The Big Question

[robbedagain]

i saw an article in the business magazine (august 2nd issue) about delta airlines and it said that their management is not going to rely solely on labor to get their act together. the article said that they will be a lot different airline within one year
no first class on selected routes I think appeared in the article. now if usair implemented most if not all the IAM's reccomendations and would listen to the employees about how to run this airline, we would not be in the mess hall that we're in now. this whole mess is due to mgmt's failure to do what is right for this airline instead of pickpocketing the employees for more dough, then walking away with their golden parachutes and millions for their mistakes!

 

[diogenes]

Rico,

Your last post is redolent of an attitude agents are all too familiar with.

How many times have they heard pilots say, all would be well at U, (but they mean their personal situation, W2-wise)if those agents were just paid what they were worth? Figures of $6-8 are mentioned.


I'd bet huge, if the fate of agents were put up to an ALPA vote, they'd get thrown under the bus sooner than you could say Bob's-your-uncle. After all, ALPA has expertise in this area.

This, notwithstanding the payscales at our former parity comparisons, or WN, who Hadjie was sooo fond of comparing U to.

Notwithstanding that the ATSB is a political creation, with political goals in mind - and union-busting is one of those goals. But that's right, ALPA normally pulls the R lever.

Notwithstanding that the 'marketplace' is not some impersonal force of nature, such as Hurricane Charlie, but a human construct, influenced by humans.

Like it or not, rational or irrational, for better or for worse, agents will FINALLY have a say in their (and your) destiny, instead of spectating, as was historically the case, and as ALPA was so comfortable with.

Cheeky buggers!

 

[Rico]

Yeah, you are right.

I am married to a CSA.

So I know first hand what they are worth. No I would not throw them under the bus.

But, I would do whatever we could to free up, make more productive, and lessen the strain upon them so they could focus on priority #1, the customer.

Would we need as many agents then, no <_< , but the ones that remain should be paid well for their important work. Productivity allows high salaries while still maintaining low overhead.

Ticket readers, Kiosks, new website. Those are a start.

But why stop there. Why should a customer sit wondering what is going on. A kiosk at every gate that displays weather (here, in-between, there), displays air traffic, displays aircraft status, tell passengers important info...

DAL went that way with the plasma screens at each gate, updating passengers... It seemed like a good start on a great idea. If anything it saved both passenger and agent time from having to answer many of the simple questions our customers might have.

But...

If we cannot survive long enough to make such changes, then what do ideas such as that matter.

The investment in such changes depends solely upon our willingness to do what is necessaqry to remain competitive. The future is not as dark as some would have u think.

But the money sources will dry up in a heartbeat if they do not think that labor is willing to invest in the company themselves.

Is that the answer you want to hear, doubtful, but it is realistic.

 

[700UW]

Still waiting Rico.

 

[Rico]

Ahh, yes, 700UW...

The answers you asked for.

We can only deal with the "now", crying about the past is a waste of time.

What exactly does it have to do with anything right now? You gave before, so you do not think you need to give again while everyone else is trying to save the place...?

If "ghosts of management past" are so scary to you, then realize that you only have your 40K+ a year salary to blame for their continual efforts to get further concessions from you.



No Airline survived on concessions alone, but this one is still up and running based only upon the sacrifices and effort we all gave before.

If further cuts will enable the company to survive long enough to CONTINUE the transformation process then THAT added time is what will have saved the company.

The company wants to make dramatic changes, but many require substantial investment. New planes, new routes, new cities...

But no one is going to invest in a company that it's own employees are unwilling to invest in. No investment = no more company.


I KNOW, I KNOW, you are stuck on your own personal agenda 700, in that how can you continue to do, what you do, for what you make.

You cannot...

Seems cold, but that is reality, and that is why you are fighting change with such zeal.

"Times are changing", no matter how hard you hold onto the present (or past in your case). IMHO it will only be a short time until support functions such as fleet service are no longer handled by the airlines themselves anyways.

More like the european model, in which airports themselves handle such duties for the airlines, charging a set fee to all carriers (level playing field, increased revenue for airports)

Heck, we already have this in the US system, and you know it. HPN or SAV serve as examples, right...?

