, but it was not accepted by Chautauqua or US Airways management. Second, the Company is asking the MEC to approve the utilization of the 75-seat CRJ-900 Series 705, one of the aircraft recently ordered by management, which exceeds the maximum small jet weight limit restrictions of the July 2002 Restructuring Agreement."

"MEC members responded to both of management’s requests by stating that until management begins to properly administer the Contract in good faith and begins to engage in sincere efforts to repair the financial and labor relations damage that has resulted from their many insincere actions, MEC members will not consider additional requests for contractual flexibility," he said.

Best regards,

Chip
 
Chip and LavMan, you are both correct.

Chip, keep up with the indepth analysii they are very informative.
 
----------------
On 7/3/2003 8:16:08 AM A320 Driver wrote:

Good posts Chip! Please keep the info coming.

Thanks

A320 Driver

I CONCUR!



----------------​
 
Analyst
Let me reply for Lavman,
"No is our work and has been since 1949" In our contract, blah blah blah , cut and paste , blah blah blah.

There save your time Lavman.
 
----------------
On 7/2/2003 11:33:52 PM PITOCC wrote:
As of 6/9/03 the total aircraft count was 279. The breakdown is: 767=10, 757 =31, 737-400=47, 737-300=70, A319=61, A320=23, A330=9, A321=28. Parked at MHV=24, parked at GYR=6.

----------------​
Just curious, anyone know what types are parked?
 
6/30/2003

Dear Sisters and Brothers:

Their is absolutely no truth to the article in the USA today about the union being in negotiations with U S Airways to out source heavy maintenance on the Airbus fleet. In fact we have told the company that if they try to outsource this work they will be in a fight for their surival. This position has not changed.

Sincerely and fraternally,

William Freiberger
General Chairman
District 141-M IAMAW

May 30, 2003

TO: US AIRWAYS MEMBERSHIP AFFILIATED WITH DISTRICT 141-M
Dear Sisters and Brothers:

District Lodge 141-M has informed US Airways CEO, David Siegel, that there will be NO outsourcing of heavy maintenance.

Our US Airways Scope Clause does not provide the latitude for any such work to be sent to any outside vendor.

Indeed, during months of discussions leading to the concessionary agreement with District 141-M members, not once did US Airways negotiators discuss any changes to our contract that would allow any such outsourcing.

If any attempt is made to OSV heavy maintenance work US Airways will find themselves in the fight of their lives.

US Airways should not believe their labor unions and our memberships’ cooperation and loyalty during the bankruptcy and recovery was a sign of weakness.

What that cooperation and loyalty showed is that our membership is much better at making decisions than many of those residing in “Ivory Towersâ€￾.

Sincerely and fraternally,

Scotty Ford
President & Directing General Chairman
 
Chip, Keep up the informative postings.

Lavman, you should know that in 2004 your department will probably get hit hard by Dave with his (2004 costs reductions). Watch the company outsource your work. I hope that does not happen but Dave will find a way around your contract.
 
According to a friend of mine at Avtel at MHV only 7 of the stored airplanes at MHV are still owned by US Airways.

The 7 airbii at GYR are owned by state street bank, the leases were abrogated and planes returned. According to Maintenance Records, the records have been packaged and ready to ship to State Street, but the company is holding off on sending the records as the planes might be released and return to the fleet.

The planes at GYR are not due for their S checks yet, 700 and 701 are the first two airbii due this October.

The company cannot abrogate leases anymore and return them to the vendor since we are out of chapter 11.

Just look back at all the planes we parked after 9-11, we still had to pay the lease costs until they were abrogated in chapter 11.
You can look all the information up on time left by doing a ccdas in merling along with the tail #.

And the IAM is very aware of the company trying to circumvent our SCOPE language which gives us the exclustivity of the work!
 
By the way, how long till the Airbus''s in GYR make it back into the system? All fresh, just out of the checks by Timco. Seems like that is also a violation of our so called contract. I know they were retured to the lessors but what is there to keep the company from returning an A/C everytime a check is due, then only to get it back fresh. Time to take a stand maybe?
 
----------------
On 7/3/2003 9:44:25 AM mbmbbost wrote:

----------------
On 7/2/2003 11:33:52 PM PITOCC wrote:
As of 6/9/03 the total aircraft count was 279. The breakdown is: 767=10, 757 =31, 737-400=47, 737-300=70, A319=61, A320=23, A330=9, A321=28. Parked at MHV=24, parked at GYR=6.

----------------​
Just curious, anyone know what types are parked?

----------------​
MHV: 737-300=15, 737-400=7, 757=2. GYR: A319=5, A320=1
 
----------------
On 7/3/2003 11:00:59 AM A&P Tech wrote:

Only time will tell but I think I have more faith in good ol "labor friendly Dave". He has done a pretty fair job of getting what he wants so far and I don''t see the "fighting machinists" standing in his way!!!!

----------------


Dave loves guys with your mind set, unnerved, because subjugation is easily accomplished. Just like sheep led to slaughter, because people of your mind set simply believe it‘s hopeless. We do have a union, we do have contracts, but if we let Dave take away our spirit the first two no longer matter. Rumors of doom and gloom come in waves, and who has the most to gain by these rumors, not us. It would be really easy for Dave and company to do whatever they wanted with a disheartened labor force, one that believes they have no hope and simply gives up without a fight. Like drowning when all you had to do was stand up in the 4 feet of water you believed was 100 feet.
 
Only time will tell but I think I have more faith in good ol "labor friendly Dave". He has done a pretty fair job of getting what he wants so far and I don''t see the "fighting machinists" standing in his way!!!!
 
I know the industry is in shambles! But it seems to me that our union has given up almost everything that had be previously gained. I know I am thankful I still have a job, scope and severance, the standard answers. Just sick and tired of being stepped on!
 
If Dave wants to park more jets he will claim FM and park them. And the lawyers will figure out whether or not FM is correct. By the time that happens the jets will have scorpions in the engines and more layoffs will have occurred.

Chip, your published facts and quotes are correct. What is not published is the experise of Dave getting want he wants. One way or another. I assume you read the WSJ article on our/your pension. You may be pragmatic. I used to be. I thought Dave was our Kelleher when he got here. He is not. He is an expert at BK and cutting costs. He can not run an airline. Maybe he doesn''t want to run an airline. That is a possibility. As you know, he has reached his limit with the pilots. The PIT recall is more about getting in a hardliner that getting rid of Tim. 277-3 is more a vote against Seigle than Baker.

All of us have given enough. What we are seeing is a systematic dismantling of U. For what reason, you or I can only guess. But the limit has been reached. While you praise the voting that you assume allowed U to stay in business, the feeling now in the pilot ranks is simply that staying in business is not enough. We are sick of seeing a 78% load factor with no profit. Sick of hearing constant threats. Sick of needing more relief from this or that. Sick of letters that explain no more about our new pension than we knew before. I could go on but you know what I am speaking of.

The airline paradigm has shifted and U has not. Unless this BOD recognizes the ineptness of this management (in both leadership AND business sense) and replaces them we are in deep doodoo. Pragmatism is one thing. False hope is foolish. There is not much we can do as pilots to stop Dave, but we are going to try. And the PIT situation is the start.

mr
 

Latest posts

Back
Top