More Good News?

[insp89]

THAT ADDED ALOT OF VALUE

[post="194787"][/post]​

...I noticed you said -nothing- when I asked if anyone could confirm or deny the utility crew question...So, I'm WAY ahead of you in VALUE..Do you condone this type of behavior out of CFO's and CEO's ??

 

[PITbull]

USFlyer,

So just what does a CFO have to know when he is put on a witness stand basically defending the company's stance on the importance of granting the company major relief in wages from all labor groups.

What exactly does he need to know? What the CASMS are? How much tthe a/c leases are? What is relavent? What exactly does he have to know about labor in order to convince a judge that the 23% wage cut across the board ($238 million) is imperative to the company's survival. How did he come up with that figure of savings needed?

Didn't he have to know what all labor groups wages are and each year of service. I'm sure he would be able to use a "cheat-cheat" to quote from...don't you think?

 

[Dog Wonder]

Unfortunately, what he does know is the big picture on the survival of the company. That he knows better than any of us.

Either he suffered a conscience attack for the personal damage he is causing thousands of employees and couldn't sleep at night, or he isn't going down with the ship.

Aye aye captain you take the lifeboat, we'll swim to shore.

 

[USFlyer]

Didn't he have to know what all labor groups wages are and each year of service. I'm sure he would be able to use a "cheat-cheat" to quote from...don't you think?

[post="194818"][/post]​

No. Perhaps the VP of HR might know this information at some level, but I highly doubt any CFO anywhere really knows the ins and outs of the pay scales of each union contract and each non-union employee. They see the information bubbled up in the aggregate and make decisions based on that, not individuals. I work with this stuff day in and day out. CFOs look at sums of salaries and CFOs look for trends. No CFO knows my individual salary, for example, that would be ludicrous.

 

[Phantom Fixer]

No. Perhaps the VP of HR might know this information at some level, but I highly doubt any CFO anywhere really knows the ins and outs of the pay scales of each union contract and each non-union employee. They see the information bubbled up in the aggregate and make decisions based on that, not individuals. I work with this stuff day in and day out. CFOs look at sums of salaries and CFOs look for trends. No CFO knows my individual salary, for example, that would be ludicrous.

[post="194826"][/post]​

Given the context of the proceedings..and given what's being asked of the employee's..does it not stand to reason that anyone from CCY , regardless of what lofty title they hold , should at least be familiar with the areas of question they are attempting to adddress and pass off as the truth ?..or is the truth not the concern as mch as winning our money is? Hell , it's only a sworn oath , right?

 

[phasersonstun2]

A change in control is coming... maybe in January, maybe sooner. One way or the other, these routes, this network will go on in someone's hands. Employees who have signed agreements have some chance, the ones' who have not...

 

[USFlyer]

Given the context of the proceedings..and given what's being asked of the employee's..does it not stand to reason that anyone from CCY , regardless of what lofty title they hold , should at least be familiar with the areas of question they are attempting to adddress and pass off as the truth ?..or is the truth not the concern as mch as winning our money is? Hell , it's only a sworn oath , right?

[post="194832"][/post]​

Sure, but to know the details you want him to know is not really possible. Being a CFO is more than just knowing the pay scales of the various union contracts. Heck, even the union members I know can't keep the pay scales straight. The CFO knows what he needs in the aggregate, knows about financing details, keeps the creditors happy, prepares SEC filings, etc. He does not negotiate union contracts. And, if he is, he's not doing what he should be doing.

 

[ClueByFour]

No. Perhaps the VP of HR might know this information at some level, but I highly doubt any CFO anywhere really knows the ins and outs of the pay scales of each union contract and each non-union employee. They see the information bubbled up in the aggregate and make decisions based on that, not individuals.

[post="194826"][/post]​

If that is the case, he should have refrained from filing a affidavit in support of the 1113(e) motion. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[insp89]

A change in control is coming... maybe in January, maybe sooner. One way or the other, these routes, this network will go on in someone's hands. Employees who have signed agreements have some chance, the ones' who have not...

[post="194851"][/post]​

......While you have your crystal ball out, How about posting tomorrows lottery numbers..

 

[USFlyer]

If that is the case, he should have refrained from filing a affidavit in support of the 1113(e) motion. You cannot have it both ways.

[post="194854"][/post]​

I'm not sure what else to say about this. I would never expect a CFO to know the details that you want him to know. But, whatever, he's gone now. I'm sure the unions will find just as much to dislike about the new guy. It's SOP.

 

[US1YFARE]

I expect a CFO when under oath, and questioned on a witness stand to know what every group wages are, specifically because..

THAT IS WHY WE WERE IN COURT!

This SAME CFO could NOT REMEMBER if Siegel left with $4.5 million and Cohen with $2.5 million...."can not recall the exact figures", he said.

This SAME CFO had Cohen on the property 3 more months at $150,000 per month to 'help Davis Along'. So Davis actually had 2 months at the job. It was not his genius that negotiated with GE or ATSB.

Dave Davis had NO PROBLEMO citing what Agents at South West make to the exact penny.

Since you were in court, and I am sure you were sitting directly in front of me, if I heard it; YOU heard it.

[post="194800"][/post]​

I agree PB. Although he may not know what Jane Doe and John Roe make, he certainly should know how much money the previous leaders of the company left with. He should also have available to him wage rates for various employee groups. He was either told not to prepare to testify or, he conveniently forgot.

His leaving is really bad, or, if he is not voluntarily leaving, the comany thinks Stanley can help turn the company around.

 

[networking]

I bet this whole company put a bad taste in his mouth. Wonder if it had anything to do with failing to account the unpaid pension contributions into the 5.4 million dollar savings target, which then went way over the target. Nevertheless, the savings that the company must have to compete in the new environment have been aquired in shameful, hateful ways. No one will be surprised if the company goes under due to operational failure of the front line.

 

[ClueByFour]

I'm not sure what else to say about this. I would never expect a CFO to know the details that you want him to know. But, whatever, he's gone now. I'm sure the unions will find just as much to dislike about the new guy. It's SOP.

[post="194860"][/post]​

I'm trying to point out that the folks in the CCY executive suite are arrogant, even by executive standards: if Davis was not prepared to testify about details in court, he should have axed the affidavit he swore out.

And yeah, it is SOP to hate the leadership at most airlines, but the folks at CCY take the art of dealing with it to a whole new low in many ways.

 

[real world]

...I noticed you said -nothing- when I asked if anyone could confirm or deny the utility crew question...So, I'm WAY ahead of you in VALUE..Do you condone this type of behavior out of CFO's and CEO's ??

[post="194812"][/post]​

Answered in 700 reply

 

[real world]

A change in control is coming... maybe in January, maybe sooner. One way or the other, these routes, this network will go on in someone's hands. Employees who have signed agreements have some chance, the ones' who have not...

[post="194851"][/post]​

That is not true