How Much Will You Give For The New Ceo?

[USFlyer]

Oh, one more thing. There are too many Express carriers. US will never have just one like CO does at this point. Merge PSA, PDT and ALG into one and let them have the 50 seat RJs. Let affiliates handle the turboprops, and pick 1-2. Air Midwest and Colgan come to mind. Let Mesa and CHQ supplement the PSA-PDT-ALG combo. Drop the rest.

 

[PITbull]

Geez USFlyer,


I am afraid I agree with you.. Hell what's wrong with me....I must somehow have come away from my "left" position LOL.......

 

[UseYourHead]

Use Your Head,

I say by the sounds of your posts, you really NEED to stay in school. You need some business classes and HR classes thrown in there it'll do wonders for your mind, and broaden your scope.

I can hear you already...."oh please, save me, save me, fellow workers". I am not ready to find another job. Save me, and sacrifice yourself for me".......I too afraid of the big bad wolfe. He's going to hurt us, boo hoo hoo.

Blah, blah, blah....


Hey I have a novel idea....How about our CEO taking the salary of JetBlue for the next 5 years, no bonus, and he can keep his stock, but it must stay restricted until 2009. Think he can stand it? Bet, hel'll stay on longer than a year.

Management must consolidate and make much much deeper cuts at the top. I am waiting to see their medica/dental packcage and SPD.

PITBull,

There is no need to attack me because we may not agree about one thing or another.

I am positioned quite well, if I were to lose my job. Having said that, Why would I want to? I am saying that our jobs continue to be quite valuable, and my first choice would be to have US Airways be successful in working things out. I do disagree with those who portray our jobs as worthless, and not worthy of fight for.

I am not afraid to offer that concept up. So do not paint me in the colors you have, it is not accurate at all.

I don't believe the answer to all of our collective trouble is to continue to focus on bashing Dave...Dave this...Dave that. He may or may not be here next month, management comes and goes. If you believe he should go, focus your negative energy on your union reps and attempt to have your wishes executed.

US Airways will still wrestle with the same issues...our costs, and our ability to generate profits as a business, while competing with the rest of the industry. We (labor) will continue to have issues to address, no matter who is running the company...and management does need to address revenue, cost, and structural issues to do what is needed here.

BTW, I do agree with your JetBlue concept for Dave and his pay. However, the board is who sets his compensation. Maybe a focus on that subject by our reps would be a worthy cause? You and I are cost competitive now (as far as hourly pay goes), I see no reason for our management to not embrace the same idea for themselves. The Board should demand and implement changes that address these types of issues.

 

[PITbull]

USe Your Head,

I partially agree with some of your sentiments above. If I come on too strong in my opinions, its that I get weary of seeing many posts that imply individuals who want to save themselves at any cost to others who are not in the same position as yourself. However, you have a right to express your opinion, as I have the right to disagree, and vice versa.

Managements come and go, and that is my very point on many of these posts with regard to "management being but a small part of the "whole"; and they only visit".
However, the fear is the "business plan" they implement while they are here, can, and do have lasting effects on our employees, customers, and thus, our carrier.

I have had many conversations and e-mails with our CEO, and unfortunately, I come away with a stubborn, arrogant, "slanted"-class dictator who is about the universe being about him and his skills and ability to go else where and get paid higher while the rest of us "down here" would be in dire straights in the open market of job employment if U disappears. He is all about being the "upper senior class" of employees and deserving of the benefits of a corporation, while the rest of us should be "thrilled" to just be employed vs. not. He truly believes that his extra two years in graduate school and 7 years at CO, warrants his "elitist" attitude towards employees and the world.

My purpose on this property is to "balance" him out, and those who think and behave as he does. People make the world go round, not companies or CEOs

 

[UseYourHead]

Use Your Head: "Do we have a cost problem? If we are losing money, things will have to change, and they will, one way or another. Am I advocating labor give backs? What about changing for the better, what everyone claims they would love to do. If we only did things like ___, then we would be ____."

