Q & A With Bruce Lakefield
- Thread starter BoeingBoy
- Start date
OP
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #3
700,
I noticed that too. Of course, hard numbers are difficult to come by. The latest figure I saw in a quarterly report was about 28,000 full time equivalent. How many actual employees (including part-time) - who knows. And of course, there's the "mainline or mainline plus W/O'ed" question - is that 28,000 FTE the whole shebang or just mainline?
Jim
I noticed that too. Of course, hard numbers are difficult to come by. The latest figure I saw in a quarterly report was about 28,000 full time equivalent. How many actual employees (including part-time) - who knows. And of course, there's the "mainline or mainline plus W/O'ed" question - is that 28,000 FTE the whole shebang or just mainline?
Jim
allegheny1
Member
- Oct 1, 2002
- 84
- 0
correct
court documents state roughly 28000 mainline and 6000 at subsidiaries.
regards
court documents state roughly 28000 mainline and 6000 at subsidiaries.
regards
From the Q & A: ".....
Q: Can you describe what the last week has been like for you? This is probably not what you signed up for.
A: The only reason I came here, to US Airways, was because I was asked by RSA [Retirement Systems of Alabama, the airline's majority owner] and the board of directors to get us to consensual agreements with the unions so RSA would not lose their entire investment in this airline. I would say there is very little equity value left in this company. I have come to appreciate a lot of the people at this particular airline and become emotionally involved with the people that are here.
Monday [the first full day of bankruptcy] was a very, very big personal disappointment, that we would be forced into bankruptcy and forced in without four of the unions on board with us. At another time I might have just said the hell with it, but I am not a quitter. I think the place can be salvaged, and I think people deserve my best efforts and the best efforts of our management team. I did not take this personally. That doesn't mean I am not emotionally stressed and emotionally disappointed. I think the airline is still worth saving, and I think people deserve our best try."
Excatly when is the company going to employ a CEO with a management team that is here TO RUN THE AIRLINE? why wasn't his response something along the lines of.... USAirways is made up of several airlines with long histories, of course the competitve and economic envioroments have changed, but i am here for one reason, to make USAirways what it once was, a PROFITABLE, respected air carrier in the United States. I am going to 1. make the airline profitbale 2. here are the first 3 steps in that direction 3. I can not achieve this alone and you can not back a plan that a. you dont know about and b. have no faith in (thus i need to EXPLAIN it to you better than i must to the traveling public. 4. If i take care of my employees, they will take care of my customers, who will take care of my shareholders.
only here (not because he wanted the job) asked by RSA (nor do i have any idea on how to RUN an airline ) asked by RSA to get consenual agreements (again not run the airline but merely work on labor contracts?) so that the RSA would not lose its equity investment (again see above if anyone (business 101) bothered to RUN the airline, the employees would rally behind a true leader, the product would become better, more people would book on the airline, more revenues would increase the profitablity, more profit higher stock price, higher stock price RSA gets its money back and then some.
Remember PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST program. once again the "asset managers" have it backwards. RSA should be at the BOTTOM of the list not First.
Until this is fixed the continual problems that have plauged this airline will continue.
RUN THE AIRLINE gentleman. EVERYTHING else will take care of itself in due time.
do you actually bother to read my tag line or what?
Q: Can you describe what the last week has been like for you? This is probably not what you signed up for.
A: The only reason I came here, to US Airways, was because I was asked by RSA [Retirement Systems of Alabama, the airline's majority owner] and the board of directors to get us to consensual agreements with the unions so RSA would not lose their entire investment in this airline. I would say there is very little equity value left in this company. I have come to appreciate a lot of the people at this particular airline and become emotionally involved with the people that are here.
Monday [the first full day of bankruptcy] was a very, very big personal disappointment, that we would be forced into bankruptcy and forced in without four of the unions on board with us. At another time I might have just said the hell with it, but I am not a quitter. I think the place can be salvaged, and I think people deserve my best efforts and the best efforts of our management team. I did not take this personally. That doesn't mean I am not emotionally stressed and emotionally disappointed. I think the airline is still worth saving, and I think people deserve our best try."
Excatly when is the company going to employ a CEO with a management team that is here TO RUN THE AIRLINE? why wasn't his response something along the lines of.... USAirways is made up of several airlines with long histories, of course the competitve and economic envioroments have changed, but i am here for one reason, to make USAirways what it once was, a PROFITABLE, respected air carrier in the United States. I am going to 1. make the airline profitbale 2. here are the first 3 steps in that direction 3. I can not achieve this alone and you can not back a plan that a. you dont know about and b. have no faith in (thus i need to EXPLAIN it to you better than i must to the traveling public. 4. If i take care of my employees, they will take care of my customers, who will take care of my shareholders.
only here (not because he wanted the job) asked by RSA (nor do i have any idea on how to RUN an airline ) asked by RSA to get consenual agreements (again not run the airline but merely work on labor contracts?) so that the RSA would not lose its equity investment (again see above if anyone (business 101) bothered to RUN the airline, the employees would rally behind a true leader, the product would become better, more people would book on the airline, more revenues would increase the profitablity, more profit higher stock price, higher stock price RSA gets its money back and then some.
Remember PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST program. once again the "asset managers" have it backwards. RSA should be at the BOTTOM of the list not First.
Until this is fixed the continual problems that have plauged this airline will continue.
RUN THE AIRLINE gentleman. EVERYTHING else will take care of itself in due time.
do you actually bother to read my tag line or what?
I am just trying to do the best job I can with the resources I have to get this airline at least to break even. If our employees came to the table and negotiated savings we needed, we could be there and wouldn't have to look at other ways to save money.
