Us Airways Proposes Adding 60 Planes

[bluetoad]

A320 you asked "Are the sacrifices made by the mainline pilots of no value, or are you just crying in your beer today?"

First, they were of no value to me or the 1879 pilots furloughed. I do think they were of value to the thousands of other res agents, flight attendants, mechanics, cleaners, or anyone else who lost their job or was downsized to express wages. ALPA has not sacrificed anything. It was taken from them. Taken because management knows that in the end there is really no alternative for ALPA. Do I blame ALPA? No, I just dont think the chest thumping by ALPA is going to gain anything in the end. They will give in. (60 airplanes are to tempting)

From my perspective ALPA is ineffective in fending off managements agenda of converting high paying jobs into low paying jobs. The fact that they run off into secret session everytime they want to discuss anything of substance tells alot about the organization as a whole. Sure there are times when they have to discuss items that are covered by non-disclosure issues, but when the majority of business is conducted in secret and then not voted on by the majority tells me that something is not quite right.

As for crying in my beer, I make my own now. Its cheaper

 

[ZMAN777]

How many A320's is TED going to operate, 60? There's 60 more planes flown by United pilots and the same head count at USAirways.

What are you talking about? By my rough count, UAL is currently "operating" approximately 521* aircraft. Total "active" pilots for Jan '04 is 6,574. I don't think U is anywhere close to this number of active pilots. God help you if you are!!!

Not sure what sort of comparison you're trying to draw here but it's lost on me. For your information, the UAL pilots flying TED are regular line pilots, same pay, same work rules. The operation is completely transparent to the pilot group and their work rules.

Cheers,
Z B)



* Based on 2002 UAL Annual Report (March '03) minus known lease returns, sales, parked a/c.

 

[michael707767]

I would not trust the company. IF they will put it in writing that there will be 60 additional aircraft, above the 279, then I would talk to them and consider some productivity changes. But I would bet this will be 60 additional Airbus aircraft, while we lose an equivelent amount of 737s/757s. I don't see any way they can increase pilot procuctivity enough to add 60 more aircraft with the same number of pilots. Also, how do we know this won't be 60 more aircraft from another airline, along with 60 planes worth of employees.

Talk to them, but be very wary.

 

[delldude]

I would not trust the company. IF they will put it in writing that there will be 60 additional aircraft, above the 279, then I would talk to them and consider some productivity changes. But I would bet this will be 60 additional Airbus aircraft, while we lose an equivelent amount of 737s/757s. I don't see any way they can increase pilot procuctivity enough to add 60 more aircraft with the same number of pilots. Also, how do we know this won't be 60 more aircraft from another airline, along with 60 planes worth of employees.

Talk to them, but be very wary.

i see you seem to be 'hep' to the rumor of parking all the 'junk' 37's....
almost afraid to take these guys on their word and have it backfire on you like it has before.

 

[michael707767]

i see you seem to be 'hep' to the rumor of parking all the 'junk' 37's....
almost afraid to take these guys on their word and have it backfire on you like it has before.

actually, had not heard that rumor. It just makes sense. Think about it folks, if they wanted to add the airplanes we would have heard about it before now. But, when they need more concessions and labor balks, suddenly this plan for 60 new airplanes appears. I don't believe it for a minute. The only way I would condisider it would be to make any work rule changes contingent to an actual aircraft count. 279 now plus 60 more equals 339. Ok then, put it in writing that the new minimum number of aircraft is 339 and we'll talk. Of course even then I would not trust em. They could park some aircraft, then just say grieve it.

No, I am not stupid. It is not just a coincidence that at a time when they are getting desperate, they dangle more aircraft in front of the pilots.

 

[High Iron]

i see you seem to be 'hep' to the rumor of parking all the 'junk' 37's....
almost afraid to take these guys on their word and have it backfire on you like it has before.

actually, had not heard that rumor. It just makes sense. Think about it folks, if they wanted to add the airplanes we would have heard about it before now. But, when they need more concessions and labor balks, suddenly this plan for 60 new airplanes appears. I don't believe it for a minute. The only way I would condisider it would be to make any work rule changes contingent to an actual aircraft count. 279 now plus 60 more equals 339. Ok then, put it in writing that the new minimum number of aircraft is 339 and we'll talk. Of course even then I would not trust em. They could park some aircraft, then just say grieve it.

No, I am not stupid. It is not just a coincidence that at a time when they are getting desperate, they dangle more aircraft in front of the pilots.

Spot on. I get the same exact feeling and sense that most do as well.

Something else though: 'The Plan', 'The Plan', 'The Plan'...The ballyhooed plan that, despite it's supposed importance and value, has yet to described in other than the most extreme vagueness. Now, given the well known penchant for the use of media soundbites and mass mailings, doesn't this reluctance to give even sketchy details make one suspicious? And why the insistence on divulging the plan only to labor leaders...and then under a de-facto gag-order? ( Something about "no-disclosure" I've read in other posts in this forum )

One can only conclude either:

1) It's of such draconian nature it would be more or less doomed from the start.

2) There is no actual plan per se, but rather a political move in an attempt to
demonstrate a good faith gesture for saving said enterprise while demostrating
implacability of those who refuse to cooperate.

Who knows, it could be a combo of the above 2 scenarios. An analogy: Let's say a car owner brings his vehicle in to a repair shop for a repair or modification, and said proprietor does not want to accept the job ( too much of a pain ) and quotes the car-owner a very high price estimate...in the hopes of running said customer off. In this manner, the proprietor would avoid the job altogether, or make a boatload of money if the customer DID accept the fee. What if somebody just wanted out of the airline business?

 

[OldpropGuy]

I can almost hear the excuses now. "My fellow employees, we really did intend to add the 60 new aircraft. The problem is that with our declining credit rating, we are unable to obtain financing. Thanks for the additional concessions annyway! Now that we can't add any more aircraft, we need to reduces expense even further if our company is to survive. h34r: "

 

[cubfan02us]

I can almost hear the excuses now. "My fellow employees, we really did intend to add the 60 new aircraft. The problem is that with our declining credit rating, we are unable to obtain financing. Thanks for the additional concessions annyway! Now that we can't add any more aircraft, we need to reduces expense even further if our company is to survive. h34r: "

Just heard from a source,[not reliable] that the additional 60
planes are referred to as USAirways Newest Initiative.

Or, UNI for short....

 

[michael707767]

I have just one question for anyone who believes we will get 60 new aircraft. Where is the money going to come from to buy them?

 

[AOG-N-IT]

I have just one question for anyone who believes we will get 60 new aircraft. Where is the money going to come from to buy them?

When the Dave's and Jerry Glass get their teeth knocked out in court over the Airbus outsourcing case in PHL , they will be placing their "pearly white's" under their pillows and be praying for the tooth fairy to pay them a visit.

As we know....MAA is being rumored to be a problem over the drop in our credit rating as is. How do they expect to be extended credit for more mainline aircraft at the rate things are going?

 

[USFlyer]

I have just one question for anyone who believes we will get 60 new aircraft. Where is the money going to come from to buy them?

Leases or, for new aircraft, "buy, sell and lease back". Remember when Wolf was around how US kept posting losses yet the cash balance kept increasing? US was buying new Airbus aircraft at well below market value, selling them immediately to a leasing company for more and then leasing them back. It was, in my opinion, a somewhat slimy way of propping up the balance sheet.