U in The Intensive Care Unit
- Thread starter cavalier
- Start date
NYPD;
How do you know that there would be no negotiations? The APA was told that there would be NO PEB, but there was.
If USAIR returns to profitability next year you will still be stuck with this contract till at least Dec 31 2008 or longer. You can bet that USAIR will be in no hurry to come to terms in 2008, so it may end up dragging on till 2010 or beyond. Then if you ask for increases that will make up for what you lost due to inflation the NMB will say its excessive like they did with NWA/AMFA. If the worst should happen you could be back at top pay at AA, UAL or NWA by 2007. The yes vote is no guarantee that the company will survive, it only guarantees you a lower standard of living than you have now. It means that if they go bankrupt you will be going into unemployment in a weaker financial position than now. This is due to the fact that you will be trying to survive on a reduced income while trying to prop up the company. Once airlines start asking for concessions they usually dont stop.
How do you know that there would be no negotiations? The APA was told that there would be NO PEB, but there was.
If USAIR returns to profitability next year you will still be stuck with this contract till at least Dec 31 2008 or longer. You can bet that USAIR will be in no hurry to come to terms in 2008, so it may end up dragging on till 2010 or beyond. Then if you ask for increases that will make up for what you lost due to inflation the NMB will say its excessive like they did with NWA/AMFA. If the worst should happen you could be back at top pay at AA, UAL or NWA by 2007. The yes vote is no guarantee that the company will survive, it only guarantees you a lower standard of living than you have now. It means that if they go bankrupt you will be going into unemployment in a weaker financial position than now. This is due to the fact that you will be trying to survive on a reduced income while trying to prop up the company. Once airlines start asking for concessions they usually dont stop.
If dave reduces the main line fleet to 165 like the USA article states there won't be nothing left but airbuses.
Most of the in house work we do will be gone along with at least another third of our work force.
The big picture is starting to show it's ugly head and it dosen't include a lot of us.
Most of the in house work we do will be gone along with at least another third of our work force.
The big picture is starting to show it's ugly head and it dosen't include a lot of us.
oldiebutgoody
Veteran
- Aug 23, 2002
- 2,627
- 945
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/16/2002 11:30:37 AM t-man wrote:
If dave reduces the main line fleet to 165 like the USA article states there won't be nothing left but airbuses.
Most of the in house work we do will be gone along with at least another third of our work force.
The big picture is starting to show it's ugly head and it dosen't include a lot of us.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Especially if Dave can't get some cost cutting concessions from the remaining unions. My personal take on this situation is that NOT agreeing on a TA will just accelerate the unemployment of MORE IAM and CWA members, who might have SOME protections under the TA.
----------------
On 9/16/2002 11:30:37 AM t-man wrote:
If dave reduces the main line fleet to 165 like the USA article states there won't be nothing left but airbuses.
Most of the in house work we do will be gone along with at least another third of our work force.
The big picture is starting to show it's ugly head and it dosen't include a lot of us.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Especially if Dave can't get some cost cutting concessions from the remaining unions. My personal take on this situation is that NOT agreeing on a TA will just accelerate the unemployment of MORE IAM and CWA members, who might have SOME protections under the TA.
UAL777flyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 730
- 0
RealityCheck,
You're entitled to vote no. I certainly won't begrudge you that right. However, it's when you advocate pulling the plug and shutting US down for good that you display a selfish and self-serving attitude that basically demonstrates your lack of concern for your fellow employees and your company. That speaks volumes about what has gotten US to this point. While I'm fully aware that looking out for #1 is what puts food on your table and pays your bills, I would like to think that you also have some concern for the well-being of your co-workers and your company. But, I guess throwing in the towel and quitting when the chips are down is in vogue these days. If you're unhappy with your standing at US, why don't you leave on your own instead of advocating taking thousands with you and shutting the company down for good? I mean after all, according to many, the job market is very robust. But I suppose advocating shutting the company down is your way of sticking it back to the company that has stuck it to you for years. Truly sad. For the sake of any potential future for US Airways, I sincerely hope that your attitude is not prevalent among the majority.
In the end, voting no is one thing. But advocating that your company shut down is another thing entirely.
You're entitled to vote no. I certainly won't begrudge you that right. However, it's when you advocate pulling the plug and shutting US down for good that you display a selfish and self-serving attitude that basically demonstrates your lack of concern for your fellow employees and your company. That speaks volumes about what has gotten US to this point. While I'm fully aware that looking out for #1 is what puts food on your table and pays your bills, I would like to think that you also have some concern for the well-being of your co-workers and your company. But, I guess throwing in the towel and quitting when the chips are down is in vogue these days. If you're unhappy with your standing at US, why don't you leave on your own instead of advocating taking thousands with you and shutting the company down for good? I mean after all, according to many, the job market is very robust. But I suppose advocating shutting the company down is your way of sticking it back to the company that has stuck it to you for years. Truly sad. For the sake of any potential future for US Airways, I sincerely hope that your attitude is not prevalent among the majority.
