Employee Purchase Of Us Airways

[Old PSA]

The employee purchase of US was a topic before bankruptcy. I was just wondering if the employees should revisit it. It would seem like an opportune time. 'bama Dave just might be interested in bailing on US if he could get the RSA money back. The employees as a whole have no faith in the current leadership and the future is looking downright grim.

So how much money would it take and how could it be obtained? A question to balance that. It it too late to save US? Would we be throwing away our money? Has the current management done enough damage that US cannot be turned around before it is buried by its competition.

 

[a320av8r]

I don't want to own it, I just want to work here.

 

[usfliboi]

How do you figure employee ownership would turn out any different than ual? Having employees making the call own whether or not to take a pay cut for their own selves would be like congress agreeing to their own pay cuts!!!!!!!! Would never happen lOL

 

[BoeingBoy]

I'm not sure that anyone would want to own U now. The house of cards is on the brink of falling down. Sure, Dave & friends can tweak the numbers to make it look like prosperity is only the next concession away but the current battle with the PBGC shows how just a little tweaking can have a major effect.

Someone once said that when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. U has been digging this hole since the late 80's and hasn't stopped digging yet.

During the US Air, PSA, Piedmont merger, U took two pretty efficient carriers (PSA & Piedmont) and eliminated all the cost advantages they had. Is it any wonder that U was losing money before Piedmont was merged? The first airline to report losses going into the 90-91 downturn.

During the go-go 90's, U was the last airline to start reporting profits and the first to report losses going into the 01 downturn. While other airlines were growing during "the longest period of economic growth in history", U was stagnant at best if not shrinking.

During this entire period, U has been digging and saying "if we can just get some more cost savings out of this hole it will fill up" Instead of filling up, the hole has only gotten deeper. If this hole isn't too deep to climb out of yet, it soon will be.

Jim

 

[airlineorphan]

Ummm, perhaps someone from UAL can correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection of the UAL employee buyout was that the participants gave massive concessions in exchange for high priced (perhaps inflated priced?) stock. That investment in paycuts, etc., was rewarded later when their stock was converted to wallpaper during the Chapter 11 filing.

No, I'm not that psyched about the idea of employee ownership here. It's generally only applied when management wants to sucker employees for a big paycut, or when management wants to unload a company they've already driven into the ground and they can't find a buyer other than employees desperate to salvage what management screwed up. By then, it is usually too late.

In solidarity,
Airlineorphan

 

[usfliboi]

im pretty sure the flight att for one who didnt agree for the cuts for stock trade, and it was pulling teeth to get the other s too.

 

[E-TRONS]

OLD PSA: Have you gone off your rocker??

What did employee ownership get the UAL employees??? They didn't even have a say in the proposed UAL/US merger. Some ownership alright.

What about their investment in the ESOP??? They were all supposed to become millionaires (per IAM) and ended up with a mere FRACTION of what they financially put into it. Such a deal <_<

:down: :down: EFLOP :down: :down:

ESOP's are for suckers!!!

 

[bigbusdrvr]

How do you figure employee ownership would turn out any different than ual? Having employees making the call own whether or not to take a pay cut for their own selves would be like congress agreeing to their own pay cuts!!!!!!!! Would never happen lOL

That is the part some of you types don't understand. Pay concessions are not what is necessary, a management team with the company's best interest and a viable plan (read revenue generation) is what is needed!!!

 

[High Iron]

Ummm, perhaps someone from UAL can correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection of the UAL employee buyout was that the participants gave massive concessions in exchange for high priced (perhaps inflated priced?) stock. That investment in paycuts, etc., was rewarded later when their stock was converted to wallpaper during the Chapter 11 filing.

No, I'm not that psyched about the idea of employee ownership here. It's generally only applied when management wants to sucker employees for a big paycut, or when management wants to unload a company they've already driven into the ground and they can't find a buyer other than employees desperate to salvage what management screwed up. By then, it is usually too late.

In solidarity,
Airlineorphan

Dead on. Also, the terms of stock ownership in UAL's case also begs the question: Since they couldn't sell the stock until they retired or left the company, did they really "own it" to begin with?

 

[wings396]

We already gave MASSIVE CONCESSIONS, and got nothing in return for them. Our jobs are less secure than ever as the company continues to bleed cash. Many of us can hardly put food on the table anymore, so putting anything into this sinking ship is not realistic. IF we were going to have any say in the company, it needed to be done long ago. We gave them $2 billion, and they have squandered it as many lost their once GOOD PAYING jobs. Maybe the top brass can give up all of their stock options and let the employees try to fix their mess.

 

[airlineorphan]

usfliboi,

In fact, the flight attendants at UAL declined the stock ownership plan. I seem to recall they received a lot of grief for declining the deal, but in the end, it looks like they made the right call to opt out. Chalk one up for AFA.

-Airlineorphan

 

[airlineorphan]

Wings,

You make a good point, and if I can jump off from that, it looks like we eneded up with a poor man's version of the UAL stock for concession deal, only we don't have enough stock to make a difference, just enough to be on the hook to have a direct interest in stock price fluctuations. Not a good place to be if you have to put up a fight... It can lead to conflicted loyalties, which is really the key point of such deals.

-Airlineorphan

 

[JS]

With UAL, can you imagine the paycuts needed to finance a 100% buyout? That's one reason the employees only got about half ownership.

US isn't worth that much now. How much would it cost per employee to buy 100% of the company?

You could cut the cost somewhat by buying out, say, 75% of the company. If you don't hold a large enough stake to call all the shots, you get a UAL situation.


Regarding having to hold the stock until retirement or separation -- well, that's a necessity in order to have an employee-owned company.

How can you be an employee of an employee-owned company if you don't own your share? Selling your share equates to turning in your resignation letter. It's similar to co-operative housing, where shares of stock in the corporation and an apartment are essentially one and the same.

 

[UAL_TECH]

Ummm, perhaps someone from UAL can correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection of the UAL employee buyout was that the participants gave massive concessions in exchange for high priced (perhaps inflated priced?) stock. That investment in paycuts, etc., was rewarded later when their stock was converted to wallpaper during the Chapter 11 filing.

No, I'm not that psyched about the idea of employee ownership here. It's generally only applied when management wants to sucker employees for a big paycut, or when management wants to unload a company they've already driven into the ground and they can't find a buyer other than employees desperate to salvage what management screwed up. By then, it is usually too late.

In solidarity,
Airlineorphan

Airlineorphan,

Dead on!!!

Take Care,
UAL_TECH