WHAT? Is he serious? Are they NOT looking at other ways to save money other than from the employees? If we give them instant relief now, will they EVER look at the entire operation and cut back the waste or will the employees continue to supplement managements inability to save in other areas? I dont care for this remark at all. I know things need to change and we need to help, but this coming from the top guy himself makes it sound again like they want the easy way out so they dont have to think and work themselves at making the airline work.
:down:
WHAT? Is he serious? Are they NOT looking at other ways to save money other than from the employees? If we give them instant relief now, will they EVER look at the entire operation and cut back the waste or will the employees continue to supplement managements inability to save in other areas? I dont care for this remark at all. I know things need to change and we need to help, but this coming from the top guy himself makes it sound again like they want the easy way out so they dont have to think and work themselves at making the airline work.
:down:
Air conditioned
Advanced
- Mar 18, 2004
- 216
- 0
Q: Pittsburgh was supposed to become a hub for your regional jet operation, MidAtlantic Airways. But the second bankruptcy caused regional jet financier General Electric to suspend financing and Brazilian aircraft maker Embraer to suspend delivery on 63 regional jets . What does that mean for the Pittsburgh regional jet plan?
A: "It is pretty evident to me if we are not getting any more [regional jets] and we're short anywhere from 50-70. We will have to reevaluate where those [regional jets] are best situated to bring the maximum amount of revenues to the company. It means we have to redo the business plan."
I am confused by his answer...am I just reading it wrong...or is it a grammatical error...but what does:"it is pretty evident to me IF we are not getting any more" mean? Does he think we still might? Does he have a new plan perhaps?
A: "It is pretty evident to me if we are not getting any more [regional jets] and we're short anywhere from 50-70. We will have to reevaluate where those [regional jets] are best situated to bring the maximum amount of revenues to the company. It means we have to redo the business plan."
I am confused by his answer...am I just reading it wrong...or is it a grammatical error...but what does:"it is pretty evident to me IF we are not getting any more" mean? Does he think we still might? Does he have a new plan perhaps?
RowUnderDCA
Veteran
- Oct 6, 2002
- 2,123
- 1
Surely, a new deal will have to be struck. Perhaps on the back of the old one. What I don't know is whether or not Bom and/or Emb have claims before the court regarding aircraft of which U did not take delivery. I'd guess there might be some fees or penalties. But best case would be that Emb and Bom tear up the agreement for undelivered aircraft and once U is restructured cost wise, U gets into a new agreement for aircraft deliveries that are more appropriate for the new strategy.... like no more CRJs, but more E-jets of various sizes.
Air conditioned
Advanced
- Mar 18, 2004
- 216
- 0
RowUnderDCA,
That's the most optimistic and hopeful response I have read on here for a while. It is nice to know that something good COULD still happen and that some jobs could be saved. Thanks.
That's the most optimistic and hopeful response I have read on here for a while. It is nice to know that something good COULD still happen and that some jobs could be saved. Thanks.
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
When evaluating job numbers you have to include Piedmont, PSA, & Material Services.
Many jobs in Pittsburgh would not have to be cut, for example in Rez or Maintenance, with a competitive cost structure. Without a competitive cost structure there will be more furloughs and facility closures, than otherwise would have been necessary.
In regard to RJ's, the EMB deal is temporarily suspended and for CRJ about one-half of the delivery's have been lost. With a competitive cost structure both companies coudl provide US Airways with aircraft fairly quickly. US Airways is about 6 weeks behind in pilot training for the EMB-170. Separately, US Airways last proposal to ALPA included the EMB-190/195 to be operated at MDA and the CRJ-900 at PSA,respectively.
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot
Many jobs in Pittsburgh would not have to be cut, for example in Rez or Maintenance, with a competitive cost structure. Without a competitive cost structure there will be more furloughs and facility closures, than otherwise would have been necessary.
In regard to RJ's, the EMB deal is temporarily suspended and for CRJ about one-half of the delivery's have been lost. With a competitive cost structure both companies coudl provide US Airways with aircraft fairly quickly. US Airways is about 6 weeks behind in pilot training for the EMB-170. Separately, US Airways last proposal to ALPA included the EMB-190/195 to be operated at MDA and the CRJ-900 at PSA,respectively.
Respectfully,
USA320Pilot
Phantom Fixer
Veteran
- Oct 21, 2003
- 577
- 0
I agree that all aspects , both Mainline and the WO's have to be counted , yet I really dispute the figures on 28,000 mainline employee's being accurate.
The 28,000 figure has been being used for at least 18 months now...and the rate of burn on retirements , terminations , deaths and others simply seeking other employment has been rather high , yet many many of these open positions are never filled...and when they are filled , it's usually from within thus creating another job that's either left open or abolished in the aftermath.
Frankly I think the time for the company to come clean with all the facts and real intentions is way overdue.
I do not see too many in the laboring ranks willing to blindly give again without knowing exactly how those givebacks are going to be used and moreover how it will impact them as a station or as an individual. Show us exactly how our supposed sacrifices are going to be used in great detail.
The 28,000 figure has been being used for at least 18 months now...and the rate of burn on retirements , terminations , deaths and others simply seeking other employment has been rather high , yet many many of these open positions are never filled...and when they are filled , it's usually from within thus creating another job that's either left open or abolished in the aftermath.
Frankly I think the time for the company to come clean with all the facts and real intentions is way overdue.
I do not see too many in the laboring ranks willing to blindly give again without knowing exactly how those givebacks are going to be used and moreover how it will impact them as a station or as an individual. Show us exactly how our supposed sacrifices are going to be used in great detail.
