What do we do Now?

[Twicebaked]

----------------
On 6/15/2003 11:48:40 AM SalesGuyCCY wrote:

There already HAVe been two major blood baths at Crystal City...two rounds of layoffs. The management ranks are quite thin. Also, almost ALL VPs and above that Wolfe and Gangbang brough in are now gone.

----------------​

They may be cutting, but they bring others in to compensate.

 

[Twicebaked]

----------------
On 6/15/2003 940 AM PITbull wrote:

Chip,

U better be #1 in 15 months. This management was the first who schemed, distorted, lied, threatened, intimidated and screwed (BK) everyone to get that spot, and their not done yet. Corporate America at its finest with the perfect "plan".

So, now let's focus on U's greatest assets...THE EMPLOYEES.

Where are they with that? Care to rate this unfriendly labor team, or shall I?

And if you dare tell me that they saved my job, I will bite you.

Who saved my job was a junior employee who took my place because of contractual seniority.

We employees saved the company and SAVED mangement's azzes too. If they would have dared followed through with their threat, they would have been on the OUTSIDE of CORPORATE AMERICA...looking IN!

----------------​

Pittbull,

I agree with you whole heartedly. The fact of the matter is that this managment team raped the hell out of us leaving us for dead finacially, now it is time to take the wounded to the hospital for a recovery. What was done was done....we are all very "po'd" and will be for some time. This managment now needs to give us some bandaids and help it's employees. Enough with beating of the children!!! We are the best of the best..it IS high time they start realizing that. Otherwise come 2008 managment will be the one's with the black eyes. These next contract negotiations will BE VERY DIFFICULT for managment.

 

[diogenes]

----------------
On 6/14/2003 6:58:42 PM USFlyer wrote:

<
Look at the airlines making a profit: WN, AirTran, jetBlue, etc. You cannot possibly turn a corporation the size of US into one of those types of carriers overnight. Find me one hub-and-spoke carrier that is actually turning a consistent profit and we''ll talk.

Seriously, though, those other airlines you mention have been well managed from the start. US has not had good management for many years, so it will take time to correct this. It''s easy to cut costs (the company I work for did the same) but rebuilding revenue is hard (ditto with the company I work for).

Also, for what it''s worth, rumor is there is a major reorg coming to CCY. Siegel said he is not done rebuilding this company, so let''s not assume CCY will remain as is! We really need to look at US 2-3 years down the road and see what Siegel has done. He hasn''t been around long enough to begin saying he''s incapable of running an airline.

----------------​

-----------------------------------------------------------

Hello, USFlyer,

You are absolutely correct that U can''t be compared to WN, and that U has been poorly managed. In my view, that poor management extends back to the PI/PSA acquisitions.

Here''s what sends employees up the wall. Not all that long ago, W and G were harping about high costs, and comparing U labor costs to WN''s. We said, fine, operate the airline like WN. Gangwhal said that would entail cutting the current fleet (about 450 mainline) to about 260. Well here we are, just 3 years later, and guess what? We''re at about 260 mainline and still unprofitable, while WN has more a/c and IS profitable.. Now that was then and this is now, but it would be nice if management could, on occasion, stick to the facts. Additionally irksome was when Gangwhal was mouthing his opus, fleet and customer service labor costs were ALREADY lower than WN''s, work rules and all.

What employees want to know is, can this management do ANYTHING besides hack labor? All the RJ''s are are "scope busters" to lower labor costs (Dave''s word, not mine). Codeshare and the like is an admission we do not have, and do not plan to have, sufficient international lift. Besides, why pay the big bucks to the crews when we can farm that out, too. U will wind up a ''virtual'' airline, with everything vendored out.

 

[Baret4]

Hello Chip,

​

----------------
On 6/14/2003 11:41:06 PM Chip Munn wrote:

1. 
   

• In PIT the traffic flow was directionalized with an East-West focus and with the dramatic increase in RJ feed, will become similar to DL in CVG. The company anticipates its two-class EMB170-/175, which will be the only RJ in the U.S. industry with a First Class cabin, will add to this revenue premium in PIT, provided an acceptable agreement can be reached with PA. officials to restructure costs (which I believe will occur).
  