In the end, voting no is one thing. But advocating that your company shut down is another thing entirely.
N513AU
Advanced
- Aug 20, 2002
- 219
- 0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/16/2002 5:44:56 PM UAL777flyer wrote:
Reality Check,
That wasn't my question. As I stated plainly in my post, I won't begrudge your right to vote "no" tomorrow. But why must you advocate shutting the company down and "pulling the plug"? What justice does that serve? That is a selfish and self-serving mentality to adapt when it means that EVERY employee will lose their job and your company will disappear. That will have far-reaching affects that go beyond the employees of the company and into the communities your serve that depend upon your service.
So while I respect your right to vote on your contract, I have absolutely no respect for your stance on promoting a shutdown of your company. That is simply blind arrogance in my opinion that makes one group think that they have the right to control the fate and very existence of their company simply because they deem their contract proposal to be too steep to accept. If you're not happy with the outcome, you have the choice to leave and find greener pastures. Oh, but I forgot. It's much easier to kill off your company out of spite and drag everyone else down with you than to simply exercise your right to pursue another job.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I'm getting very close to losing my job by the end of the year, thanks to Dave's amazing shrinking airline scenario. If I'm going, I'm doing my best to bring the WHOLE HOUSE down. If I'm unemployed, I need some company in the line with me.
----------------
On 9/16/2002 5:44:56 PM UAL777flyer wrote:
Reality Check,
That wasn't my question. As I stated plainly in my post, I won't begrudge your right to vote "no" tomorrow. But why must you advocate shutting the company down and "pulling the plug"? What justice does that serve? That is a selfish and self-serving mentality to adapt when it means that EVERY employee will lose their job and your company will disappear. That will have far-reaching affects that go beyond the employees of the company and into the communities your serve that depend upon your service.
So while I respect your right to vote on your contract, I have absolutely no respect for your stance on promoting a shutdown of your company. That is simply blind arrogance in my opinion that makes one group think that they have the right to control the fate and very existence of their company simply because they deem their contract proposal to be too steep to accept. If you're not happy with the outcome, you have the choice to leave and find greener pastures. Oh, but I forgot. It's much easier to kill off your company out of spite and drag everyone else down with you than to simply exercise your right to pursue another job.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I'm getting very close to losing my job by the end of the year, thanks to Dave's amazing shrinking airline scenario. If I'm going, I'm doing my best to bring the WHOLE HOUSE down. If I'm unemployed, I need some company in the line with me.
RealityCheck
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 289
- 0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/16/2002 1
16 PM UAL777flyer wrote:
RealityCheck,
You're entitled to vote no. I certainly won't begrudge you that right. However, it's when you advocate pulling the plug and shutting US down for good that you display a selfish and self-serving attitude that basically demonstrates your lack of concern for your fellow employees and your company. That speaks volumes about what has gotten US to this point. While I'm fully aware that looking out for #1 is what puts food on your table and pays your bills, I would like to think that you also have some concern for the well-being of your co-workers and your company. But, I guess throwing in the towel and quitting when the chips are down is in vogue these days. If you're unhappy with your standing at US, why don't you leave on your own instead of advocating taking thousands with you and shutting the company down for good? I mean after all, according to many, the job market is very robust. But I suppose advocating shutting the company down is your way of sticking it back to the company that has stuck it to you for years. Truly sad. For the sake of any potential future for US Airways, I sincerely hope that your attitude is not prevalent among the majority.
In the end, voting no is one thing. But advocating that your company shut down is another thing entirely.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Of course I have concern for other friends/employees, but the bottom line is it's not my problem. Some even told me today they are voting NO, how's that for equality and justice and the right to juris prudence(?)?
I do not have to vote YES for other people just to allegedly save their jobs(and even that's not guaranteed)when I have made as careful decisions as possible to get me to where I am today, professionally, personally, and financially. I shouldnt have to vote for Sally Mae who never finished college and is about to go into her 5th year at A scale..or Dudley Doright, who has been plugging along naively for 20 years topped out, not saving for a rainy day or heeding the warning signs of this industry.Sure I wish them well, but I don't expect them to favor me in any Pro-ME not You election anymore than they should expect me to favor them. Those are the cold hard facts,you don't vote for your peers, you vote for yourself. There is no rational person, shrink, minister or politician, who can deny me or anyone else this sentiment.The company should have negotiated a few more employee considerations other than the inane 1/4 hour swaps, such as the discontinuance of employee stats for discipline,and modify it to revenue tracking only, and the allowance of non pnlty sick usage of the 5 days.In addition they should have allowed for quicker snapbacks after a respectable time once U returns to profitability.
