B
BottomFeeder
Guest
700UW,
If you want to make it an everyone topic then start a new thread. Stay on topic and by the way it is not the... IAM wants a raise.
COMPREHEND LAVMAN
Pilots want a Raise
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
700UW,
If you want to make it an everyone topic then start a new thread. Stay on topic and by the way it is not the... IAM wants a raise.
COMPREHEND LAVMAN
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #92
john john,
I think we're just talking past each other here. Given enough time, every employee in the company can be replaced - I've said that already.
When I spoke of the difficulty of replacing certain employee groups, I was talking of a situation where 90+ percent of that group would need to be replaced literally overnight. In that scenerio, what I said is true. Some groups would take longer to replace than others. I never said that they couldn't be replaced.
Your entire list of carriers doesn't have 100 spare airplanes between them, much less the crews if somehow they could procure extra airplanes. There is no entity, or group of entities, out there that could come in and start flying all the mainline routes tomorrow. How long did it take Air Wisconsin to transition all their flying from UA to US? And they already had the planes and crews.
US could certainly wet lease planes & crews, which may be what you're driving at. So how many of the express carriers on your list have planes that aren't contractually tied up with other carriers? Would Jetblue or Southwest drop all or the majority of their own flying just to wet lease their planes to US? Virgin doesn't even have an operating certificate yet.
I'll say it again - given time, every employee group can be replaced. But US, as it exists today, wouldn't be operating in the same form tomorrow if it had to replace 90% of any employee group immediately. The biggest hurdle would be replacing the planes and crews, but that could be done given enough time. But not overnight.
Jim
I think we're just talking past each other here. Given enough time, every employee in the company can be replaced - I've said that already.
When I spoke of the difficulty of replacing certain employee groups, I was talking of a situation where 90+ percent of that group would need to be replaced literally overnight. In that scenerio, what I said is true. Some groups would take longer to replace than others. I never said that they couldn't be replaced.
Your entire list of carriers doesn't have 100 spare airplanes between them, much less the crews if somehow they could procure extra airplanes. There is no entity, or group of entities, out there that could come in and start flying all the mainline routes tomorrow. How long did it take Air Wisconsin to transition all their flying from UA to US? And they already had the planes and crews.
US could certainly wet lease planes & crews, which may be what you're driving at. So how many of the express carriers on your list have planes that aren't contractually tied up with other carriers? Would Jetblue or Southwest drop all or the majority of their own flying just to wet lease their planes to US? Virgin doesn't even have an operating certificate yet.
I'll say it again - given time, every employee group can be replaced. But US, as it exists today, wouldn't be operating in the same form tomorrow if it had to replace 90% of any employee group immediately. The biggest hurdle would be replacing the planes and crews, but that could be done given enough time. But not overnight.
Jim
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #93
Typical Ego Maniac Pilot, and you wonder why pilots get a bad name, you make the good pilots get grief.
When you start your own message board then you can make the rules and tell people what they can and cannot post. Till then don't bother.
And it is an ALPA, AFA, CWA, IAM and TWU issue, everyone took concesssions to save US.
But I guess that is too hard for you to comprehend.
B
BottomFeeder
Guest
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #95
Take your own advice--I recall you telling someone to not make posts, just becuase that person doesn't work for the airline.
traderjake
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 5,669
- 9,308
What a ridiculous thing to say. Tell us, what were those many options.
We had options two years before the bankruptcy. The Retirement and Insurance committee told the MEC that we should consider freezing the DB plan. John Davis who controlled the MEC at the time said "No, USAir will never fie bankruptcy". John Davis got his lump sum.
I guess your head was in the sand when the judge and our ALPA legal and finacial advisors said we could not exit bankruptcy with the DB plan.
You can't deal with reality so you create this fantasy where the MEC conspired the give away their own retirement.
If the retirement lawsuit against ALPA shows that I'm wrong I'll be the first to say so. Until then just keep living your little delusion.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #100
What the judge actually said was that the company's POR - which was based on the termination of the DB plan - wouldn't work unless the plan was terminated. Big surprise, huh?
So tell me, trader - how much less would the company have saved going forward if the DB plan had been frozen instead of terminated?
Jim
You make it sound as if you single handedly saved this airline. We all took deep cuts. Try not to think of yourself as so special. You are just a spoke in the wheel, like all of us. My dad always told me " Whats the difference between God and a pilot? God doesn't think he's a pilot". And that is coming from a pilot. I love him anyway.
traderjake
Veteran
- Aug 30, 2002
- 5,669
- 9,308
You can't freeze the DB plan if it's not fully funded.
Tell me who was going to pony up the money to do that.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #103
According to my reading on the subject, you can. Yes, the underfunding has to be remedied, but there's a longer timeframe to do it than is required for a non-frozen plan - wasn't that what the company was seeking before the termination (or at least said they wanted...)
Meanwhile, of course, the improving market would have solved a significant portion of that underfunding. According to a PBGC analysis of underfunded DB plans, 25% of the underfunding has been made up by those 2 factors in the last 3 years.
Jim
Meanwhile, of course, the improving market would have solved a significant portion of that underfunding. According to a PBGC analysis of underfunded DB plans, 25% of the underfunding has been made up by those 2 factors in the last 3 years.
Jim
Tell that to the NWA pilots. Their pension is underfunded and frozen right now. That's a fact. Try to research what you're saying before you say it. Your dislike (jealousy) of the pilot group is apparent. Dollarwise this pilot group did single-handidly save the airline. Without the concessions of this pilot group we'd be gone. You cannot say that about any other group. Single-handidly. The dollars just weren't there. That's not "bragging" it's just a fact. And it's not a fact I'm proud of. I would just as soon the pilots refused to give in. Based solely on what this company did to it's retired pilots and other retirees. That is disgraceful.
700, I hope the GAG sticks to their guns. With a new MEC Chairman I can only hope he LEADS. But I wouldn't bet any money on it. The stance just taken by ALPA is a step in the right direction however.
pilot
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #105
The pilots did not single handily save US.
All the unionized employees took concessions and saved the company. If one group did not take concessions the company would have failed.
To say otherwise just shows your arrogance.
All the unionized employees took concessions and saved the company. If one group did not take concessions the company would have failed.
To say otherwise just shows your arrogance.
