Survivor

[USA320Pilot]

US Airways hired Morgan Stanley to gauge interest in selling assets up to including the entire airline. One of the airlines contacted was Northwest, where sources said the Eagan-based airline has expressed some interest in buying all of US Airways. It’s unclear if this is exploratory or where it could lead, but what’s interesting is that such a move could be very damaging to United Airlines and its reorganization effort.

There is a precedent for such a move, especially considering Dave Siegel’s experience at Northwest. I understand at the time US Airways entered the marketing alliance with United last summer, Northwest was talking seriously with US Airways about the same type of alliance. A well-placed Northwest ALPA official indicated that the actual contract documents were drawn up and in CCY awaiting signatures. He said the Northwest management was puzzled as to why the foot-dragging at US Airways to get the deal done. Northwest evidently thought it was a done deal (they realized that it was a great match up), and then US Airways sucker punched them with the United announcement. Then Northwest, Delta, and Continental then quickly put together their response.

Could we see Northwest acquire US Airways with a purposeful attempt too mortally wound United? Regardless, it will be interesting to see how this turns out with US Airways apparently having M&A options, especially with Dave Siegel repeatedly stating that his focus is on fixing the company on a stand-alone basis, "so we're a more attractive partner" when the "necessary, logical and inevitable" consolidation occurs.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[7.5victim]

US Airways hired Morgan Stanley to gauge interest in selling assets up to including the entire airline. One of the airlines contacted was Northwest, where sources said the Eagan-based airline has expressed some interest in buying all of US Airways.

Would you care to share the source of your info about NW having ANY interest in UAIR? My sources (Aviation Daily, for example) have never mentioned NW as a potential bidder. Until NW gets new contracts in place, and all furloughed employees back, don't expect a white knight from Minnesota. Given NW's employee relations, it's not likely to happen at all. The junior ones have been furloughed, the ones who are left have been thru a number of mergers.

 

[Bear96]

Bear96,

You are completely wrong saying that the "NO" voters still sold themselves out by still working for the company under an unacceptable contract. Anyone in their right mind wants to get paid the most that they can and get the most benefits that they can. If we didn't we wouldn't need a contract. We would just let management take what they want when they want freely. If you were negotiating salary with a new employer wouldn't you negotiate for the highest salary that you could. You would at least want what you think you are worth. Who's to say what would have happened if any of the groups would have said no the last two times. Obviously the cuts didn't make much difference so, who's to say we may of still been here in this same position without the cuts and making more money with better benefits.

Well the current contract is hard to swallow but still acceptable... up until this point. We all gave (twice) with the understanding that our consessions would definately turn this airline around. Well, we're worse off now than before and now being asked for a 25% cut in pay and benefits with less employees and worse work conditions. Where did that money go? Where will the money from another round of consessions go? Managements pockets! If you believe more consessions are the answer you're living in a dream world. Whether we give more or not is ultimately not going to make a difference. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. We are too far gone. Many would rather work for more until the doors close than work for less and still have the doors close.

So, no the "NO" voters didn't sell themselves out. They are smart to stay under the current contract and collect their sufficient paychecks and any benefits due and know that they stood up for their self-worth by voting "NO" and are still here to vote "NO" again whether it means the company folds or comes up with another solution and gets new management that knows something about the airline business and can come up with a plan to turn US around without more consessions. Any more wasted consessions is absurd knowing what the end result will be.

Bobcat,

I draw a distinction with those that just have a blanket personal policy of voting NO on every contract that comes their way.

The sensible approach with each ratification is to think about it and consider such things as how is the current level of solidarity in the group; the financial health of the company (you can't get blood from a stone); what are the alternatives; and what are the consequences should a TA be voted down. Sometimes an honest evaluation of these factors will show a Yes vote is wisest; sometimes it will show a No vote is wisest.

(And FWIW I agree with you for many of the reasons you articulated (at least I think I do, if I am understanding you correctly)-- if I were at U right now, I probably would be voting against any further concessions too. Likewise, here at UA, though I voted for our first round of concessions last year, I will probably vote no should it be necessary to have the issue of conessions come up again, though that will of course depend on the details of the circumstances going on at UA at the time.)

