Ual Scraps Deal With Mesa Air
- Thread starter Cosmo
- Start date
Um, no. That's a piece of revisionist history, 46Driver.46Driver said:
ACAI was awarded a very lucrative contract during the industry's halcyon days. Post 9/11, UAL was hemmoraghing cash and went chap 11. UAL asked everyone to take cuts. Employees, lessors, suppliers, etc. Everyone.
ACAI refused to reduce their rates. Fine. They were unwilling to help out when UAL was in dire straits. Their choice.
Now you want me to feel sorry for all of ACAI's employees (who refused to take wage cuts) and cheer on ACAI as they try to take passengers away from UAL and UAIR? Not going to happen.
I think you have this backwards.46Driver said:
By accepting sub-standard pay and working conditions it is people at airlines like ACA that are forcing the unemployment lines to become filled with people from other airlines who have been fighting for years to make airline jobs a decent career.
And you guys have been doing it year-round, not just during the holidays.
But good luck to you.
E
Eagle
Guest
If ACA thought that UA would just give up or was too weak to compete for our United customers they had better think again. As was announced today, we are actively working a plan to continue RJ feeder service out of Washington and from all our UAX locations. I doubt that ACA will get much of the split. We will be ready for their departure should they leave the UAX family.
It was not JUST the reduced rates. It was UAL wanting ACA to assume most of the risks involved, and also giving UAL the option to downsize or discard ACA to be replaced by MESA. When ACA balked at that (not a surprise considering we have the infrastructure at Dulles and many of the outstations) UAL colluded with MESA for a hostile takeover. That didn't work either. As for paycuts, why should I take a paycut on my $29k a year when you are making well north of $150 - $200k???
As for bringing down the industry, MESA is several cuts below ACA in pay and work rules so you can thank UAL for rewarding the lowest bidder. And it is AirTran, Jet Blue, SouthWest, Frontier, etc that are increasing market share and cost the legacy carriers jobs - I don't think it is a coincidence that the mainline company with the most RJ's (Delta) is in the best shape.
If you want to go back further, you can blame ALPA itself for not mandating that all jets be flown by mainlines - UAL, Delta, American, etc. I'm not blaming anybody for this - it was one of the cases where technology (the regional jet) outpaced those who were using it (think of an airline version of the Civil War where rifles made frontal assaults obsolete but the generals didn't catch on until much later). Management figured it out before the pilot's union did.
At any rate, Independence is a risky venture for ACA but better than the alternative. There is a good chance we will go bankrupt - there is also a good chance we will make it to the level of AirTran or JetBlue. Either boom or bust is better than the alternative of the status quo of no growth and being a career regional F.O.
As for now, I have to get back to work for grad school and the Naval War College. Never know when you are going to have to use plan "B".
Save the arguing and name calling until after the holidays - there will be plenty of time for that next year. Until then, Merry Christmas.
As for bringing down the industry, MESA is several cuts below ACA in pay and work rules so you can thank UAL for rewarding the lowest bidder. And it is AirTran, Jet Blue, SouthWest, Frontier, etc that are increasing market share and cost the legacy carriers jobs - I don't think it is a coincidence that the mainline company with the most RJ's (Delta) is in the best shape.
If you want to go back further, you can blame ALPA itself for not mandating that all jets be flown by mainlines - UAL, Delta, American, etc. I'm not blaming anybody for this - it was one of the cases where technology (the regional jet) outpaced those who were using it (think of an airline version of the Civil War where rifles made frontal assaults obsolete but the generals didn't catch on until much later). Management figured it out before the pilot's union did.
At any rate, Independence is a risky venture for ACA but better than the alternative. There is a good chance we will go bankrupt - there is also a good chance we will make it to the level of AirTran or JetBlue. Either boom or bust is better than the alternative of the status quo of no growth and being a career regional F.O.
As for now, I have to get back to work for grad school and the Naval War College. Never know when you are going to have to use plan "B".
Save the arguing and name calling until after the holidays - there will be plenty of time for that next year. Until then, Merry Christmas.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
- Banned
- #37
Hey guys,
I didn't mean to start a fight. As for U, we've had too many (mis)management teams in the last decade fiddling while Rome burns to blame our problems on anyone else.
Buy PSA, dismantle west coast operation, LUV moves in
Buy Piedmont, dismantle the Florida Shuttle, Delta, ComAir, whoever else moves in.
"Nobody can make money in the Florida market", drop service to many FL cities, focus on "core market", Delta & AirTran move in.
Start reducing BWI (hell, we've got DCA & IAD), LUV moves in.
And on and on.
Good luck to all and Merry Christmas
Jim
I didn't mean to start a fight. As for U, we've had too many (mis)management teams in the last decade fiddling while Rome burns to blame our problems on anyone else.
Buy PSA, dismantle west coast operation, LUV moves in
Buy Piedmont, dismantle the Florida Shuttle, Delta, ComAir, whoever else moves in.
"Nobody can make money in the Florida market", drop service to many FL cities, focus on "core market", Delta & AirTran move in.