• 
  

----------------

Not exactally true. Mesa already operates two class RJ service, but it
still a pretty good game plan. Check out the photo and caption.
​

[URL="http://www.airliners.net/open.file/270428/M/"][url="http://www.airliners.net/open.file/270428/M/"]http://www.airliners.net/open.file/270428/M/[/url][/URL]

 

[Cosmo]

Mesaba also operates RJs with two classes of service, specifically 69-seat (16F, 53Y) RJ85s for Northwest.

 

[Baret4]

Hello delldude,

----------------
On 6/16/2003 4:15:50 PM delldude wrote:

----------------

​

[url="http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=270428&WxsIERv=Q2FuYWRhaXIgQ0wt"]http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=2704...2FuYWRhaXIgQ0wt[/url]
NjAwLTJDMTAgUmVnaW9uYWwgSmV0IENSSi03MDA%3D&WdsYXMg=TWVzYSBBaXJsaW5lcw
%3D%3D&QtODMg=RmFybWluZ3RvbiAtIEZvdXIgQ29ybmVycyBSZWdpb25hbCAoTXVuaWN
pcGFsKSAoRk1OKQ%3D%3D&ERDLTkt=VVNBIC0gTmV3IE1leGljbw%3D%3D&ktODMp=QXV
ndXN0IDI1LCAyMDAy&BP=0&WNEb25u=QnJpYW4gSGFtZXM%3D&xsIERvdWdsY=TjUwMU1
K&MgTUQtODMgKE=U21lbGxzIGxpa2UgbmV3IGNhciEgVGhpcyBwbGFuZSBldmVuIGhhcy
BsZWF0aGVyIGZpcnN0IGNsYXNzIHNlYXRzIHdpdGggYWRqdXN0YWJsZSBoZWFkcmVzdHM
u&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=MjQ2Ng%3D%3D&NEb25uZWxs=MjAwMi0wOS0wNA%3D%3D&static
=yes

i like the part about copyright protected and can't be used at all.

----------------​

Well Dude, I thought Id cut paste the copyright law on here for future references. I have also slightly modified the link as directed by airliners.net. Party on!!! Dude!!!





All photos on this site are protected by international copyright laws.
You have limited rights to personally view the images with your web browser and to use them as your personal computer wallpaper (or background image) on your own computer. These photos may not otherwise be reproduced, distributed, cropped, resized, or otherwise altered without the written permission of the photographer. No commercial use of these photos may be made in any way. All rights are reserved.
You may not use these photos on any web page, commercial or non-commercial, for profit or non-profit, without written permission from the photographer. You may however link to the photos in the manner described below.
Have you found a photo in our database that you would like to use?
To receive permission to use a photo from Airliners.net in any other way than the one described above, you have to contact the photographer (the copyright holder) of the photo. We assure you, it is a very simple process and all of our photographers are very willing to help and most will reply to your inquiries within a day. You can contact our photographers by using the e-mail form linked to beside each photo on Airliners.net.
The digital photos on this site are licensed to Airliners.net. They are equipped with a footer with copyright and license information and also carry an invisible watermark. If you receive permission from the photographer to use a particular photo, you may use a copy from Airliners.net as long as you inform us of the usage as to avoid misunderstandings (we do not appreciate and react strongly when finding our photos on other sites that use them without permission). We do however advice that you get a new copy of the photo directly from the photographer that does not carry our license and watermark.
Finally, we ask that you mention Airliners.net where and when you use photos originally found on our site, whatever agreement you have with the photographer. It doesn't need to be big, just a small mention in whatever way you choose. As you might have realized by now, we do not make any money from selling photos, everything goes directly to the individual photographer. Our only form of "income" is your help in spreading the word about our website. Please respect that.
Would you like to link to our photos from your web page?
If you have a web page (personal or company) and would like to link to certain photos on Airliners.net, you do not have to ask for permission as long as you use the code as described below.
Airline webmasters: To link to photos of your particular airline, please read this.
You may not link directly to the image files of the photos on Airliners.net. Please use the code below instead:
Every photo has a unique ID number. If you want to link to the large version of an individual photo, insert the following code in your web page:



Click Here to view the photo


It would look like this:
Click Here to view the photo
Replace '12345' in the code above with the id number of the photo you want to link to. You will find the ID number of every photo on every entry in the database.
If you want to link to the small (thumbnail) version of a photo use the following code:



Click Here to view the photo


It would look like this:
Click Here to view the photo
Of course, you simply replace the ID number in the above code with the ID number of the photo you want to link to. If you would like to link to several photos at the same time, just add more ID numbers to the code above. Just remeber to seprate them with a comma (and no space). For an example:


Click Here to view the photos


The above code links to five photos and would look like this:
Click Here to view the photos
You can also put the whole search engine on your web page or link to your choice of aircraft or airlines. Read more about that here.
Please let us know if you have any questions.

