This topic is once again interesting, but let's look at a few facts:
1. The initial post in the Merged Thoughts thread was primarily cut and paste comments by US Airways' top two officers.
2. Whenever a merger comment is mentioned on this forum, United employees post a rebuttal almost within minutes. What's intriguing is the interest in US Airways by United employees.
3. I rarely posted on the United forum until I was advised a certain United fan was a sophist when he reported on my comments. In response I began to post on the United board, however, some disgruntled United employees complained to the USaviation.com principals. Out of respect for the principals, I voluntarily withdrew from the United forum and have not returned, however, the United employees continue to "shoot the messenger" on this forum. I believe this is hypocritical.
4. During the past two merger attempts and in ERP I and ERP II, United ALPA attempted to obtain a pre-nuptial seniority agreement and then pre-nuptial seniority integration language in their contract, which would have violated ALPA Merger Policy.
Separately, what's the career expectation of a bankrupt company?
During the past few months when this subject has been broached, I have said that a corporate transaction is not imminent and before a deal could proceed US Airways must stabilize itself first. Then a deal could proceed, with the likely candidate United in either a KLM-AF type of deal, a merger, or a UCT derivative.
Meanwhile, during the past week the Charlotte Observer reported David Bronner said, "If you stay in the red, you sell assets. Once you get in the black, it's a new game," he said. Bronner continued, "But if the airline turns profitable, it could invest in acquiring more assets." Bronner emphasized that he is not a typical corporate investor who is "in to get anything and everything we can."
What's interesting is that if Bronner elects to have RSA acquire other airline assets, this may not come with employees, especially since a bankrupt airline pilot contract does not require pilots be transferred with the assets unless more than 50% of the company's assets are divested.
Also noteworthy, last Thursday Aviation Daily reported Dave Siegel said that domestic consolidation is "inevitable" during the next few years. He predicts a U.S. market with two or three strong hub-and-spoke carriers providing international service with broad networks, and then a "swarm" of low-cost carriers battling it out in high-density markets. After his speech, Siegel said the US Airways assets "will participate in the consolidation process," but not much else unless the airline is able to lower its costs to competitive levels. If it can't cut costs, "we will be the awkward teenager at the school dance, hoping someone will come talk to us, but going home disappointed and lonely."
Thus, USA320Pilot asks, if one believes that "domestic consolidation is inevitable" and US Airways and its employees must have a competitive cost structure to participate in the consolidation, then when would now be a good time for management and the unions to negotiate the labor portion of the "Going Forward (Business) Plan?"
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot
