Political Posturing Or Sad Reality?
- Thread starter MarkMyWords
- Start date
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
PineyBob:
In regard to hijacked threads, I cannot make a comment about UA without the UA employees totally dismantling the thread and changing the topic.
I have said it a million times, I do not care about UA except how their airline effects US and its stakeholders (investors, financiers, customers, and employees).
During the past year, I rarely if ever posted on the UA board until Ukridge admittedly became a "sophist". Then I responded because of his smart aleck and sarcastic comments in threads titled “Who is Chip Munn†and “Bad News†after I received an email informing me of Ukridge's actions.
When the debate became heated UnitedChicago tried to limit who could post in a UA thread with the subtitle of “UA Employees and Customers Only†and then Kyle (USaviation.com owner) publicly agreed with UnitedChicago's request, although Kyle sent me a PM stating that I could post on any thread I desired.
To avoid confrontation I left the UA board, but interestingly their volume of traffic has dried up and their board is dead now that I am not posting over their. However, the UA employees chased me over to the US board and always take the topic off the topic.
I simply made a comparison of facts and if I say "white" the UA employees say "white".
It is my understanding that we all can post where we desire, as long as we abide by USaviation.com's rules, but I too am getting tired of the UA employee's invading our message board posting their drivel.
767jetz, Busdrvr, Cosmo and other UA posters, I stopped reading your posts because you say the same thing and I am not going to waste my time on the US board with this nonsense. Why don’t you debate your issues on the UA board, which I will not visit. Can you do the same, then we will not have threads hijacked.
Finally, everything I write is 100% true to the best of my knowledge and comes from respected Wall Street, National News Media, Industry Observers/Consultants, Government, ALPA, and Company sources. USaviation.com message board participants have read their names in the press before, therefore, you can believe the information I post or not, but it all comes from informed people.
Respectfully,
Chip
In regard to hijacked threads, I cannot make a comment about UA without the UA employees totally dismantling the thread and changing the topic.
I have said it a million times, I do not care about UA except how their airline effects US and its stakeholders (investors, financiers, customers, and employees).
During the past year, I rarely if ever posted on the UA board until Ukridge admittedly became a "sophist". Then I responded because of his smart aleck and sarcastic comments in threads titled “Who is Chip Munn†and “Bad News†after I received an email informing me of Ukridge's actions.
When the debate became heated UnitedChicago tried to limit who could post in a UA thread with the subtitle of “UA Employees and Customers Only†and then Kyle (USaviation.com owner) publicly agreed with UnitedChicago's request, although Kyle sent me a PM stating that I could post on any thread I desired.
To avoid confrontation I left the UA board, but interestingly their volume of traffic has dried up and their board is dead now that I am not posting over their. However, the UA employees chased me over to the US board and always take the topic off the topic.
I simply made a comparison of facts and if I say "white" the UA employees say "white".
It is my understanding that we all can post where we desire, as long as we abide by USaviation.com's rules, but I too am getting tired of the UA employee's invading our message board posting their drivel.
767jetz, Busdrvr, Cosmo and other UA posters, I stopped reading your posts because you say the same thing and I am not going to waste my time on the US board with this nonsense. Why don’t you debate your issues on the UA board, which I will not visit. Can you do the same, then we will not have threads hijacked.
Finally, everything I write is 100% true to the best of my knowledge and comes from respected Wall Street, National News Media, Industry Observers/Consultants, Government, ALPA, and Company sources. USaviation.com message board participants have read their names in the press before, therefore, you can believe the information I post or not, but it all comes from informed people.
Respectfully,
Chip
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
PineyBob:
Bob, I sympathize with the IAM and their fight with the company, but I do not agree all contractors are unsafe. All of these mechanics hold the same Federal A&P license as the great US Airways mechanics.
For comparison purposes, the U.S. military exclusively uses third party contractors conducting their heavy maintenance. How unsafe are the Navy or Air Force's aircraft?
After 21 years of flying aircraft in both of these services, I never saw an aircraft return from overhaul that was unsafe.
I believe the real issue is outsourcing higher paying union jobs, just like with RJs, versus unsafe maintenance practices. If these vendors were unsafe to work on US Airways' aircraft, then would these same mechanics be unsafe to work on military jets, whihc help protect our country?
Respectfully,
Chip
Bob, I sympathize with the IAM and their fight with the company, but I do not agree all contractors are unsafe. All of these mechanics hold the same Federal A&P license as the great US Airways mechanics.
For comparison purposes, the U.S. military exclusively uses third party contractors conducting their heavy maintenance. How unsafe are the Navy or Air Force's aircraft?
After 21 years of flying aircraft in both of these services, I never saw an aircraft return from overhaul that was unsafe.
I believe the real issue is outsourcing higher paying union jobs, just like with RJs, versus unsafe maintenance practices. If these vendors were unsafe to work on US Airways' aircraft, then would these same mechanics be unsafe to work on military jets, whihc help protect our country?
Respectfully,
Chip
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
Busdrvr:
Busdrvr said: As to the "prenup" deal wrt mergers, one could argue that the "prenup" WAS ALPA policy. You see, if both sides didn't agree, no merger. Why would you agree to give away your "career expectations"? Same with us. I personally don't think it's needed now since a "U-UAL" merger would result in an even more advantagous situation for the UAL guys than anyone imagined 3 years ago. since DOH isn't even hinted at in the policy, you'd likely see your "junior" guy on the property in the same place as UAL's "junior guy" (hired 8-10 years later).
Chip answers: Busdrvr, this is off topic and a rhetorical question and I ask that you not respond, but I ask you what is the "Career Expectations" of a bankrupt/insolvent carrier where ALPA's president publicly said UA cannot obtain exit financing except through the ATSB, where the government has raised the bar three times since UA began preliminary discussions after its bankruptcy filing?
Furthermore, if a deal proceeds, US Airways may use the same language contained in the UAL ALPA ERP 1 TA, however, we could simply change the name from United to US Airways listed below.
If you remember, the United ALPA ERP 1 TA said, "The Company concurs that it will not agree to hire any other airline's pilots in a purchase of assets (for example, the purchase of the US Airways Shuttle or another airline's international routes unless the number of pilots is strictly limited to the minimum number of pilots necessary to operate the purchased assets, as determined under ALPA Fragmentation Policy. This protection will allow the United pilots to treat any asset prurchase like Pan Am - London and Pan Am - Pacific (both of which have turned out very well for the United pilots). We regard (consolidation) this protection as essential to the ERP: we are not willing to work with the Company to weather the current financial crisis only to watch the the Company repeat the US Airways disaster.
If United is forced to sell assets to emerge to provide exit financing, should the US Airways pilots demand the same integration language be used as specified by United ALPA ERP 1 TA? Since the United pilots tried negotiated it, wouldn't that be fair for the US Airways pilots to do the same thing if Bronner buys United assets, since he said he is interested in doing so? If it's o.k. for the goose, it's o.k. for the gander, right?
Please do not respond to my rhetorical comments and respect my desire. I do not want to get into an off-topic debate on this issue, but I simply responded to your comment with "food for thought".
Best regards,
Chip
Busdrvr said: As to the "prenup" deal wrt mergers, one could argue that the "prenup" WAS ALPA policy. You see, if both sides didn't agree, no merger. Why would you agree to give away your "career expectations"? Same with us. I personally don't think it's needed now since a "U-UAL" merger would result in an even more advantagous situation for the UAL guys than anyone imagined 3 years ago. since DOH isn't even hinted at in the policy, you'd likely see your "junior" guy on the property in the same place as UAL's "junior guy" (hired 8-10 years later).
Chip answers: Busdrvr, this is off topic and a rhetorical question and I ask that you not respond, but I ask you what is the "Career Expectations" of a bankrupt/insolvent carrier where ALPA's president publicly said UA cannot obtain exit financing except through the ATSB, where the government has raised the bar three times since UA began preliminary discussions after its bankruptcy filing?
Furthermore, if a deal proceeds, US Airways may use the same language contained in the UAL ALPA ERP 1 TA, however, we could simply change the name from United to US Airways listed below.
If you remember, the United ALPA ERP 1 TA said, "The Company concurs that it will not agree to hire any other airline's pilots in a purchase of assets (for example, the purchase of the US Airways Shuttle or another airline's international routes unless the number of pilots is strictly limited to the minimum number of pilots necessary to operate the purchased assets, as determined under ALPA Fragmentation Policy. This protection will allow the United pilots to treat any asset prurchase like Pan Am - London and Pan Am - Pacific (both of which have turned out very well for the United pilots). We regard (consolidation) this protection as essential to the ERP: we are not willing to work with the Company to weather the current financial crisis only to watch the the Company repeat the US Airways disaster.
If United is forced to sell assets to emerge to provide exit financing, should the US Airways pilots demand the same integration language be used as specified by United ALPA ERP 1 TA? Since the United pilots tried negotiated it, wouldn't that be fair for the US Airways pilots to do the same thing if Bronner buys United assets, since he said he is interested in doing so? If it's o.k. for the goose, it's o.k. for the gander, right?
Please do not respond to my rhetorical comments and respect my desire. I do not want to get into an off-topic debate on this issue, but I simply responded to your comment with "food for thought".
Best regards,
Chip
Yep, you keep saying it, but nobody's buying it.Chip Munn said:
Wonder why that is? Maybe because we can all see right through you.
Try this. If the thread title indicates the topic is about USAirways and not UAL (like this one), don't bring in your UAL-bashing to that thread! What a concept. You will see that in many threads on the UAL forum, USAirways is not ever mentioned, even though they are a "business partner" of UAL. And most other USAirways posters can discuss USAirways without ending up in the "evil UAL" place you always seem to end up. So apparently, it CAN be done.
I can almost guarantee, if you don't mention UAL, UAL employees won't "hijack" the thread.
Heck I would even go out on a limb and say that you could mention UAL in an objective way, discussing the good along with the bad, and separating fact from opinion, and UAL employees wouldn't have a problem with it.
Wrong, Chip. The Platt quote is OPINION. No one (not even you) can see ten years into the future.Chip Munn said:
This inability of yours to distinguish FACT from OPINION is one important reason you have such a major credibility problem.
How come OPNIONS that predict US doing peachy and UA doing dismally in the future are quoted by you as FACT, yet other OPINIONS (equally numerous) that predict UA doing peachy and US doing dismally are ignored completely by you or, at best, are dismissed as "grasping at straws?"
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
Bear96:
I find it interesting that the UA message board is dead with very few posts unless I participate on that forum. How many posts were made on the UA board during the past week?
In addition, I find it interesting UA employees chase me around the boards and most of their posts are in response to comments I make about their airline, which may be obscured in a thread.
Funny, isn't it?
Why don't we make a pact. I will not post on the UA boards and the UA employees will not post on the US boards.
That would solve all of the debate. Why don't you and your colleagues just post on the UA board, therefore, you will not have to take exception to my comments.
Finally, in regard to a potential transaction, US chairman of the board David Bronner has speculated that United has a 50-50 chance of surviving. He said that if United were to sell assets, he (RSA) would consider backing the purchase of some "if it would be beneficial to US Airways." Bear96, Bronner said this, therefore, let's just move on and stop "shooting the messenger".
Respectfully,
Chip
I find it interesting that the UA message board is dead with very few posts unless I participate on that forum. How many posts were made on the UA board during the past week?
In addition, I find it interesting UA employees chase me around the boards and most of their posts are in response to comments I make about their airline, which may be obscured in a thread.
Funny, isn't it?
Why don't we make a pact. I will not post on the UA boards and the UA employees will not post on the US boards.
That would solve all of the debate. Why don't you and your colleagues just post on the UA board, therefore, you will not have to take exception to my comments.
Finally, in regard to a potential transaction, US chairman of the board David Bronner has speculated that United has a 50-50 chance of surviving. He said that if United were to sell assets, he (RSA) would consider backing the purchase of some "if it would be beneficial to US Airways." Bear96, Bronner said this, therefore, let's just move on and stop "shooting the messenger".
Respectfully,
Chip
Chip MRO's employ a very high percentage of unlicensed mechanics that is fact. Also if you trace back the most recent accidents in this industry you can trace to outsourcing of mtc.
The Beech.
Several of Valujets incidents, many problems at UAL with outsourcing, two weeks ago they had a nose gear come off on landing after its first revenue flight from having mtc done at TIMCO.
A employee at an MRO has no loyalty to a airplane they work on escpecially with the financial penalties for not making an ETR. A employee who works on an airplane that himself or family will fly on and has no financial harm placed on him for finding absloulty everything wrong with an airplane makes that employee and that airplane safer.
The Beech.
Several of Valujets incidents, many problems at UAL with outsourcing, two weeks ago they had a nose gear come off on landing after its first revenue flight from having mtc done at TIMCO.
A employee at an MRO has no loyalty to a airplane they work on escpecially with the financial penalties for not making an ETR. A employee who works on an airplane that himself or family will fly on and has no financial harm placed on him for finding absloulty everything wrong with an airplane makes that employee and that airplane safer.
