U SAirways holds out cup to taxpayers while execs get rich.

On 3/9/2003 3:43:48 PM PITbull wrote:




Not often do you hear from anyone who is for anything or anyone other than Corporate America, let alone a congressman who takes the time to recognize the employees of a corporation who have sacrificed greatly for their company. I can only express to you that I was impressed with him recognizing the blantant disregard of U's employees by mangement, and he was so moved, that he wrote about it. Remember, Syracuse is NOT a hub of U's.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Pitbull,
I hope he does more than just talk. I guess we'll have to wait and see. Also I'd like to pass on a little info I just looked up related to my comments on farm subsidies. I know Uncle Sugar likes to give money away to the truly deserving but $173.5 Billion over 10 years seems just a bit excessive. That's right, we have a farm aid bill that will cost us $173.5 B. We have to beg for pennies while the special interest farm industry plunders the treasury. (with the help of their elected reps of coarse) This is a truly sickening situation.
 
DD,

Please excuse my ignorance with Farm subsidies and gov. grants for the farming industry. All I know from years ago, is that farming in america is still difficult and very very hard work. Its an industry that is vulnerable to weather and insects that effect the outcome of a good crop. When I hear that someone is a farmer, I am so thankful for them. Every year they have one shot at a good crop and they place alot of money and betting to get that crop to harvest to feed the mass consumption of our American population of eaters that eat as their number 1 passtime.

Like anything, I am sure there is abuse as you have cited above. For me to give a point of view to agree or disagree, I would need to do more reading.

Thanks for the insight, I will remember next time I pick up an article to read about this.
 
The congressman hit it right on the head. There is nothing new with this management.

What disturbs me more is that the ATSB loan package offer nothing of assistance to workers.
And there is nothing convincing that suggest an ATSB loan will ultimately save jobs [See AWA].

A proper loan program would recognize the need to assist workers who get laid off or need to be retrained.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/9/2003 6:26:28 PM Tim Nelson wrote:

The congressman hit it right on the head. There is nothing new with this management.


What disturbs me more is that the ATSB loan package offer nothing of assistance to workers.

And there is nothing convincing that suggest an ATSB loan will ultimately save jobs [See AWA].


A proper loan program would recognize the need to assist workers who get laid off or need to be retrained.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Tim,
I completely agree with you Sir!! The ATSB loans have no strings attached in regard to dis-placed former tax payers from this industry. I also agree that there should be langauge regarding current and projected employment levels at any company recieving said funds too.

Nothing about these loans says anything about changing how we continue to do business. From my point of view...we are still the same old USAirways...we are just smaller in size...and most evidently fewer in the ranks , well with CCY's Top Brass being the exception...not the rule.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
...I was NOT a big proponent of the ATSB guarantee. IMO, it became the "hammer" over labor's heads where all things originated, centered around and concluded. All this for just a damn guarantee...
----------------
[/blockquote]

PITbull,

Just so I understand where you are coming from and so I don't put words in your mouth, does this mean you were opposed to the ATSB guaranty program EVEN IF it would have meant (as I believe it would have) that U would have been forced to shut its doors completely many months ago?

The free-market proponent side of me may agree with that, but the airline employee (specifically Flight Attendant advocate) part of me finds that depressing.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/9/2003 6:53:50 PM Bear96 wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
...I was NOT a big proponent of the ATSB guarantee. IMO, it became the "hammer" over labor's heads where all things originated, centered around and concluded. All this for just a damn guarantee...
----------------
[/blockquote]

PITbull,

Just so I understand where you are coming from and so I don't put words in your mouth, does this mean you were opposed to the ATSB guaranty program EVEN IF it would have meant (as I believe it would have) that U would have been forced to shut its doors completely many months ago?

The free-market proponent side of me may agree with that, but the airline employee (specifically Flight Attendant advocate) part of me finds that depressing.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Bear,

As I am, too, an advocate for the f/as, one would have to really believe that without an ATSB loan, U WOULD shut its doors. I happen NOT to believe that. That right there, is the difference between your view and mine, in a "nutshell".
[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/5.gif']
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/9/2003 6:59:47 PM PITbull wrote:
As I am, too, an advocate for the f/as, one would have to really believe that without an ATSB loan, U WOULD shut its doors. I happen NOT to believe that. That right there, is the difference between your view and mine, in a "nutshell".

----------------
[/blockquote]

How would US Airways have stayed afloat without the loan and/or Chapter 11? I'm curious to hear this.