----------------
On 9/16/2002 1
16 PM UAL777flyer wrote: RealityCheck,
You're entitled to vote no. I certainly won't begrudge you that right. However, it's when you advocate pulling the plug and shutting US down for good that you display a selfish and self-serving attitude that basically demonstrates your lack of concern for your fellow employees and your company. That speaks volumes about what has gotten US to this point. While I'm fully aware that looking out for #1 is what puts food on your table and pays your bills, I would like to think that you also have some concern for the well-being of your co-workers and your company. But, I guess throwing in the towel and quitting when the chips are down is in vogue these days. If you're unhappy with your standing at US, why don't you leave on your own instead of advocating taking thousands with you and shutting the company down for good? I mean after all, according to many, the job market is very robust. But I suppose advocating shutting the company down is your way of sticking it back to the company that has stuck it to you for years. Truly sad. For the sake of any potential future for US Airways, I sincerely hope that your attitude is not prevalent among the majority.
In the end, voting no is one thing. But advocating that your company shut down is another thing entirely.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Of course I have concern for other friends/employees, but the bottom line is it's not my problem. Some even told me today they are voting NO, how's that for equality and justice and the right to juris prudence(?)?
I do not have to vote YES for other people just to allegedly save their jobs(and even that's not guaranteed)when I have made as careful decisions as possible to get me to where I am today, professionally, personally, and financially. I shouldnt have to vote for Sally Mae who never finished college and is about to go into her 5th year at A scale..or Dudley Doright, who has been plugging along naively for 20 years topped out, not saving for a rainy day or heeding the warning signs of this industry.Sure I wish them well, but I don't expect them to favor me in any Pro-ME not You election anymore than they should expect me to favor them. Those are the cold hard facts,you don't vote for your peers, you vote for yourself. There is no rational person, shrink, minister or politician, who can deny me or anyone else this sentiment.The company should have negotiated a few more employee considerations other than the inane 1/4 hour swaps, such as the discontinuance of employee stats for discipline,and modify it to revenue tracking only, and the allowance of non pnlty sick usage of the 5 days.In addition they should have allowed for quicker snapbacks after a respectable time once U returns to profitability.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #23
N513AU
I'm getting very close to losing my job by the end of the year, thanks to Dave's amazing shrinking airline scenario. If I'm going, I'm doing my best to bring the WHOLE HOUSE down. If I'm unemployed, I need some company in the line with me.
You need a BIG hug
I'm getting very close to losing my job by the end of the year, thanks to Dave's amazing shrinking airline scenario. If I'm going, I'm doing my best to bring the WHOLE HOUSE down. If I'm unemployed, I need some company in the line with me.
You need a BIG hug
UAL777flyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 730
- 0
Reality Check,
That wasn't my question. As I stated plainly in my post, I won't begrudge your right to vote no tomorrow. But why must you advocate shutting the company down and pulling the plug? What justice does that serve? That is a selfish and self-serving mentality to adapt when it means that EVERY employee will lose their job and your company will disappear. That will have far-reaching affects that go beyond the employees of the company and into the communities your serve that depend upon your service.
So while I respect your right to vote on your contract, I have absolutely no respect for your stance on promoting a shutdown of your company. That is simply blind arrogance in my opinion that makes one group think that they have the right to control the fate and very existence of their company simply because they deem their contract proposal to be too steep to accept. If you're not happy with the outcome, you have the choice to leave and find greener pastures. Oh, but I forgot. It's much easier to kill off your company out of spite and drag everyone else down with you than to simply exercise your right to pursue another job.
That wasn't my question. As I stated plainly in my post, I won't begrudge your right to vote no tomorrow. But why must you advocate shutting the company down and pulling the plug? What justice does that serve? That is a selfish and self-serving mentality to adapt when it means that EVERY employee will lose their job and your company will disappear. That will have far-reaching affects that go beyond the employees of the company and into the communities your serve that depend upon your service.