ALL workers do NOT hold the A or P license and at best one or the other is held by the employee. The repair stations have just recently start requiring this to be employed because of the back flack in accidents and PR problems. By NO means are ALL employees licensed at these facilities. If they are licensed at all it's usually only one license, like the A for the airframe repairs preformed. What they do is have a FEW licensed personal usually in management who are require to sign off on the non-licensed personnel’s work. This is how they get around it and claim they are licensed. It's the old story, you get what you pay for and you better believe the public at large knows this and will respond accordingly.Chip Munn said:
The military is another story. Military training is required and if you don't make it you’re out. The training they have is good and if you make it you are qualified. They don't have a A&P license in the military but if you were in the military it is very simple to acquire ones A&P tickets because they know what they are doing. When the military vendors their work it is overseen big time.
RowUnderDCA
Veteran
- Oct 6, 2002
- 2,123
- 1
Gosh, I nominate this thread as the biggest load of BS I have ever seen on USAviation!
However, I'd say the one where the F/A who defends reading during a flight and states that all who ring the call button are alchoholics as the most rediculous single post.
Chip, do you really think that you can demand to have the last word on a subject by stating that your questions are rhetorical? PLEASE DON"T ANSWER THAT!
But, in an attempt to get this back on subject, I remain TOTALLY amazed at the conception of political finance in Western PA. Sometimes, it really is only about THE MONEY, not labor politics or anti-tax, anti-gov resentment.
Do you REALLY think that the bond debt won't be restructured if U goes under or vacates PIT? Hell, they may default. Is ACAA REALLY going to increase all other carriers airport expenses by doubling them?
Hey, I guess you live there and you've read the terms of the bond debt, the official statements and the terms of the airlines' agreements with the ACAA, so you know better than I do. But, it would be a very strange arrangment indeed. U wants to reduce the debt burden for ALL airlines. Is it really better, not to mention legal, to refuse to allow U to participate in the restructured cost basis at PIT, simply because some taxpayers, flyers and employees are annoyed? All that disruption and indisputable increased loss of jobs, just for spite?
I agree that ACAA should NOT roll out the red carpet for U (no reference to UAL's club rooms intended!). They shouldn't have in the first place. But no amount of posturing is going to magically allow ACAA to go back in time and NOT get into so much debt that is secured by the operation of ONE carrier's hub.
I do recall, as I posted earlier on this thread when it really was about ACAA and U, that ACAA has implied that their counterproposal includes some debt reduction. Hopefully, the parties can agree on a reasonable amount of cost reduction AND ACAA can fashion more equitable arrangements for the use of space at PIT by U than they did before. If U needs to reconfigure gates, maybe ACAA can lease SOME of that to them exclusively and let U PAY for it, but ACAA should retain ultimate control of a good portion of gates, as well.
Good luck to everyone.
However, I'd say the one where the F/A who defends reading during a flight and states that all who ring the call button are alchoholics as the most rediculous single post.
Chip, do you really think that you can demand to have the last word on a subject by stating that your questions are rhetorical? PLEASE DON"T ANSWER THAT!
But, in an attempt to get this back on subject, I remain TOTALLY amazed at the conception of political finance in Western PA. Sometimes, it really is only about THE MONEY, not labor politics or anti-tax, anti-gov resentment.
Do you REALLY think that the bond debt won't be restructured if U goes under or vacates PIT? Hell, they may default. Is ACAA REALLY going to increase all other carriers airport expenses by doubling them?
Hey, I guess you live there and you've read the terms of the bond debt, the official statements and the terms of the airlines' agreements with the ACAA, so you know better than I do. But, it would be a very strange arrangment indeed. U wants to reduce the debt burden for ALL airlines. Is it really better, not to mention legal, to refuse to allow U to participate in the restructured cost basis at PIT, simply because some taxpayers, flyers and employees are annoyed? All that disruption and indisputable increased loss of jobs, just for spite?
I agree that ACAA should NOT roll out the red carpet for U (no reference to UAL's club rooms intended!). They shouldn't have in the first place. But no amount of posturing is going to magically allow ACAA to go back in time and NOT get into so much debt that is secured by the operation of ONE carrier's hub.
I do recall, as I posted earlier on this thread when it really was about ACAA and U, that ACAA has implied that their counterproposal includes some debt reduction. Hopefully, the parties can agree on a reasonable amount of cost reduction AND ACAA can fashion more equitable arrangements for the use of space at PIT by U than they did before. If U needs to reconfigure gates, maybe ACAA can lease SOME of that to them exclusively and let U PAY for it, but ACAA should retain ultimate control of a good portion of gates, as well.
Good luck to everyone.