However, those that simply vote No without really considering the issues-- which must be the case for someone who has voted No their "entire career"-- in the thoughts that somehow absolves them of any responsibility for anything bad that happens so they can simply blame "someone else" or "the union" or whomever, is acting irresponsibly, IMO.

If you have felt for your entire career that your skills are being undervalued, and have decided that you will continue to feel that way for the rest of your career no matter what is put in front of you, yet you continue to stay and work for what you can get, I see that as synonymous with "selling out."

 

[BoeingBoy]

Bear,

One possibility that you may not have considered is the decade long experience that we at U have had with concessions. Depending on the length of one's career here, they may have seen nothing but concessionary contracts to vote on. While one could argue that we would not be here today without the previous concessions, it is undeniable that what was promised to secure those concessions was not delivered.

Jim

 

[ktflyhome]

Bear: I had VERY good reasons for voting NO on the contracts presented to the membership. It was not just a Blanket Personnal NO, regardless of the concessions and/or issues at hand. You have really gotten on your high horse and have "Assumed" a little too much. You have no idea how long I have been with the company or what the details that were involved in MY VOTING NO. Furthermore, I was not trying to BRAG or ABSOLVE my self of any responsibility. I think absolving onself of any responsibility at all is NOT to vote period.

Once something is given up contractually, it never returns. I voted in good conscience of what I thought was right. Companies are always going to try and take what ever they can manage to sneak by with. Often times, we don't read the fine print or the hidden agendas that are put in place, and the next thing you know,we have gone and screwed yourself.

Sounds to me that you have got some Personal Agenda yourself. Every vote counts for something, whether YES or NO. <_<

 

[biztraveller29]

US Airways made assumptions about itself and the industry that haven't materialized. For instance, it counted on a modest industry rebound, a return to 80-cent-a-gallon fuel and the failure of some of its larger competitors to match or beat the cost savings it gained in bankruptcy.

"It became pretty obvious the original plan wasn't going to work," says David Bronner, CEO of the airline's largest investor, Retirement Systems of Alabama, and nonexecutive chairman of US Airways.

Did anyone else notice that the last "plan" involved items completely out of US Airways' control: Jet fuel prices, competitor failures, and an overall industry upturn?

That's a "plan"? No wonder US Airways employees should be wary of more concessions: This management team has shown very little capability to plan, and if you're going to base your success on correctly guessing the price of jet fuel, perhaps it's time to hand the reigns over to someone else.

 

[Cosmo]

Could we see Northwest acquire US Airways with a purposeful attempt too mortally wound United?

There are two words that should make anyone extremely cautious about such a potential merger: Northwest-Midway! Read the history of how Northwest left Midway "at the altar" about 10 years ago, causing the original (Chicago/Midway-based) version of the smaller carrier to stop flying shortly thereafter. Could history repeat itself?

And didn't yesterday's WSJ article note that none of the major carriers would have the financial strength needed to actually consummate a merger for several more years?

Also, does anyone think that the DOT and/or DOJ might have a small objection to Northwest merging with US Airways while maintaining codesharing deals with Continental and Delta, effectively combining four of the six current network carriers into one marketing group? Conversely, if such a merger would jeopardize Northwest's codesharing deals with Continental and Delta (and potentially with KLM and Air France as well), does anyone honestly think that's a trade-off that Northwest would make?

There are lots of questions here that IMHO throw a considerable amount of cold water on the idea of a possible Northwest-US Airways merger.

As to the question of whether such a merger would "mortally wound" United, I would doubt it. United competed well against Northwest prior to its codesharing agreement with US Airways, and I believe that it would do so again, especially with its much lower post-bankruptcy cost structure. Actually, I think it's at least as likely that a Northwest-US Airways merger would "mortally wound" Northwest ("Hey, let's merge with a carrier that will help us increase our CASM!").

 

[28yearsnojob]

:down: THats what they told me if your city goes RJ you would work mid atlantic
Iam said they had this deal ,well they lied ,and the company lied . Well I voted for it,RESULT layed off and a contracter loading the aircraft (RJ),Pushing back,Deicing,
cleaning RON, and CWA working flight operations. And they want the rest of the working force to believe them,sent me a nickle and I"ll send you a dime.