Start reducing BWI (hell, we've got DCA & IAD), LUV moves in.
And on and on.
Good luck to all and Merry Christmas
Jim
Twicebaked
Veteran
- May 22, 2003
- 1,788
- 18
This is absolutely NOT TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Bear96 said:
I don't know where you get your information from, but that is a stupid rumor to start.
MidAtlantic WILL BE A DIVISION OF US AIRWAYS. The only way it will be ANY part of United is if (and that is a big IF) United and US Airways merge. Nobody even knows who will by whom.
So you keep dreaming that pipe dream.
I am saying this from the "inside" not as a scared/bitter employee.
I know what I am talking about.
Furthermore, if US Airways may pull out it's mainline ops, but not MAA
Furthermore, we have CLT for the feeder. We don't need IAD.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
Of couse it probably won't come true! It's just an interesting idea.
Why do U employees get so screaming mad about it? If you think it is impossible, explain why and lets have a discussion on the merits. (And remember, I will be the first to say it is a far-fetched idea. I just don't see why it is impossible, or why it gets U employees so riled up.)
And it's not a "pipe dream" for me. I couldn't care less who our UAX carrier at IAD is. It makes absolutely no difference to me nor has any impact on my life whatsoever.
Why do U employees get so screaming mad about it? If you think it is impossible, explain why and lets have a discussion on the merits. (And remember, I will be the first to say it is a far-fetched idea. I just don't see why it is impossible, or why it gets U employees so riled up.)
And it's not a "pipe dream" for me. I couldn't care less who our UAX carrier at IAD is. It makes absolutely no difference to me nor has any impact on my life whatsoever.
Light Years
Veteran
- Aug 27, 2002
- 2,878
- 0
Bear,
The reason the whole thing is so silly is that MAA is not really even a seperate airline, its a division. It's like the US Airways Shuttle used to be, seperate contract within the mainline. Or maybe your foriegn nationals, or TED, or United Shuttle. I'm trying to find a way to explain to you that MAA is not like Allegheny, Piedmont, or PSA, which are seperate airlines that are owned by the US Airways Group. Not that it would make any sense to use the assets of our faltering airline to help out your faltering airline at no benefit to us, but Piedmont or Allegheny would at least make a little more sense?
The FAA refers to "MidAtlantic" as the Embraer Division of US Airways. For this to come true, MAA would have to be carved out of US Airways and sold to someone (UAL only owns United Airlines and doesnt seem interested in adding another after the Air Wisconsin fiasco). This would be an asset transfer, or semi-merger right up there with with a certain captains wild tales. MAA assets cannot be contracted to anyone but US Airways (or the predeccessor if the case may be).
United would be better off perhaps, starting its own "small jet" division to return furloughees to work and protect UAL jobs from being outsourced. Your suggestion that US Airways should be allowed to fly 80 seat, possibly dual class jets under your code makes me think your not loking out for your own. Why would UAL keep 737-500s and expensive mainline employees when you're willing to contract such work to a commuter or another airline?
Its a slippery slope that we have seen here at US... Right now, UA is bringing Trans States and Mesa back into the fold- bad news for everyone. One day you might look around your hub (IAD) at rush hour and see not a single United plane, but scores of "United" planes opertated by Air Willy, ACA, Trans States, Mesa, SkyWest, Chautauqua.... it happened to us in PIT! One day its a 30 seat prop, then its a 50 seat jet, then 70, then 90, and before you know it someone is flying your routes in the "RJ" (a misnomer) equivalent of a 737 or MD80, on your routes, at a third of the pay. Bear, reading through your posts here regarding ACA, I think you understand this well.
As a predominantly short haul airline in the busiest and most congested part of the nation (all the cities are close together), we at U are the most susceptible to this latest outsourcing phenomenon. MAA is the best solution at the moment, at least let our own furloughees be the cheap labour instead of every mom and pop commuter you can find. We are not happy with this set-up at all but its the best we could get at this time. Its very painful to undercut ourselves, and as mainline employees who have worked hard for our careers, we do get angry at the suggestion of doing it to another airline.
Thats what Mesa does. They've done it to us and they are painting the sweeping U on some planes as we type. You can have them, we dont want them.
The reason the whole thing is so silly is that MAA is not really even a seperate airline, its a division. It's like the US Airways Shuttle used to be, seperate contract within the mainline. Or maybe your foriegn nationals, or TED, or United Shuttle. I'm trying to find a way to explain to you that MAA is not like Allegheny, Piedmont, or PSA, which are seperate airlines that are owned by the US Airways Group. Not that it would make any sense to use the assets of our faltering airline to help out your faltering airline at no benefit to us, but Piedmont or Allegheny would at least make a little more sense?
The FAA refers to "MidAtlantic" as the Embraer Division of US Airways. For this to come true, MAA would have to be carved out of US Airways and sold to someone (UAL only owns United Airlines and doesnt seem interested in adding another after the Air Wisconsin fiasco). This would be an asset transfer, or semi-merger right up there with with a certain captains wild tales. MAA assets cannot be contracted to anyone but US Airways (or the predeccessor if the case may be).
