Paycuts

[Hope777]

Looks like Glen Tilton at UAL is willing to help his company survive.

http://www.forbes.com/facesinthenews/2004/...yahoo&referrer=

Why isnt Bruce Lakefiled willing to help?

 

[700UW]

Because Bruce has to maintain two residences.

 

[phillyguy]

Would that change anything at this point?

If he takes 10%, someone will say it should be 15%. If he takes 20% someone will say it should be 25%. If he takes 100% people will want him to pay back what he already got it.

Just another distraction!

Phillyguy (who does think he should have offerred a cut on day 1)

 

[firstamendment]

A true leader leads by example. That's the point...always has been. It makes no difference to me if his cut is noticed or not. Just another example of yet another arrogant CEO. :down:

 

[insp89]

pineybob, You're last post is woefully lame..Just the usual company drivel....Individually, One persons paycut is nothing more than a "drop in a bucket" This is quite obvious,,,,,It's when you combine "EVERYONES" paycut together is when you see the difference. [also quite obvious]..........What all this B.S. boils down to is why does upper management think they are "ABOVE" taking paycuts that they themselves believe others should take.......This is just one example of the arrogance this upper management possesses.

 

[aerosmith]

Besides 450k is only a pimple on U's behind. :down:

 

[phillyguy]

Tilton took 11% cut and pilots agreed.

If Lakefield did the same would the remaining groups come to agreement?

I think we all can guess the answer to that - - but more attention will be on him cutting than reaching an agreement

 

[insp89]

Besides 450k is only a pimple on U's behind. :down:

[post="228928"][/post]​

Yeah, Know what happens to pimple's, They're squeezed and gotten rid of......Sounds like a plan in this instance.....

 

[Winglet]

He and his execs don't have to. They know the employees will lay down and take it like a dog that's been beat too much.

 

[insp89]

He and his execs don't have to. They know the employees will lay down and take it like a dog that's been beat too much.

[post="228933"][/post]​

....That may be true pertaining to the member's of ALPA's [wussy wagon], I would'nt count on the AFA to take much more of this B.S. Time will Tell... :down:

 

[Hope777]

Just remember what you were always taught, Actions speak louder then words. Bruce could care less if we survive and his actions show it.

 

[tug_slug]

Any cut at the executive level is symbolic and not substantive to the overall effort to save either company. From a leadership/morale standpoint the debate is different. But in "Hard Dollar" terms it is a drop in the bucket.

Let's do just a little math and make a few assumptions in organized Labor's favor.

[post="228906"][/post]​

Bob you have your own agenda but because your a customer you think you have the right post about something that has little or nothing to do with you. The employees at U have enough going on in their lives without you coming on to these boards and posting your worthless dribble.

Im no longer an employee at US Air but that doesn't mean my heart is still with this airline but that doesn't give me the right to come onto these board and "do a little math."

This isn't your fight Bob why not just let these people do what they need to do. The don't need OUR help!

 

[sfb]

Any cut at the executive level is symbolic and not substantive to the overall effort to save either company. From a leadership/morale standpoint the debate is different. But in "Hard Dollar" terms it is a drop in the bucket.

But isn't this entirely the problem? You could say that Continental's executives agreeing to take a pay cut was symbolic, as well, but they did it as a show of good faith -- to demonstrate that they were willing to help shoulder the burden of getting costs down. They even reduced management headcount and salaries before going to the unions to ask for concessions. And it certainly didn't stink of being a bogus paycut of 5% applied to wages that had been raised 4% a few months before.

Roughly 3,000 US employees are non union including about 30 VP level folks, For sake of discussion let's say 50 earn $500,000 per year or $15 million. Now let's take the remaining 2950 who have incomes ranging from $18,000 to $100,000 and say the average is $50,000 x 2950 = $147,500,000.00 for a COMBINED total of $ 162,500,000.00 annually.

You could easily make the same arguments about the company's reservationists -- after all, there are only 1,700 of them and they probably make on average $35,000/year. That's just a shade under $60 million in salary -- getting them to give up 20% (or more) of their pay isn't going to save the company any more than asking management to give up 20% of their pay. Why would the company have gone after tiny work groups like the dispatchers for cuts that were worth, at most, a few million dollars?

If all 3,000 worked for free it would not have the impact required to save the company. The current situation is worse as you have a high cost of living HQ location and a low wage company going forward, making it difficult to hire and retain the skill sets needed to make US successful.

But even if every flight attendant worked for free, it wouldn't save the company either. And many of US Airways' employees live in locations that are just as high-cost, if not higher, than CCY employees. I suppose flight attendants, rampers, gate agents, etc. at DCA don't pay the same prices for housing, food, gas, etc. as CCY employees, right?

 

[ClueByFour]

Any cut at the executive level is symbolic and not substantive to the overall effort to save either company. From a leadership/morale standpoint the debate is different. But in "Hard Dollar" terms it is a drop in the bucket.

Let's do just a little math and make a few assumptions in organized Labor's favor.

Roughly 3,000 US employees are non union including about 30 VP level folks, For sake of discussion let's say 50 earn $500,000 per year or $15 million. Now let's take the remaining 2950 who have incomes ranging from $18,000 to $100,000 and say the average is $50,000 x 2950 = $147,500,000.00 for a COMBINED total of $ 162,500,000.00 annually.

If all 3,000 worked for free it would not have the impact required to save the company. The current situation is worse as you have a high cost of living HQ location and a low wage company going forward, making it difficult to hire and retain the skill sets needed to make US successful.

Several things:

1. You will note that the cash compensation of the heads at the most successful airlines (financially) is very, very low. Neeleman makes almost no cash, the SWA folks make almost no cash, yet they are all filthy stinking rich (and with the exception of Wolf/Gangwal, more filthy stinking rich than their US counterparts). Why? Because they are compensated in equity and are running ventures that make money. Those are two things that the current crop of losers in CCY fail miserably at. I could train a money to beat labor out of massive concessions in Chapter 11--it does not take a degree in rocket science to do so, nor is it a skillset worthy of what is currently being paid to the folks in the palace.

2. It's not as if many of the mid-level folks in CCY are setting the place on fire, either. Operationally, the airline is in shambles (philly in general, the phl baggage fiasco, etc). The current bunch managed to ride the serval billion dollars of concessions and exit financing/ATSB proceeds right back into bankruptcy court in less than two years. Calling this "talent" is a stretch by any means.

3. Look at the cultural difference between any of the profitable airlines and US. For that matter, look at what US had when it purchased Piedmont. The employees purchased Tom Davis a friggen mercedes.

The "we must spend money to attract talented management" line is bunk in the current sense, because US has lacked talented management for years. The current crew certainly does not qualify, and the airline would be better off without a good chunk of them in any case.

Actually the same holds true for folks in Res. $14/hr goes a lot farther in AL then $20 does in PIT! Plus no snow.

[post="228906"][/post]​

Sure. Hurricanes. And the figure is not even close--figuring a 2080 work year on 20/hour, you will make $41k and change. According to every major cost of living comparison I could find, you will need to average about $38.5k to maintain that standard of living in Mobile. That's about $18.5/hour. If you don't live in the city of PIT, your taxes will go up in Mobile. It's not that much cheaper. INT's cost of living is only about 1.5% below that of PIT, so it's a wash there as well.

 

[Bear96]

There's a catch, though...

If you live in Mobile, you also have to live in Alabama.

I'd pay good money to avoid that.