Chip,
You did not answer my quesion, so I'post it again assuming you missed it:
Your posts seem to almost champion the company doing this, but what would your reaction be to the company farming out flying you believe is yours. Lets say the company decided to add a new type, such as the E190, and then said this aircraft has never been flown by the company before so we have the right to outsource it to Mesa? Judging by your previous posts regarding the "CRJ705" issue, we already know.
You did not answer my quesion, so I'post it again assuming you missed it:
Your posts seem to almost champion the company doing this, but what would your reaction be to the company farming out flying you believe is yours. Lets say the company decided to add a new type, such as the E190, and then said this aircraft has never been flown by the company before so we have the right to outsource it to Mesa? Judging by your previous posts regarding the "CRJ705" issue, we already know.
1. So the UAL board is quiet without you spouting your nonsense there... this proves... what exactly? (Oh wait, I know, it proves there is about to be a UCT/ICT with U taking over UA since there are more posts over here.) Actually I have observed on these airline message boards that the amount of postings by employees at an airline is inversely proportional to the financial health of that airline. Uh-oh for U. The UA board is no less quiet than the jetBlue or Southwest boards.Chip Munn said:
2. You can call it "chasing" if that makes you feel better and flatters your ego. I think it is generally true that employees will defend their employers when they feel unfairly attacked and when relevant facts are being distorted. You are the only one here who consistently does this to UA, so that is probably why you feel "chased" when UA employees respond.
3. Actually recently I have not been responding much to your doom and gloom "facts" about UA, as you may have noticed. But when you start to claim that poor l'il ol' you is just minding his l'il ol' business and occassionally posting a l'il ol' thought about UA which just HAPPENS to be negative and you ONLY post it because UA is a business partner of US and you have NO IDEA why you are being unfairly attacked for doing something so innocent... sorry but my BS detector can only take so much, and I will continue to point you out for what you are as long as you continue to do what you are doing.
Besides, you are the one who is always saying Tilton is not saying anything negative about UA because to do so would be bad for business and detrimental to UA's exiting bankruptcy. If that is so, and there is a connection between comments by influential people in the airline industry (which is how you picture yourself) and the financial health of an airline they comment about, shouldn't loyal UA employees have an OBLIGATION AND DUTY to be over here countering the nonsense you post? After all, we wouldn't want your postings to scare any customers away.
5. There you go again, confusing fact and something quite less than fact-- in this case speculation instead of opinion, but they are close cousins and in any case both are considerably different from fact.
Speaking of "shooting the messenger," why do YOU always feel compelled to shoot the messenger (me) when all I am doing is simply pointing out your true motives? How are my postings about your postings any different from your postings about UA in that regard?
I'm simply telling it as it is.
Maybe you can't take the truth, like you always accuse UA employees of when they have a problem with your posts?
PITbull
Veteran
- Dec 29, 2002
- 7,784
- 456
Bear,
There is so much posting on the U board because there is so MUCH LABOR UNREST HERE! Airlines historically do not survive in the long term with this kind of UNREST. As I am sure you have surmised U Management has declared "war" on their employees, and you along with all the other employees of the Majors will be able to attest to a "show down" between this management and the employees if they out source the mechanics airbus work. We here at U started this "snow ball" domino, with giving all the concessions, and bending over to take it up the ###, with not 1 protest. and still U is crying boo, hoo, hoo, to the analysts and PA. After all the bailouts, and concessions, this mangement still can't get out of its way.
I apoligize for anyone who implies that UAL is worse off then us. We are in bad shape here and you can see the frustration in all the posts. Employee morale always effects the "bottom line". This management does not understand that fundamental principle. But they will soon, specifically with any "farm out".
Stay tuned.....worse is yet to come.
There is so much posting on the U board because there is so MUCH LABOR UNREST HERE! Airlines historically do not survive in the long term with this kind of UNREST. As I am sure you have surmised U Management has declared "war" on their employees, and you along with all the other employees of the Majors will be able to attest to a "show down" between this management and the employees if they out source the mechanics airbus work. We here at U started this "snow ball" domino, with giving all the concessions, and bending over to take it up the ###, with not 1 protest. and still U is crying boo, hoo, hoo, to the analysts and PA. After all the bailouts, and concessions, this mangement still can't get out of its way.
I apoligize for anyone who implies that UAL is worse off then us. We are in bad shape here and you can see the frustration in all the posts. Employee morale always effects the "bottom line". This management does not understand that fundamental principle. But they will soon, specifically with any "farm out".
Stay tuned.....worse is yet to come.