So while I respect your right to vote on your contract, I have absolutely no respect for your stance on promoting a shutdown of your company. That is simply blind arrogance in my opinion that makes one group think that they have the right to control the fate and very existence of their company simply because they deem their contract proposal to be too steep to accept. If you're not happy with the outcome, you have the choice to leave and find greener pastures. Oh, but I forgot. It's much easier to kill off your company out of spite and drag everyone else down with you than to simply exercise your right to pursue another job.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/16/2002 6:29:17 PM cavalier wrote:
N513AU
I'm getting very close to losing my job by the end of the year, thanks to Dave's amazing shrinking airline scenario. If I'm going, I'm doing my best to bring the WHOLE HOUSE down. If I'm unemployed, I need some company in the line with me.
----------------
[/blockquote]
N513AU you ever hear of karma? Im glad Im not you!!
----------------
On 9/16/2002 6:29:17 PM cavalier wrote:
N513AU
I'm getting very close to losing my job by the end of the year, thanks to Dave's amazing shrinking airline scenario. If I'm going, I'm doing my best to bring the WHOLE HOUSE down. If I'm unemployed, I need some company in the line with me.
----------------
[/blockquote]
N513AU you ever hear of karma? Im glad Im not you!!
oldiebutgoody
Veteran
- Aug 23, 2002
- 2,627
- 945
I don't think he'll shut down anything. You may want him to, so that you can show him. I just think that about half the mechs and 2/3rds of res will be getting walking papers, with their jobs being farmed out to the lowest bidder. That's what SW does, jetblue does, and soon U will too. I hope this vote gets turned down so that Dave can do what he needs to do to get this sinking ship righted again! Oh, by the way, maybe YOU can get your job back at half the pay and NO benefits by getting hired on with one of U's new contractors! I just saw that SW fles 400+ Boeings, some rather old, with LESS THAN a third the number of mechs U has! Mighty impressive reason to proudly vote NO!
RealityCheck
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 289
- 0
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/16/2002 5:44:56 PM UAL777flyer wrote:
Reality Check,
That wasn't my question. As I stated plainly in my post, I won't begrudge your right to vote "no" tomorrow. But why must you advocate shutting the company down and "pulling the plug"? What justice does that serve? That is a selfish and self-serving mentality to adapt when it means that EVERY employee will lose their job and your company will disappear. That will have far-reaching affects that go beyond the employees of the company and into the communities your serve that depend upon your service.
So while I respect your right to vote on your contract, I have absolutely no respect for your stance on promoting a shutdown of your company. That is simply blind arrogance in my opinion that makes one group think that they have the right to control the fate and very existence of their company simply because they deem their contract proposal to be too steep to accept. If you're not happy with the outcome, you have the choice to leave and find greener pastures. Oh, but I forgot. It's much easier to kill off your company out of spite and drag everyone else down with you than to simply exercise your right to pursue another job.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I also appreciate your viewpoint, but with one correction. This is not a sole venture of CWA voting NO..the IAM is in this also.Management should also have thought of the repercussions of shutting down before they kept rejecting a dozen or so offers. It is Siegel's decision to shut down if one or two unions dont approve, not those who vote No.
----------------
On 9/16/2002 5:44:56 PM UAL777flyer wrote:
Reality Check,
That wasn't my question. As I stated plainly in my post, I won't begrudge your right to vote "no" tomorrow. But why must you advocate shutting the company down and "pulling the plug"? What justice does that serve? That is a selfish and self-serving mentality to adapt when it means that EVERY employee will lose their job and your company will disappear. That will have far-reaching affects that go beyond the employees of the company and into the communities your serve that depend upon your service.
So while I respect your right to vote on your contract, I have absolutely no respect for your stance on promoting a shutdown of your company. That is simply blind arrogance in my opinion that makes one group think that they have the right to control the fate and very existence of their company simply because they deem their contract proposal to be too steep to accept. If you're not happy with the outcome, you have the choice to leave and find greener pastures. Oh, but I forgot. It's much easier to kill off your company out of spite and drag everyone else down with you than to simply exercise your right to pursue another job.
----------------
[/blockquote]
I also appreciate your viewpoint, but with one correction. This is not a sole venture of CWA voting NO..the IAM is in this also.Management should also have thought of the repercussions of shutting down before they kept rejecting a dozen or so offers. It is Siegel's decision to shut down if one or two unions dont approve, not those who vote No.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/16/2002 8:09:08 PM oldiebutgoody wrote:
I don't think he'll shut down anything. You may want him to, so that you can "show him". I just think that about half the mechs and 2/3rds of res will be getting walking papers, with their jobs being farmed out to the lowest bidder. That's what SW does, jetblue does, and soon U will too. I hope this vote gets turned down so that Dave can do what he needs to do to get this sinking ship righted again! Oh, by the way, maybe YOU can get your job back at half the pay and NO benefits by getting hired on with one of U's new contractors! I just saw that SW fles 400+ Boeings, some rather old, with LESS THAN a third the number of mechs U has! Mighty impressive reason to proudly vote "NO!"