Or, to put it another way, if you can answer that question, you should lose the "unionist" position and go run an airline.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/9/2003 6:59:47 PM PITbull wrote:

...As I am, too, an advocate for the f/as, one would have to really believe that without an ATSB loan, U WOULD shut its doors. I happen NOT to believe that. That right there, is the difference between your view and mine, in a "nutshell"...
----------------
[/blockquote]

I suppose so...

Though I would argue that U's exit from Ch.11 is STILL contingent upon actually receiving that loan guarantee (among other sources of cash from exit financing). I guess you are saying those millions of $$$ of loan gauarantees from the ATSB are not really necessary after all? Where would the "white knight" have come from then? Interesting... I suppose our views really DO diverge.

In any case... Good luck to u at U!
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/9/2003 9:26:04 PM ClueByFour wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/9/2003 6:59:47 PM PITbull wrote:
As I am, too, an advocate for the f/as, one would have to really believe that without an ATSB loan, U WOULD shut its doors. I happen NOT to believe that. That right there, is the difference between your view and mine, in a "nutshell".

----------------
[/blockquote]

How would US Airways have stayed afloat without the loan and/or Chapter 11? I'm curious to hear this.

Or, to put it another way, if you can answer that question, you should lose the "unionist" position and go run an airline.

----------------
[/blockquote]

Clue,

As you know me well enough by many previous posts that I would respond as I did above to Bear. Bankruptcy for U was ALWAYS the "plan", and the other real "bail out" for U was Labor to the rescue. For as much bad press that unions have gotten over the years, when times are tough, its always labor that "saves the bloody day".
[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/12.gif']
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/9/2003 9:19:16 PM Bear96 wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/9/2003 6:59:47 PM PITbull wrote:

...As I am, too, an advocate for the f/as, one would have to really believe that without an ATSB loan, U WOULD shut its doors. I happen NOT to believe that. That right there, is the difference between your view and mine, in a "nutshell"...
----------------
[/blockquote]

I suppose so...

Though I would argue that U's exit from Ch.11 is STILL contingent upon actually receiving that loan guarantee (among other sources of cash from exit financing). I guess you are saying those millions of $$$ of loan gauarantees from the ATSB are not really necessary after all? Where would the "white knight" have come from then? Interesting... I suppose our views really DO diverge.

In any case... Good luck to u at U!
----------------
[/blockquote]

Bear,

And I humbly thank you for that.

The "white knight" as you put it...IMO, was ALL of labor.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/9/2003 12:59:28 PM DELLDUDE wrote:

i see no difference here of pilots taking their 1 million lump sum at the same time last year.is there a difference?
----------------
[/blockquote]


Of course you dont. You need a life pal.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/9/2003 6:26:28 PM Tim Nelson wrote:

A proper loan program would recognize the need to assist workers who get laid off or need to be retrained.
----------------
[/blockquote]

It is called "tuff love" -- meaning you've got to confront reality and not whimper for a handout.

Go forth with confidence man!
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/9/2003 11:51:34 PM PITbull wrote:
Clue,

As you know me well enough by many previous posts that I would respond as I did above to Bear. Bankruptcy for U was ALWAYS the "plan", and the other real "bail out" for U was Labor to the rescue. For as much bad press that unions have gotten over the years, when times are tough, its always labor that "saves the bloody day".

----------------
[/blockquote]

Fine. You ducked the question.

What other options did/does US have but to reduce it's labor costs dramatically? And how would they go about it?

You seem to think there is another way to keep the company around as a going concern, and that concessions were just a "plan" on the part of management.

I want to know, _exactly_ what the other alternatives were.

I fully expect that you won't answer that question directly; in fact, I expect a rant about a conspiracy "plan" or management compensation or some other tale of woe.

It would be refreshing if you had a different answer, tho.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 3/9/2003 5:47:47 PM PITbull wrote:

DD,

Please excuse my ignorance with Farm subsidies and gov. grants for the farming industry. All I know from years ago, is that farming in america is still difficult and very very hard work. Its an industry that is vulnerable to weather and insects that effect the outcome of a good crop. When I hear that someone is a farmer, I am so thankful for them. Every year they have one shot at a good crop and they place alot of money and betting to get that crop to harvest to feed the mass consumption of our American population of eaters that eat as their number 1 passtime.

Like anything, I am sure there is abuse as you have cited above. For me to give a point of view to agree or disagree, I would need to do more reading.

Thanks for the insight, I will remember next time I pick up an article to read about this.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Most farming in America is no longer done by small, independent farmers, but by large corporations. That is where the subsidies are going. The few independents that remain can't qualify for the funds, hence the need for "Farm-Aid".
 

Latest posts

Back
Top