More News On Ron Stanley And

[ClueByFour]

Tell me something chief, what does having a military and/or wall street background have to do with running an airline? Drum roll please...................NOT A DAMN THING!!! Take off your ### kissing, rose colored glasses. I'm not angry, I'm just right.

-fatburger-

[post="195239"][/post]​

The theory goes that it helps with the old boys network, and the pilots are slightly more likely to bend over, although that's water under the bridge at this point (although it appears that the Lakefield gambit worked well).

Regarding any theory that being ex-millitary allows one to be a great airline executive, I'd present Frank Borman.

 

[USA320Pilot]

The February schedule adds about 10% more ASMs without adding aircraft, maintains a fleet of 281 aircraft, and anticipates not furloughing pilots. However, the company must have cash flow relief to implement this aspect of the new business plan.

As you know, some key creditor's want the company to implement the alternative business plan that emulates JetBlue with 150 mainline aircraft operating a point-to-point system from key East Coast cities. This "Plan B" has been briefed to each union and I believe without new labor accords, this plan could be implemented.

According to A,W&S,T, without the interim S.1113(e) imposed cuts, the comapny expects to be a "cash-neutral" fourth quarter, in which its liquidity wouldn't increase or decrease substantially. The problem lurks in the first quarter of 2005, when available cash was projected to drop from about $750 million on Dec. 31 to $310 million early in March because of seasonally low winter revenues and about $260 million in aircraft debt and lease payments due in January and February. Letting cash drain that much might trigger "a withdrawal of credit . . . and/or catastrophic booking away by passengers," the carrier said, eroding cash further.

Actually, US Airways probably wouldn't make the aircraft payments if it were so low on cash. Instead, it told the court, it likely would hold onto the money and launch "a massive downsizing, layoffs, asset sales and/or orderly shutdown of the airline's operations."

BoeingBoy, with the labor cut imposition and other initiatives the company will improve its cash flow by about $40 million per month. Obviously, a variable is fuel prices because each $1 increase in the price of oil per barrel increases the company's fuel expense by $2 million per month.

It's my understanding with labor cuts, either via consensual or imposed cuts; the company can make its January and February lease payments. However, with the required labor savings, which are now up to $950 million in annual savings with more expected from those unions without new labor agreements, the company will be forced to proceed with the 150-aircraft fleet plan that would include "a massive downsizing, layoffs, asset sales and/or orderly shutdown of the airline's operations."

This news in itself greatly increases the odds of even deeper cuts for those unions who do not reach new consensual labor agreements.

Separately, not every ex-military officer is a good airline executive, but each of these three men have strong backgrounds and reputations. US Airways is lucky to have all 3 men employed at the company.

Fatburger, have you thought about taking an anger management class?

Respectfully,

USA320Pilot

 

[BoeingBoy]

"BoeingBoy, with the labor cut imposition and other initiatives the company will improve its cash flow by about $40 million per month. Obviously, a variable is fuel prices because each $1 increase in the price of oil per barrel increases the company's fuel expense by $2 million per month."

Well, the company said that it's requested relief would produce $38 million per month in savings, and of course the judge reduced the pay cut from 23% to 21% and shortened the term of the pay cuts by taking longer to reach a decision and not allowing them till 3/31/05 as sought. How much does that reduce the "ask" below $38 million per month? I don't know, but it sure didn't increase it.

Fuel price increases on the order of $10 per bbl results in about $20 million a month in increased expense over projections. So from something under $38 million a month in "cushion", we're now down to something less than $18 million a month.

The consensual agreements you're pleading for produce less short-term savings than the interim cuts approved by the judge. How much less? Again, I don't know, but it sure isn't pocket change.

The short version? That "cash cushion" the company said was needed to prevent liquidation when the lease payments come due in Jan and Feb 05 isn't going to be there.

Tic - Toc - Tic - Toc

Jim

 

[Walmartgreeter]

As you know, some key creditor's want the company to implement the alternative business plan that emulates JetBlue with 150 mainline aircraft operating a point-to-point system from key East Coast cities. This "Plan B" has been briefed to each union and I believe without new labor accords, this plan could be implemented.



So. The threat remains, even after the pilots gave. Have the mechanics at any major airline (in the last 20 years) ever caved?....I do not think so. Good thing the pilots voted away retiree benefits...at least they could have voted NO and kept funding the retirees another few months until liquidation. I am so proud of this group. Greeter.

 

[real world]

guess those retention bonuses aren't working

[post="195163"][/post]​

What retention bonuses, there was none.....

 

[USA320Pilot]

The company's initial labor cost cut target was $800 million and according to PitBull the ask was increased to $950 million per year principally to cover increased fuel costs. I believe US Airways is about 32% percent for the second half of 2004 and 5% hedged for 2005 at $30 per barrel of crude oil, which will help the bottom line. When evaluating the spot jet fuel prices, you cannot state the cost has increased $20 million per month because of different volume price purchases at different points.

Could we see aircraft lease projections to preserve cash flow? Absolutely, which is why every labor group should have obtained a new labor accord before entering bankruptcy. In fact, Bruce Lakefield told the MEC the A330s and 30 to 40 B737s are at risk. In addition, prior to the jump in fuel prices in September, the company told the ALPA MEC it projected it would break even or post a slight profit in 2005. Thus, I believe with oil at current levels, the $950 million in annual cost cuts, and some hedging, the company could still break even in 2005.

Every key ALPA advisor and official warned the MEC deeper cuts could occur if a TA was not reach early on. Guess what? The ALPA advisors batted 1000% and the RC4 and other labor leaders have miserably failed to represent their membership. The RC4 directed MEC is the only MEC in the history of ALPA to provide a concession greater than the company's "ask" and it appears that could happen to every union except the 3 TWU units.