I've read your posts over the last few weeks, and while they are ostensibly well meaning, the underlying theme seems to have a "whatever it takes", let's get on board and...", "let's grab the bull by the horns and...." tone to them. All abstractions. Let's be specific though. "Do" what??? Do you honestly believe the present business plan is sound, and only needs ( yet more ) cost cuts to sustain it? The shrinking route network ( and service levels ) are creating ( have created ) a situation of diminishing returns with each effort to bring costs down...creating yet another crisis...and so on.

High Iron,

I did make a suggestion, and that was to ask this group on the forum what they thought working under SWA, or JetBlue work rules. Are we willing to do that?

I remember when Wolf and Gangwal first came here and did the roadshows about parity. Many pilots said at that time they would work for, say UALs contract. I was at a hanger meeting the day that a pilot stood up and asked Wolf during the Q&A session, if the company would execpt the pilots working for the UAL contract, and Wolf said that would be great.

Well guess what? That wasn't good enough for us, and we got parity with our peer group instead. Now that was something everyone complained about. Gee, we only got a 32% raise in 2 years with that formula.

Anyway, at this point in our history, we need to increase block hours to grow revenues, and utilize our assets to the greatest extent possible. In an effort to do so in a competitive way, would we accept SWA work rules for all employee groups? If not, would we accept any competitors work rules, as we are mainly down to productivity and other issues at this point....

That means all groups. Pilots, Flight Attendants, CWA, mechanics, etc. We need to have the same number of employees per aircraft, fly and work the same amount of hours, basically mirror the SWA contract. No exceptions.

Would we be able to accept such a concept?

 

[PITbull]

Use Your Head,

Then U's new business plan would have to operate "point to point" and the Hub and spoke system would have to go away. The idea of two classes on the airplane would disappear and we would have to be just coach fare class with NO frills. And the CEO would have to regard and respect their employees as if they are the most valuable assets of the Corporation.

Is this correct and doable? And do you honestly believe our CEO and team has this "mind set" to change?

PS: By the way, the pilots pariety increase warranted a 20% stake in U, however, your pensions were obliiterated. The info that is presently out is that they used an interest rate that projected the liability to high. I am sure you are well aware of this.

 

[UseYourHead]

USe Your Head,

I partially agree with some of your sentiments above. If I come on too strong in my opinions, its that I get weary of seeing many posts that imply individuals who want to save themselves at any cost to others who are not in the same position as yourself. However, you have a right to express your opinion, as I have the right to disagree, and vice versa.

Managements come and go, and that is my very point on many of these posts with regard to "management being but a small part of the "whole"; and they only visit".
However, the fear is the "business plan" they implement while they are here, can, and do have lasting effects on our employees, customers, and thus, our carrier.

I have had many conversations and e-mails with our CEO, and unfortunately, I come away with a stubborn, arrogant, "slanted"-class dictator who is about the universe being about him and his skills and ability to go else where and get paid higher while the rest of us "down here" would be in dire straights in the open market of job employment if U disappears. He is all about being the "upper senior class" of employees. He truly believes that his extra two years in graduate school and 7 years at CO, warrants his "elitist" attitude towards employees and the world.

My purpose on this property is to "balance" him out, and those who think and behave as he does. People make the world go round, not companies or CEOs

PitBull,

I understand and respect your position. In the end, you and I are in between our management team on one side, and the position our respective unoins take on the other.

It will never cease to amaze me, the disconnect that always seems to develope between labor and management. Even in the case of Herb or Gordon, there is always a rift.

Good luck to us all, we are going to need it. And I believe that there can be a pot-o-gold at the end of the rainbow here.

 

[PITbull]

UYH,

"Pot of Gold" only for some with this management at the Helm.

I have been in this business for 23 years. I have never seen such a distance btween Labor and mangagement as I do with this one. Never. Call it the times, call it the industry and environmenet, but, no management has been so "labor unfriendly, so deaf when labor cries out, than this one.