----------------
[/blockquote]
Oldie, I can't speak for our mechs but res in NOT farmed out. As a matter of fact we are getting more and more areas of responsibility to insure we keep our jobs. The only thing we don't do is group and Southwest vacations(heard we might be doing vacations soon) If I were a U agent I'd be pretty ticked at the union for not making internet part of existing res. We do it all from flyflo to Rapid Rewards and everything in between. Best of luck to all of U.
----------------
On 9/16/2002 8:09:08 PM oldiebutgoody wrote:
I don't think he'll shut down anything. You may want him to, so that you can "show him". I just think that about half the mechs and 2/3rds of res will be getting walking papers, with their jobs being farmed out to the lowest bidder. That's what SW does, jetblue does, and soon U will too. I hope this vote gets turned down so that Dave can do what he needs to do to get this sinking ship righted again! Oh, by the way, maybe YOU can get your job back at half the pay and NO benefits by getting hired on with one of U's new contractors! I just saw that SW fles 400+ Boeings, some rather old, with LESS THAN a third the number of mechs U has! Mighty impressive reason to proudly vote "NO!"
----------------
[/blockquote]
Oldie, I can't speak for our mechs but res in NOT farmed out. As a matter of fact we are getting more and more areas of responsibility to insure we keep our jobs. The only thing we don't do is group and Southwest vacations(heard we might be doing vacations soon) If I were a U agent I'd be pretty ticked at the union for not making internet part of existing res. We do it all from flyflo to Rapid Rewards and everything in between. Best of luck to all of U.
----------------
[/blockquote]
It may not be farmed out, but you can bet you have a lot fewer of them than U has. Plus, you fly more planes, people and routes. Maybe my wording was wrong, but the idea is the same. Also, maybe there are things that SW would change if it could, including some contracting of work.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Oldie, Do you know how many agents work for U? What I see is agents doing diffrent duties. Wouldn't it be more efficient for agents to be able to handle any call? As far as Southwest changing things if they could, it was the Company who expanded our duties and imho done to insure our job security. Of course we have agents complaining about the new work we now have to do (wanting more$)because they don't see the BIG picture.......
[/blockquote]
It may not be farmed out, but you can bet you have a lot fewer of them than U has. Plus, you fly more planes, people and routes. Maybe my wording was wrong, but the idea is the same. Also, maybe there are things that SW would change if it could, including some contracting of work.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Oldie, Do you know how many agents work for U? What I see is agents doing diffrent duties. Wouldn't it be more efficient for agents to be able to handle any call? As far as Southwest changing things if they could, it was the Company who expanded our duties and imho done to insure our job security. Of course we have agents complaining about the new work we now have to do (wanting more$)because they don't see the BIG picture.......
oldiebutgoody
Veteran
- Aug 23, 2002
- 2,627
- 945
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/17/2002 7:17:10 AM RES4LUV wrote:
----------------
[/blockquote]
Oldie, I can't speak for our mechs but res in NOT farmed out. As a matter of fact we are getting more and more areas of responsibility to insure we keep our jobs. The only thing we don't do is group and Southwest vacations(heard we might be doing vacations soon) If I were a U agent I'd be pretty ticked at the union for not making internet part of existing res. We do it all from flyflo to Rapid Rewards and everything in between. Best of luck to all of U.
----------------
[/blockquote]
It may not be farmed out, but you can bet you have a lot fewer of them than U has. Plus, you fly more planes, people and routes. Maybe my wording was wrong, but the idea is the same. Also, maybe there are things that SW would change if it could, including some contracting of work.
----------------
On 9/17/2002 7:17:10 AM RES4LUV wrote:
----------------
[/blockquote]
Oldie, I can't speak for our mechs but res in NOT farmed out. As a matter of fact we are getting more and more areas of responsibility to insure we keep our jobs. The only thing we don't do is group and Southwest vacations(heard we might be doing vacations soon) If I were a U agent I'd be pretty ticked at the union for not making internet part of existing res. We do it all from flyflo to Rapid Rewards and everything in between. Best of luck to all of U.
----------------
[/blockquote]
It may not be farmed out, but you can bet you have a lot fewer of them than U has. Plus, you fly more planes, people and routes. Maybe my wording was wrong, but the idea is the same. Also, maybe there are things that SW would change if it could, including some contracting of work.