BoeingBoy and Walmartgreeter, do I detect a bit of anger in your voice? If the RC4 had listened to the ALPA advisors and every other key ALPA official the company would not be in as bad of position it's in today and the other labor negotiations would likely be further along.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[ua767fo]

Separately, not every ex-military officer is a good airline executive, but each of these three men have strong backgrounds and reputations. US Airways is lucky to have all 3 men employed at the company.

[post="195252"][/post]​

USA320Pilot and I do not agree on much, but on the following point I'm sure that he will agree with me.

For years, plural, the airline industry has been plagued by very poor management. One of the basic flaws and consistant negative themes over the years has been leadership, or lack thereof. Many may have been good managers, but without good leadership, the rudder on the corporate ship is virtually useless. Military officers are trained to be leaders, MBAs are not. Its people that make the difference between good companies and great companies. Given that (generally speaking) the work force is a homogenius lot, something separates good from great. Thats leadership. Not all military officers have been great leaders. Frank Borman was an unmitigated disaster, but as a group, we are far superior to your snot nosed Harvard, Stamford, and Wharton MBA graduates.

Good luck to USAirways senior management team. Just maybe they have what it takes to make a go of what was once a fine operation.

DENVER, CO

 

[ua767fo]

"Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell."

Frank Borman, 1986

(my comment: Frank is truely a jerk)

 

[9lives+1]

I was in the military and seen what some respected officers were like.
It doesn't matter what kind of resume you got. If you don't have your
front line troops on your side (employees) it's going to be a rough road
for them. Ask any military pilot what happens if you make a mechanic
mad. This management team should know the value of respect from being
in the military. If you earn the troops respect then the troops will follow you into
any battle. Go to any prison or rehab. and ask them about respect. Even
criminals and addicts know that if you are trustworty and straight forward you
earn their respect . At this point in time they can shove their resumes.
EARN MY RESPECT AND I WILL FOLLOW.

 

[TheLarkAscending]

For years, plural, the airline industry has been plagued by very poor management. One of the basic flaws and consistant themes over the years has been leadership. Many may have been good managers, but without good leadership, the rudder on the ship is virtually useless. Military officers are trained to be leaders, MBAs are not.

In keeping with that thought pattern, here is an interesting article regarding harvesting leaders for commerce from the July, 2000 issue of The American Enterprise. Meet America's Best Business Schools - you'll be surprised

Lark

 

[BoeingBoy]

"I believe US Airways is about 32% percent for the second half of 2004 and 5% hedged for 2005 at $30 per barrel of crude oil, which will help the bottom line."

Are you saying that the savings from what hedges we do have weren't included in the company's cash projections? Would Lakefield, an honorable military man, try to mislead the court?

"When evaluating the spot jet fuel prices, you cannot state the cost has increased $20 million per month because of different volume price purchases at different points."

You're correct (see, I admit it when someone else is). But since neither of us knows what average price the company paid for fuel today, the company's statement is as good an indicator as we have. One thing is pretty certain - fuel is higher than accounted for in the company's "mid-range" cash projections. As you yourself said, "the jump in fuel prices in September". So it's a safe bet that the we aren't meeting the cash projections the company put forward.

"the only MEC in the history of ALPA to provide a concession greater than the company's "ask"..."

Ya know, this little bit of misinformation is getting pretty old. Both the company (again, an honorable military veteran wouldn't misrepresent the facts, would he?) and the lauded advisors said that the "ask" was consistent throughout. It is also well established by those same advisors that the "ask" was first year savings and that the savings were greater after that. Trying to use the average "ask" to twist the facts is nothing more than mathmatical sleight of hand. I know it comes naturally, but you really should try to control it at least once in a while.

"BoeingBoy and Walmartgreeter, do I detect a bit of anger in your voice?"

Can't speak for greeter, but you are deluding yourself again if you detect that from me - does the phrase "how could you be so wrong, again" ring a bell. As I've said several times (I know, you don't read all the posts), I'm in the fortunate position of being a disinterested observer. This has become something of an entertainment for me. The only thing that keeps it from becoming entirely entertainment is that a lot of people's lives are being disrupted, and the disruption is being cheered on by a vocal few who only care about saving their own hide and who could care less who gets hurt in the process.

Jim

ps - 25 months or 25 days, it doesn't really matter...

 

[ua767fo]

Lark,
Thanks for sharing that article. It speaks volumes.

Denver,CO

 

[delldude]

oops

Chip comments: Ron Stanley is the third senior executive in a row to join the company who has served as an officer in the U.S. military.

oops

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[Walmartgreeter]

[
BoeingBoy and Walmartgreeter, do I detect a bit of anger in your voice? If the RC4 had listened to the ALPA advisors and every other key ALPA official the company would not be in as bad of position it's in today and the other labor negotiations would likely be further along.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="195269"][/post]​

[/quote]

No anger here. I am comfortable here knowing that the likes of you and the F/O LGA rep helped in completely gutting the process of ALPA negociation...so much in fact you two will live in infamy as traitors to the profession. You currently fly OUT OF BASE because NO ONE in PIT will fly with you...so you leave your family and commute to tiny base in LGA (in which you could not even get elected to office) and continue to try and out officers from OTHER bases. If YOU and the LGA rep had listened to logic, you would have towed the ALPA line, helped the company, and not given away quality of life to whore the profession. The great thing about your ease of betraying the profession..is that you will SOON be an F/O. Cannot wait to see what C/Os will fly with you...traitor. Relaxed and full of hair, your opposite..Greeter!

 

[AP Tech]

Finally some truth is spoken........NICE POST!!!!!