Anyways, 700, if you need further answers, feel free to send the questions my way in the form of a question instead of just making dramatic rhetorical statements...

Thanks

 

[700UW]

You still have not answered, just a bunch of rhetoric yourself.

Go back and read the posts where I poised the questions to you and stated facts.

Are you taking lessons from another pilot on here?

Why would trust a management that has been proven to lie to every labor group and violate the CBAs on a daily basis?

Why would you trust a management that has squandered $4 billion in concessions and vendor giveabacks?

Why would you trust a management that has proven time after time they do not know how to run an airline?

Why would you trust a CEO who has never worked in the airline industry before to be the savior of the company?

Why would you trust a SR VP of Labor Relations who main job before he came to work at US was to bust unions? And he is trying his best to do the same at US.

It boils down to a choice, why do you care so much about what the IAM does when your own union has sold you down the river?

What would you do if one day Mesa takes over all narrowbody and EMB170 flying and the company violates your scope language?

Dr Bronner has threatended liquidation in 2002, 2003 and now he is threatening bankruptcy in 2004. So tell me how they are kinder and gentler then any of the previous management?

 

[Rico]

"sigh"

Because they sounded more like rhetorical sound bites someone might shout out of a megaphone during a rally (than actual questions).



Trust em...?

Trust them what...? :blink:

To be "honest"...?

I think the CURRENT leaders are doing just that. It takes a lot of moxie to be up front with everyone, that we need real change after pulling down a 34 Million dollar profit.

You sound like such a drama queen 700... Ask the folks at Enron what really bad management is... Ask what real lies are before you start tossing out tripe like "squandered $4 billion" and "proven to lie".

Management is in the same corner as we are, we both make this work, or it all goes away for BOTH of us.

why do you care so much about what the IAM does when your own union has sold you down the river?

Well, I had nothing against the IAM, until they refused to talk to the company (let alone try to do something) when every other union was doing so.

My airline mechanic friends at various airlines cannot stand the IAM, and are all for AMFA looking out for THEIR mechanic issues ALONE, not your workgroup's issues 700UW...

What would you do if one day Mesa takes over all narrowbody and EMB170 flying and the company violates your scope language?

Who sez they have not tried? There is no scope protection preventing it. (LOA91)

But guess what. It is now more profitable for US to keep the EMB-170 Divison, even tied onto mainline, than to send it off the property. THAT is what I was talking about when it came to doing what is necessary to remain competitive.

My competition is the Mesa Pilot. Do I like to have to work at 35K, nope. <_<

Would I rather be unemployed, and watch some Mesa Pilot get paid 35K instead, even less so... :angry:


But that is the point. Would anyone here really like to take a pay cut. NO

But would you rather be unemployed, and watch jetBlue, Independence Air, Southwest, Frontier, America West, Spirit, American, United, Delta, Northwest, and Continental take over your flying...? Some even in the very planes that US Airways used to fly...?

Even less so... :down:

 

[PITbull]

Rico,

If your competition is the MESA pilot.....

Are you willing to work for less than $35,000???


What's your bottom? I am sure U will help you get there to hold on to your job.

 

[700UW]

Rico, you still have not answered the questions, this is not an amfa VS IAM discussion but yet the only thing you can do is throw that in there.

You have not answered anything. And LOA 91, does not give the company permission to farmout NARROWBODY, you know planes like the A320 family, B737 family.

So why do you keep dodging answering the questions poised?

If it is so profitable then why did US pay Mesa $232,000,000 last year to fly 50 RJs?

 

[colorado_cowboy]

Rico did you every think that if U goes under that another airline would step in and fill the void? With that in mind dont you think that they might hire you?
Think about it... it might mean starting all over but at least you know that your new employer isnt going to screw you over every chance he/she gets. Who know's you might even get a raise out of the deal.

 

[diogenes]

Rico,

Borrow your lady's CBA, read it, and cite me significant 'work rules' that stand between U and profit.

You are a relative newcomer, but this subject has been around the block a few times.

