Update on today's Omnibus Hearing

[ClueByFour]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/26/2002 426 PM Busdrvr wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/26/2002 202 PM chipmunn wrote:

However, United, with its extensive route system, has more revenue generating potential, and thus may not need cost cuts as deep as those at US Airways.

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


Chip, you apparently forgot to underline that part

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

He should have underlined the part about the most greedy pilots on the planet, but he missed that part. Or the most stubborn unions, but we missed that too. Did we forget the milk all the eggs out of the golden goose before it is dead line from Duh-binksy?

So, a couple of summers ago (not to mention any in particular), I'm crossing the people-movers in PIT, about 10 feet from a couple of UA pilots. Somebody says, quite not under their breath, Thanks for coming to work today, a**hole.

I think that says it all.

Dude, you have ripped on SWA, Delta, Northwest, and now US. Enjoy it while you can--you can fly my parcels from Topeka to Manhantten, KS when UA goes under. That buzzing sound you hear is either your job dissapation light switching into high gear, or my Bonanza buzzing past the crop duster you are flying in 6 months.

Cheers!

 

[chipmunn]

Busdrvr:

Busdrvr said: It's comical that Chip thinks that the ATSB will require kicking 2 UAL union BOD members of the Board, but having THREE U union BOD members is a good thing.

Chip comments: Busdrvr, I don't think it I know its true regarding the ATSB. In regard to your comment about U employee board members, the difference between the UA & US employee board representation is governance. Board representation at both UA & US can be a good thing because it develops teamwork and trust. The issue with UA is governance and how the UA union board members interfere with the ability of management to run the company. That's the ATSB objection and why there will likely not be a loan guarantee unless this perceived impediment to UA obtaining profitability is removed.

Busdrvr said: I like U (not you), I think the airline does have a great future, unfortunately, I think Chip (and quite a few other guys on this board) have the motto It's not enough that I succeed, my friends must also fail

Chip comments: I wish no harm or ill will to anybody and I want everybody to succeed. I provide information that is factual to the best of my knowledge and always identify my opinion. However, I'm not sure the same can be said by the UA ALPA employee group. The previous UA restructuring agreement term sheet is considered insulting to other ALPA pilots.

The agreement says that if UA acquires another airline, and it may specifically state US, UA would be required to take only assets (another words cherry pick), all UA furloughees must be recalled first to fly the previous airline assets, before ALPA Merger & Fragmentation policy occurs. I have not seen the specific language, but I have been told this by multiple US ALPA MEC members.

It should be an interesting ALPA BOD meeting next month, huh?

Chip

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/26/2002 11:33:45 PM ClueByFour wrote:


He should have underlined the part about the most greedy pilots on the planet, but he missed that part.

DALs pilots currently make more and are not considering a paycut.


Or the most stubborn unions, but we missed that too. Did we forget the "milk all the eggs out of the golden goose before it is dead" line from Duh-binksy?

Hopefully, it won't take BK for our unions to come to a deal

So, a couple of summers ago (not to mention any in particular), I'm crossing the people-movers in PIT, about 10 feet from a couple of UA pilots. Somebody says, quite not under their breath, "Thanks for coming to work today, a**hole."
I think that says it all.

Wait, I thought all the UAL pilots were out sick? You mean they were at work? And you think calling the guys who actually were at work a profane name was appropriate?

Dude, you have ripped on SWA, Delta, Northwest, and now US. Enjoy it while you can--you can fly my parcels from Topeka to Manhantten, KS when UA goes under. That buzzing sound you hear is either your job dissapation light switching into high gear, or my Bonanza buzzing past the crop duster you are flying in 6 months.

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

No, I pointed out that Chip has a tendancy to Bold type and underline things in the media that hammer at UAL while glossing over a statement a line away that contradicts his point. It's comical that Chip thinks that the ATSB will require kicking 2 UAL union BOD members of the Board, but having THREE U union BOD members is a good thing. I like U (not you), I think the airline does have a great future, unfortunately, I think Chip (and quite a few other guys on this board) have the motto It's not enough that I succeed, my friends must also fail

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/27/2002 10:37:18 AM chipmunn wrote:

Chip comments: I wish no harm or ill will to anybody and I want everybody to succeed. I provide information that is factual to the best of my knowledge and always identify my opinion. However, I'm not sure the same can be said by the UA ALPA employee group. The previous UA restructuring agreement term sheet is considered "insulting" to other ALPA pilots.