 

[UseYourHead]

Use Your Head,

Then U's new business plan would have to operate "point to point" and the Hub and spoke system would have to go away. The idea of two classes on the airplane would disappear and we would have to be just coach fare class with NO frills. And the CEO would have to regard and respect their employees as if they are the most valuable assets of the Corporation? ?

Is this correct and doable? And do you honestly believe our CEO and team has this "mind set" to change?

PS: By the way, the pilots pariety increase warranted a 20% stake in U, however, your pensions were obliiterated. The info that is presently out is that they used an interest rate that projected the liability to high. I am sure you are well aware of this.

PitBull,

Lets focus just for a moment on us, labor. Lets pretend that all the structural things would happen, or the equivalent.

My question was, would we embrace those working conditions, or are we too good for that?

There are many unpalatable issues in our competitors contracts, like Flight Attendants always cleaning airplanes, or in AAs case FA pulling tickets at the top of the jetway during boarding. The issues like these are numerous.

Are we as a group, assuming expanding block hours to prevent furloughs (and maybe even call back furloghees), willing to work more efficiently, to mirror to competition coming at us?

 

[PITbull]

UYH,

Personnally, I would do anything in my power to bring back more furloughees; to bring back and create more livable wage jobs on the property.

Pulling tickets for U f/as would mean bringing back more heads in our ranks, (we are at FAA min. on the a/c) however, would that then create a ground job to be gone? If cleaning more stations would promote a better product and more efficiency, I would be absolutely for it. However, would that then create a lost job on the ground?

I am about Labor. My purpose and thought process is to create more jobs. It all should work synergistic with a "business plan" and business model that has growth as a goal. With our present business plan, the only growth that exists is poverty-wage airline MDA, along with outsourcing jobs in every group and forming alliances with other carriers.


Sorry, can't go along with that business plan whose only purpose is to grow management and make them wealthy from a one-stop employment here at U directly on the "backs" and sacriices of those who are now on the street,along with those who still work but can't pay their bills and support their families by having one job. This management was given unprecedented concessions in just one year. They now have to make it work. The folks on the property are ready to go head to head with SW or any competitor.

We have proven our selves.

Is management confident in their employees who have given basically their world to this management?

There, I have just exposed my heart and soul in this post.

 

[UseYourHead]

UYH,

"Pot of Gold" only for some with this management at the Helm.

I have been in this business for 23 years. I have never seen such a distance btween Labor and mangagement as I do with this one. Never. Call it the times, call it the industry and environmenet, but, no management has been so "labor unfriendly, so deaf when labor cries out, than this one.

I too have been in the industry over 25 years. Many "commuter" airlines as well as People Express prior to US Airways.

I have seen this kind my management before. I am sad to say that so far Frank L. comes to mind. However, Crandell and others have been equally unfriendly!

 

[UseYourHead]

UYH,

Personnally, I would do anything in my power to bring back more furloughees; to bring back and create more livable wage jobs on the property.

Pulling tickets for U f/as would mean bringing back more heads in our ranks, (we are at FAA min. on the a/c) however, would that then create a ground job to be gone? If cleaning more stations would promote a better product and more efficiency, I would be absolutely for it. However, would that then create a lost job on the ground?

I am about Labor. My purpose and thought process is to create more jobs. It all should work synergistic with a "business plan" and business model that has growth as a goal. With our present business plan, the only growth that exists is poverty-wage airline MDA, along with outsourcing jobs in every group and forming alliances with other carriers.


Sorry, can't go along with that business plan whose only purpose is to grow management and make them wealthy from a one-stop employment here at U directly on the "backs" and sacriices of those who are now on the street,along with those who still work but can't pay their bills and support their families by having one job. This management was given unprecedented concessions in just one year. They now have to make it work. The folks on the property are ready to go head to head with SW or any competitor.

We have proven our selves.

Is management confident in their employees who have given basically their world to this management?

There, I have just exposed my heart and soul in this post.

