Questions on US Airways'' future

[cavalier]

[P][SPAN class=BodyFont]Cavalier:[BR][BR]If the employee posts on this site were truly representative of the US rank-and-file, then EVERY TA would have been rejected and the company would have liquidated months ago.[BR][BR][/P]
[P]-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[BR][BR] I said, "IF" [BR][BR] I work here also and hear all the nay sayers every single day I punch in, and believe what I wrote.[BR][BR][BR] [/SPAN][/P]

 

[delldude]

cav- i know what you mean...i hear the same in my area....i try to keep an eye on the percentages of people who are saying 'no'.....alot do it in groups but privately do their own thing.time will tell..

 

[chipmunn]

[DIV class=articleheadline][FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3][STRONG]What is UAL's survival plan?[BR][/STRONG][/FONT][FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3][BR]CHICAGO (Crains' Business News) - When UAL Corp. appears before U.S. Bankruptcy Court Chief Judge Eugene Wedoff in Chicago next week, the airline company will have to present a solid business plan and establish financial credibility as it attempts to reorganize. [/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3]UAL’s United Airlines - the world’s second-largest air carrier - has struggled for a year with little success to convince lenders, its unions and the federal airline bailout authority that it has a viable plan for survival.[/FONT][BR][BR][FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3]Complete Story: [/FONT][A href="http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=7546"][FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3]http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=7546[/FONT][/A][BR][BR][FONT face="Times New Roman"][FONT size=3][STRONG]Chip comments:[/STRONG] Provided US Airways and its remaining unions ratify their TA's, this article presents a strong argument on why I believe an "interesting corporate transaction" between UAL & US Airways may be the Chicago-based airline's best chance at avoiding liquidation.[/FONT][/FONT][/DIV]

 

[Slam&Click]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/7/2003 9:36:28 AM deltawatch wrote:

The poor judgment demonstrated by the moderator causes this forum to lose credibility.
----------------
[/blockquote]

All whom post on this forum 'free of charge' agreed to the same rules of usage and etiquette guidelines when we'd enrolled. We will experience an occasional topic consolidation/closure/elimination when moderators deem them to be redundant, abusive, or find that they may potentially infringe upon US Copyright laws. We would no longer be afforded the opportunity to freely express ourselves without this board or those moderators.

This is an extremely volatile period in airline history. The moderators have allowed extreme latitude in many instances because the industry, this airline and employees (and their families) are experiencing intense daily turmoil. Rather than condemn them, perhaps we should thank them!

 

[chipmunn]

CAT III:

CAT III said: Chip, You forgot the company can also SEEK TO TERMINATE ALPO's pension plans. That would be a HUGE SAVINGS !!!

Chip comments: With all due respect, I believe purposely mispronouncing a name of a person or an organization is an insult and lacks respect. In our family we have taught our 5 and 7-year old children to not insult others, to show people respect, and to have dignity, but I find it interesting that some grown men and women, who may call themself professionals, feel the need to insult others. I believe this type of communication speaks volumes about the sender "true identity".

In regard to the pilot pension issue, you are correct the company could seek to terminate the ALPA retirement plan. However, ALPA and the company ratified an agreement at the MEC level to save the pension, but the accord was rejected by the PBGC.

According to the December 20 ALPA code-a-phone update, "The MEC received updates from its advisors on the Company’s December 20 filing of the Plan of Reorganization and plan for emergence from bankruptcy in open and closed sessions, and on ALPA and the Company's efforts to obtain pension plan funding deferments from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) in closed session."

The recording also said, "ALPA is working closely with the Company on resolving pension plan issues with the PBGC. This has been a top priority issue for ALPA and significant groundwork has been completed, but the issue remains unresolved. Your MEC representatives recognize your interest in this issue but request that all pilots please refrain from initiating individual communications to government officials on this issue, at this time, since it is currently not helpful to the ongoing efforts. Once a grassroots effort is required it will be announced and guidance will be posted on the MEC website. Additional information on this issue should be available by the end of next week."

Reports indicate the parties are making progress and I expect an accord to be reached, especially with recent congressional moves lead by Senator Specter.

What's interesting is that if the IAM and/or AFA do not ratify their TA's, according to Dave Siegel's comment of “The only thing that puts the IAM and AFA pensions at risk is a ‘no’ vote on ratification,â€￾ failure of these unions to ratify their TA's could provide up to about $744 million or $106 million per year in corporate capital, previously destined to fund mechanic and F/A pensions, which could then be used to fund pilot pensions.

I believe it would be a mistake for the mechanics and F/A's to reject thier TA's, face the problems I listed above in this thread, lose their pesnion/have PBGC minimum retirement plans, and then see the corporate funds used to fund their retirements applied to the underfunded pilot pension plan.

Regardless, one thing for sure is this will be interesting to see how this will all work out.

Chip

 

[BillLumbergh]

Agreed.[BR][BR]No ALPO.[BR][BR]No International Association of Monkey-wrench-turners[BR][BR]No Crybaby Workers of America.[BR]

 

[ClueByFour]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/7/2003 12:57:17 PM chipmunn wrote:

[snip]

I believe it would be a mistake for the mechanics and F/A's to reject thier TA's, face the problems I listed above in this thread, lose their pesnion/have PBGC minimum retirement plans, and then see the corporate funds used to fund their retirements applied to the underfunded pilot pension plan.
----------------
[/blockquote]

You really think that management or the finance folks would allow that cash to be dumped into the pilot's pension in leiu of changing the multiplier or doing the other things that the PBGC just rejected?

Dream on.

I'm pretty sure that the company will extract the pound of flesh for the pilots' amazingly generous pension from the pilots themselves, and not from other employee groups. Failing that, they'll simply distress the pension, and let the PBGC pick up the pieces. Something tells me that ALPA will bend even further if necessary to keep that from happening.