The agreement says that if UA acquires another airline, and it may specifically state US, UA would be required to take only assets (another words cherry pick), all UA furloughees must be recalled first to fly the previous airline assets, before ALPA Merger & Fragmentation policy occurs. I have not seen the specific language, but I have been told this by multiple US ALPA MEC members.

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

Chip,
I judge an individuals credibility on matters I don't know about by how accurate they are on matters I DO know about. You want us all to believe that you KNOW exactly whats been going on at the ATSB, while you can't get the UAL ALPA ERP merger protection right? There are over 10,000 copies floating around the US. All you had to do was ask and I'd sent it to you (I did, it's in you inbox, I'd ask you not to post it since it is an ALPA doc, sent from one ALPA mem to another). I will paraphrase it though.

#1. UAL cannot buy pieces of a framented carrier UNLESS there is a furlough RECALL SCHEDULE. Then we will take pilots from the other airline per the ALPA merg and fragm policy dictates (enough to staff those airplanes). These folks likely would come in ABOVE a great number of UAL pilots on the seniority list. BTW, when U bought the Eastern 757s, how many Eastern pilots came over with the jets?

#2. Before UAL can buy 51% of ANY airline, we must have a binding pilot integration agreement that BOTH sides agree to. How is that not fair? If you don't like the proposals,don't agree to them and don't get bought This merely prevents the anomosity created by all the request fo 400 and 777 pubs we endured two years ago. I think you made that bed, and we learned from our mistakes in the past.

But the whole implication that UAL would be unfair to our ALPA brothers is offensive. How many ex Pan Am and EAL pilots did U hire off the street? UAL was prob the only airline that actively went after these guys, and our pilot group is better for doing it.

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

[blockquote]
Busdrvr said:
The point Chip is it is your Modus to only emphasize those things that support your conspiracy theory.
[/blockquote]

Busdrvr, I think this may be one of the few things that you and I agree on...

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/29/2002 928 PM eolesen wrote:

Busdrvr, I think this may be one of the few things that you and I agree on...
----------------
[/blockquote]

I don't know, after reading your most recent posts, I think you're comming around

 

[chipmunn]

Busdrvr:

I have a copy of the UA ALPA ERP Overview sheet and I find it interesting that your pilot group continues to attempt to bypass ALPA Merger Policy with a new agreement with management. It's likely our two airlines would have been combined in 1995 without UA ALPA trying to force a pre-nuptial seniority agreement on the US pilot group and disregard ALPA Merger Policy.

If the company's would have merged in 1995, in my opinion it is likely UA would not be on the verge of bankruptcy, the employees would not be at risk of losing the ESOP, and key individuals would not be discussing a fragmentation of UA.

Chip

P.S. Busdrvr said, All you had to do was ask and I'd sent it to you (I did, it's in you inbox, I'd ask you not to post it since it is an ALPA doc, sent from one ALPA mem to another). Busdrvr, I did not receive the ERP Overview from you, but I was able to obtain a copy from another source.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/30/2002 11:29:55 AM chipmunn wrote:

Busdrvr:

I have a copy of the UA ALPA ERP Overview sheet and I find it interesting that your pilot group continues to attempt to bypass ALPA Merger Policy with a new agreement with management. It's likely our two airlines would have been combined in 1995 without UA ALPA trying to force a "pre-nuptial" seniority agreement on the US pilot group and disregard ALPA Merger Policy.

If the company's would have merged in 1995, in my opinion it is likely UA would not be on the verge of bankruptcy, the employees would not be at risk of losing the ESOP, and key individuals would not be discussing a fragmentation of UA.

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

What is ALPAs merger policy Chip? Career expectations? Was the U pilot group trying to circumvent that process with all those articles in your mag (The Case for DOH)? How is requiring a prenup bypass ALPA policy? If your career expectations are so great, and we offered a less than fair deal, you'd obviously be better served going your seperate way. It would also have prevented an arbitrated decision that could have been disasterous to your group (re: Canadian). when you buy a house, do you come to an agreement on the total price before you sign the deal? Or do you wait for an arbitrator to decide the particulars. a negotiated deal BEFORE the consumation, I'd think, would be the fairest most equitable way to go. I've got now furloughed U buddies who thought passionately that they deserved MORE than DOH at UAL (superseniority) since they'd rise to the top of Us seniority list by retirement, whereas DOH would leave them 1500 from the top at UAL. I wonder if they'd accepted a pre-nup in retrospect? As for the 1995 deal, would we be paying big bucks for all those pricy U leases you refered to? If U was a deal a $2 billion and then at $4 billion, why aren't all the airlines lined up to pay $1 billion now (for a company with significantly less debt)?