United would be better off perhaps, starting its own "small jet" division to return furloughees to work and protect UAL jobs from being outsourced. Your suggestion that US Airways should be allowed to fly 80 seat, possibly dual class jets under your code makes me think your not loking out for your own. Why would UAL keep 737-500s and expensive mainline employees when you're willing to contract such work to a commuter or another airline?
Its a slippery slope that we have seen here at US... Right now, UA is bringing Trans States and Mesa back into the fold- bad news for everyone. One day you might look around your hub (IAD) at rush hour and see not a single United plane, but scores of "United" planes opertated by Air Willy, ACA, Trans States, Mesa, SkyWest, Chautauqua.... it happened to us in PIT! One day its a 30 seat prop, then its a 50 seat jet, then 70, then 90, and before you know it someone is flying your routes in the "RJ" (a misnomer) equivalent of a 737 or MD80, on your routes, at a third of the pay. Bear, reading through your posts here regarding ACA, I think you understand this well.
As a predominantly short haul airline in the busiest and most congested part of the nation (all the cities are close together), we at U are the most susceptible to this latest outsourcing phenomenon. MAA is the best solution at the moment, at least let our own furloughees be the cheap labour instead of every mom and pop commuter you can find. We are not happy with this set-up at all but its the best we could get at this time. Its very painful to undercut ourselves, and as mainline employees who have worked hard for our careers, we do get angry at the suggestion of doing it to another airline.
Thats what Mesa does. They've done it to us and they are painting the sweeping U on some planes as we type. You can have them, we dont want them.
Hi Light Years,Light Years said:
Thanks for the informative post.
I understand that MDA is not like the other wholly-owneds. But neither is it quite comparable to Shuttle or TED at UA, in that it is a separate fleet operating under separate labor contracts with separate pay and work rules (and even seniority lists, in that you will be EITHER MDA OR mainline), right? Whereas Shuttle and TED was/is simply a few planes from the mainline fleet getting a new paint job and cabin configuration but still operated as part of mainline, under mainline contracts by mainline employees who could hop back and forth at will.
And why would MDA have to be sold to UA, or to anyone else for that matter? It could simply be part of the codeshare. Couldn't UA just put is flight # on an MDA flight, like they do now with other U codeshares, and go from there? It would still be operated by USAirways. Sure that would require government approval, like all codeshares, but if it were just replacing ACA feed at IAD, I am not sure what objection the government would have.
You said: "MAA assets cannot be contracted to anyone but US Airways (or the predeccessor if the case may be)." Why not? U labor agreements? If so, don't you think U is soon to be looking at some more massive changes to their labor agreements?
You said: "United would be better off perhaps, starting its own "small jet" division to return furloughees to work and protect UAL jobs from being outsourced. Your suggestion that US Airways should be allowed to fly 80 seat, possibly dual class jets under your code makes me think your not loking out for your own. Why would UAL keep 737-500s and expensive mainline employees when you're willing to contract such work to a commuter or another airline?"
Hey, I am not saying I LIKE the idea. It matters little what you or I are "willing" to do. I have no doubt that more unpleasant changes are in store for UA employees as well before our little trip through Chapter 11 is finished. Unlike some other people on here promoting their wild theories (and yes, I have never denied that mine is probably a "wild theory"), I am not one to figure out first how I want the world to look to benefit me and then go out and search for a theory and make it fit my idealized world no matter how big a stretch. It just seems like this would be a creative solution that would solve some problems for both U and UA, though of course the employees may not like it.
You said: "One day you might look around your hub (IAD) at rush hour and see not a single United plane, but scores of "United" planes opertated by Air Willy, ACA, Trans States, Mesa, SkyWest, Chautauqua.... " This has been the case at IAD for a long, long time. For many years now ACA has operated many more flights than mainline at IAD, all painted in UA colors. And of course I do not like it, but it is the reality.
Thanks again for your well-thought out post. May 2004 be brighter for both airlines!
Bear96, sorry to sound disrespecful. The facts are there. I don't wish to rehash them, but here is a short example that describes what I think is so ironic. I think is is comical because ALPA represents both sides of this equation. Usually the mainline gives something (like scope) for a short term gain (like hourly rate increases). Then the flying goes off to the regional partner who is then blamed when they sign a contract that ALPA national says is in their best interest. Then both sides blame each other. Your placing of blame is what I think is comical. You are part of the system that created airlines like ACA. You benefit from them and suffer harm from them at the same time. But, to blame them is not right.
Please give examples of ALPA giving up scope for pay. Scope is usually given up as part of a huge concessionary deal. People WILLING to work for $17 dollars an hour is at least HALF the problem (tough to have prostitutes without Johns....). I've never flown for $17 an hour, have you? It's like a crook blaming a bank for having money.Farley said:
. The sad thing is you don't seem to grasp that you are currently working for the best contract you will EVER have, I'm sure you'll try a witty little reply, but get back to us in 3-5 years and tell me if I was right. Just like you were willing to underbid other pilots' services, there is a long line of equally repugnant folks willing to underbid you.....