The agent CBA's are initial agreements, and little more than the personnel policy guide with a union logo on it.

But I'd guess you already know that.

 

[to much time to quit]

Yeah, you are right.

I am married to a CSA.

If we cannot survive long enough to make such changes, then what do ideas such as that matter.

.

[post="169100"][/post]​

Well this explains your give again philosophy. Your what we call in poker ALL IN. If the ones who refuse to give again sink this puppy all your chips are gone. You should of known not to put all those eggs in one basket, they could end up on your face. I'll let you in on a little secret, if or when we have to vote again it will be another big fat NO. I will no longer help this company stay afloat with mine or my coworkers wages or benefits.

 

[Rico]

I think you all have me confused as an Idealist...

I am a realist.


Cowboy,

I work for US Airways, until such time I do not, I will do everything I can to help US Airways succeed. I am a realist. IF US Airways does go under I will deal with it, but until then, I sure will not wish for it to happen.


PITBull,

Hmmm, well no one held a gun to my head to make me take the position at MDA, not the company nor ALPA. But, I am a realist. My position at Allegheny ceased to exist much like the many positions of the F/A's bidding into MDA ceased to exist at mainline. I had little choice but to work at MDA if I wanted to still fly for US, but I still had a choice. IF US goes under, no one will have any choice whatsoever, nor future payoff for sacrifices made now. 35K meets my bills, and I can find the same elsewhere out of flying tomm.

So yes, In my situation 35K is my bottom point, in which I will leave flying to support my family, rather than do the job I love. I am a realist.



Too much time,

Do not know what to say, other than you have "too much time to quit". Your chips are the only chips you have if you have. US goes away, then you have to quit. No vote on that amigo...




diogenes,

Read the post, only way I see high salaries remaining for CSA's is a more productive CSA workforce. Not work rules, but technology improvements so that one CSA can do the work of two. Like I said, fewer agents as a result, but also more competitive as a result.



700UW,

There is no answer to your questions because they are based upon an emotional repsonse. "Trust" is a feeling. I am a realist.

I "like" Lakefield because he seems savvy, up front, and honest to me.

I have no control over your emotional responses, nor likes/dislikes, nor whom you trust. That is up to you.

You understand why I said your "questions" sounded more like rallying cries meant to rally support to your cause (playing on people's emotional response), rather than real questions? Trust is an emotion, a personal emotion.

Realism...? US managment has "run out" of time as much as we have. They too have no choice but to adapt and change, or they too will fail. It is not a "trust" issue, it is cold hard reality. They cannot afford the "status quo" anymore.

I would hope that the new leaders have a new vision, but "hope" is just a feeling too. I know that they have already made a few changes to the way thngs have been...

Take for example your quip:

If it is so profitable then why did US pay Mesa $232,000,000 last year to fly 50 RJs

Yeah, why indeed...?

But in case you missed it, Dave left.

New Bosses = RJ growth in house = Profits kept in house

That is one of the things that make me FEEL that Lakefield is more savvy. But, that is only IMHO, only my "feeling"

Anyways, enough of the mushy-ish feelings talk. Reality and realism is what is on the menu for US Airways. So we all better put our feelings aside and get down to business.

Peace B)

 

[PITbull]

Rico,

Well then, lets be real....really real...

Mainline can not continue to subsidize MAA to infinity.

If U goes into BK, MAA will be taking cuts too, not just mainline as you would have believe that cuts would be "all contained".

Neg. committee tried to get a 1113 letter for MAA. Answer: NOPE.


All bets are off in BK. Yours too. So, as you elected to go to MAA, get ready to take that reality ride down the wage scale.

 

[700UW]

In case you missed it US is buying CRJ-701s for Mesa and Mesa is increasing the # of RJs flown for US.

And Lakefield was on the BOD when they approved the ST MAE contract to steal IAM covered work.

So you can like him, but I don't trust him. Remember this is not his plan, this is Siegel's plan that the BOD with Lakefield on it voted to adopt Siegel's transformation plan.

And LOA 91 lets US place the plane you fly at non-owned express carriers.

Did you forget these things?