Chip, while I agree with many of your viewpoints put forth here, it is somewhat arrogant to suggest that a failure to ratify on the part of other gorups will result in that cashflow being directed towards the pilot's pension fund. In light of the compensation delta between pilots and every other union on the property, it's also a rather foolish thing to do if your goal is to eventually see TAs ratified. It's not a class warfare thing--it's more like common sense.

 

[USAirBoyA330]

Chip Stated:

"Nobody likes this situation and I hate to see you, me, or anybody else lose pay, benefits, or retirement.
What's interesting about your comment is that the AFA & CWA use an electronic voting system and the union leadership gets a daily count of the "yes" & "no" votes from the vendor."

OK....after some research lets dispel this myth right now. AFA and CWA get a daily talley of how many are VOTING through the computer or phone but NOT whether they voted FOR or AGAINST. This would be considered illegal and could sway the outcome of the vote.
So AFA only knows how many have casted a vote...they have NO idea what the votes are until Friday at Noon.

 

[cat 111]

Chip

I thought a NO vote would put the company into liquidation.I believe that came from Alabama Dave.Why not terminate all pension funds?

 

[usfliboi]

Chip , Your incorrect concerning afa's me-too clause. The one and only me too application that afa hadd to use was the duty rigs rules alpa agreed other wise thats the only thing that applies. There fore unless new agreements are mad between alpa and the company the company has already applied the approp clauses. Iam employees as well as afa members have every right to vote no or yes and that will happen regarless of threats or intimidations. Im sure everyone knows BY NOW what the companies situation is. A person voting no doesnt mean that they wat to see their fellow co workers suffer, it means that have weighed the options and chosen to vote no! I respect that and our ablity to do either ! I encourage everyone to vote what best fits your thoughts and needs in your on personal lives.

 

[a320av8r]

I have checked on the retirement funding problem. What
surprised me was that if U should terminate funding of the retirement plans, U still must fund them by the amount they are underfunded (-3.1B). PBGC can get that money any way they see fit including liquidating the company.
So just terminating the plans saves money going forward but the problem still remains.
UAL has the same problem. PBGC could liquidate U and UAL and fund the shortfall with the liquidated assets.
With republicans running the country don't expect any mercy when it comes to money.

 

[a320av8r]

I have checked on the retirement funding problem. What
surprised me was that if U should terminate funding of the retirement plans, U still must fund them by the amount they are underfunded (-3.1B). PBGC can get that money any way they see fit including liquidating the company.
So just terminating the plans saves money going forward but the problem still remains.
UAL has the same problem. PBGC could liquidate U and UAL and fund the shortfall with the liquidated assets.
With republicans running the country don't expect any mercy when it comes to money.

 

[RedOne]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/7/2003 9:42:57 AM chipmunn wrote:

First, management would have to convince RSA, the unsecured creditors, the ATSB, and GECAS that it could obtain required cuts through other means to meet the financing requirements. These could include:
...............

5. Move to close more mainline stations, replace this service with RJs, and furlough CWA and IAM-FSA employees.......----------------
[/blockquote]

Chip & others,
This is part of the big problem many of us in the F/S & C/S agent category have with the TAs as being presented.
If we vote YES, because of the wording of the contract, we are agreeing to closing mainline stations and giving our "approval" to their being turned into commuter stations. Thus for many of us, a YES vote is voting ourselves out of a mainline job....and consequetly, another and even larger pay cut to follow (when the station becomes commuter)

A NO vote MAY mean no job...as #5 above could indeed happen. Maybe worse.
A YES vote to many, will mean we agree to no job as mainline...(it's just a question of how long will it take to close our station to mainline... 1 month? 6months? 1 year?) Many feel that all small stations and most moderate size stations will become commuter statations...under the TAs we have to vote on. Thus, a cut in pay which is so drastic that we can get jobs elsewhere making the same money...with lots less stress. It's not about wheather or not we like our job. If we didn't...just like you, we would have left long ago. Who would work under the kind of pressure we all have (even before all this) if we didn't love it? For most of us it has been more than "just a job."

Diogenes brought up a valid point which no-one has answered (to the best of my knowledge). The company has stated they need $25 mil from agents...yet the only thing they have asked from us is to pay more for medical coverage. The only way they are going to get the kind of money needed from us is to convert mainline stations into commuter stations. They just won't admit that is the game plan. BUT IT IS THE ONLY WAY THAT I SEE FOR THEM TO GET THE BIG BUCKS (at least big for us)...if there IS another way, I sure would love to know about it. IF they have other plans, I wish they would present them in black and white to us...it would convince me of my vote very quickly!

I feel if I vote YES...I AM cutting my own throat. If I vote NO...I MAY be cutting my own throat.

Am I concerned about you? Yes. However; if I am to be honest, just like you, my first and foremost concern is for me and my family.

 

[BottomFeeder]

Why not terminate all pension funds?
----------------
[/blockquote]
CAT111

One of the biggest problems that management had. Was the way one employee group would have the all answers as to what to cut for other employee groups. Instead of how they could come up with a cost reduction for their own group.

I would really like to hear your ideas of how your group is going to cut cost. What insights do you see that will better US for a turn around?

Let us know your solutions.

I think the quote is to " Get your house in order FIRST."

 

[a320av8r]

I have checked on the retirement funding problem. What
surprised me was that if U should terminate funding of the retirement plans, U still must fund them by the amount they are underfunded (-3.1B). PBGC can get that money any way they see fit including liquidating the company.
So just terminating the plans saves money going forward but the problem still remains.
UAL has the same problem. PBGC could liquidate U and UAL and fund the shortfall.
With republicans running the country don't expect any mercy when it comes to money.