Questions on US Airways'' future

[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.

 

[usfliboi]

Chip , Your incorrect concerning afa's me-too clause. The one and only me too application that afa had to use was the duty rigs rules alpa agreed other wise thats the only thing that applies. There fore unless new agreements are made 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 regardless of threats or intimidations. Im sure everyone knows BY NOW what the companies situation is. A person voting no doesnt mean that they want 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.

 

[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.

 

[chipmunn]

Clue:

Clue said: 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.

Chip comments: I disagree. If US Airways can save $744 million by terminating IAM and AFA pension plans, which may be an option per Dave Siegel's comment in his December 24 letter, the money would be available for general corporate purposes. It's not inconceivable that the money could be used for pilot/management retirement restoration funding or general purposes.

Chip

 

[chipmunn]

For those who say that I am only concerned about my pension plan I agree and disagree.

Do I want to lose this benefit? Absolutely not, but I have other alternatives such as my military retirement, 401(k), IRA, my wife's pension, and my wife's IRA. In addition, we both qualify for full social security benefits.

As you can see, we can live quit comfortably on our current retirement benefits; however, I do not want to lose my US Airways pension. But, my motivation is to point out what could occur if the TA's are not ratified in a thought-provoking discussion, which is something that will effect all of us.

Chip

 

[Formatman]

Chip says:
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.


Formatman says:
Methinks you are a little worried that a no vote on anybody's TA might jeapordize YOUR pension also!

 

[autofixer]

Vote already! This same old dribble is getting old!