PitBull,

We are talking about new concepts, not Dave’s current plan, or Dave. The question was with expanding block hours, and therefore jobs expanding, can our group palate a more product job, a mirror of say, SWA? Or AMR? Or JetBlue?

I am all about jobs too. I am not suggesting cutting jobs, pay, or more furloughs. In fact I am suggesting calling people back.

 

[PITbull]

UYH,

The answer is stated above. I would do anything in my power that would create livable wage employment. If that means operating differently to create the aforemetioned, then I am for it. Absolutely.

However, do we trust this management if they should present a business plan that would promote job growth on mainline? Would they put that in writing? Would they put in writing "no more furloughing", and we all must work smarter and faster and better, and here is the plan that will get us there?

Ask them? Black and white in writing on paper, legal and binding!

No profiting sharing bull ####, no stock options crapola, just JOB saving, JOB expansion, and NO furloughing.

PS: Gee, its late, I gotta go.

 

[High Iron]

I'll quote some previous responses to similar questions...just so my position is clearer:

--" Do you honestly believe the present business plan is sound, and only needs ( yet more ) cost cuts to sustain it?"--

-- *comment by Crazy8* "Just being realistic. If USAir doesn't adapt quickly to the marketplace, we'll be history. Period."--

-- *my response* "To be more realistic yet, that's specious in the sense that it is true only in a vacuum...at face value. If "adapting" means the same business plan/modus operandi, albeit with deeper cuts/shrinkage...we'll be history. Exclamation point."

Again, I want to be clear: Are concessions going to make or break this airline if this airline's intention is to have LCC costs ( wages, workrules, staffing ) while retaining tradtional carrier ops ( hub&spoke, fare structures, A/C utilization, large cheif/indian ratio etc ) or not? As it is now, this is EXACTLY what this team is increasingly implying...heck, stating flat-out in their rhetoric and actions. I understand that in many cases adopting a mirror image WN contract would be for many, an improvement, but question of cherry-picking airline MO's still looms largest.

Yes, one can theoretically crunch the numbers to show that YES, it probably IS possible to get staffing and wages low enough to the point it will compensate for the legacy type carrier ops, and show a profit, but it would be near impossible in reality. It would be like somebody moving their house back a foot or so to take up the slack in their clothes-line.

Yes, the revenue/passenger potential is higher in the northeast, especially if a premium product is offered. Both are being eroded for reasons all well known to us here. So do we fix the leak in our boat....or just bail harder?

 

[UseYourHead]

I'll quote some previous responses to similar questions...just so my position is clearer:

--" Do you honestly believe the present business plan is sound, and only needs ( yet more ) cost cuts to sustain it?"--

-- *comment by Crazy8* "Just being realistic. If USAir doesn't adapt quickly to the marketplace, we'll be history. Period."--

-- *my response* "To be more realistic yet, that's specious in the sense that it is true only in a vacuum...at face value. If "adapting" means the same business plan/modus operandi, albeit with deeper cuts/shrinkage...we'll be history. Exclamation point."

Again, I want to be clear: Are concessions going to make or break this airline if this airline's intention is to have LCC costs ( wages, workrules, staffing ) while retaining tradtional carrier ops ( hub&spoke, fare structures, A/C utilization, large cheif/indian ratio etc ) or not? As it is now, this is EXACTLY what this team is increasingly implying...heck, stating flat-out in their rhetoric and actions. I understand that in many cases adopting a mirror image WN contract would be for many, an improvement, but question of cherry-picking airline MO's still looms largest.

Yes, one can theoretically crunch the numbers to show that YES, it probably IS possible to get staffing and wages low enough to the point it will compensate for the legacy type carrier ops, and show a profit, but it would be near impossible in reality. It would be like somebody moving their house back a foot or so to take up the slack in their clothes-line.

Yes, the revenue/passenger potential is higher in the northeast, especially if a premium product is offered. Both are being eroded for reasons all well known to us here. So do we fix the leak in our boat....or just bail harder?

High Iron,

Fix the leak....