​

 

[Stick-n-Rudder]

This just in:

Question: Perhaps you can validate a rumor spreading around. I have heard that Jet BLue is operating their Airbus aircraft lease free and Airbus is providing free maintenance. Also, JFK provided them with no cost/low cost gates. Any of this true?

Answer: Details of the contractual agreement between Airbus and JetBlue are proprietary information and are not included in the financial reports released to the public. Specifics of this agreement are filed separately with the Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to a request for confidential treatment pursuant to Rule 24b-2 of the SEC Act of 1934, as amended.

However, the following extracts from JetBlue's recent 10K filing may be helpful in answering your questions.

Regarding aircraft acquisitions

"We typically finance our aircraft through either secured or lease financing. At December 31, 2002, we operated a fleet of 37 Airbus A320 aircraft, of which 16 are financed under operating leases with the remaining 21 financed by secured debt. At December 31, 2002, financing in the form of operating leases had been arranged for the first six deliveries scheduled for 2003. Although we believe that debt and/or lease financing should be available for our remaining aircraft deliveries, we cannot make assurances that we will be able to secure financing on terms acceptable to us, if at all. While these financings may or may not result in an increase in liabilities on our balance sheet, our fixed costs will increase significantly regardless of the financing method ultimately chosen. To the extent we cannot secure financing, we may required to modify our aircraft acquisition plans to incur higher than anticipated financing costs."

Regading maintenance costs:

"Because the average age of our aircraft is 15.5 months, our aircraft require less maintenance now than they will in the future. We also currently incur lower maintenance expenses because most of the parts on our aircraft are under multi-year warranties. Our maintenance costs will increase on an absolute basis, on a per seat mile basis and as a percentage of our operating expenses, as our fleet ages and these warranties expire.
Although we cannot accurately predict how much our maintenance costs will increase in the future, we expect that they will increase significantly."

Regarding JFK gates:

"We currently operate from Terminal 6 at JFK under an expired permit from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Our permit could be terminated at any time upon 30 day's notice and alternate gate space may not be available on favorable terms, or at all. Although we are in the process of finalizing a long-term lease agreement through November 2006 with the Port Authority, we cannot assure you that we will be able to execute a lease agreement. Since JFK is our principal base of operations, our inability to maintain an adequate number of gates would harm our business".

Mor regarding JFK gates:

We also checked with the Port Authority of NY & NJ regarding your question. JetBlue is paying fees at the same rate as the other airlines at JFK in similar facilities. JetBlue paid fees from the commencement of their servise to JFK, and they have not received any special discounts or waivers".

 

[delldude]

----------------

​

[url="http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=270428&WxsIERv=Q2FuYWRhaXIgQ0wt"]http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=2704...2FuYWRhaXIgQ0wt[/url]
NjAwLTJDMTAgUmVnaW9uYWwgSmV0IENSSi03MDA%3D&WdsYXMg=TWVzYSBBaXJsaW5lcw
%3D%3D&QtODMg=RmFybWluZ3RvbiAtIEZvdXIgQ29ybmVycyBSZWdpb25hbCAoTXVuaWN
pcGFsKSAoRk1OKQ%3D%3D&ERDLTkt=VVNBIC0gTmV3IE1leGljbw%3D%3D&ktODMp=QXV
ndXN0IDI1LCAyMDAy&BP=0&WNEb25u=QnJpYW4gSGFtZXM%3D&xsIERvdWdsY=TjUwMU1
K&MgTUQtODMgKE=U21lbGxzIGxpa2UgbmV3IGNhciEgVGhpcyBwbGFuZSBldmVuIGhhcy
BsZWF0aGVyIGZpcnN0IGNsYXNzIHNlYXRzIHdpdGggYWRqdXN0YWJsZSBoZWFkcmVzdHM
u&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=MjQ2Ng%3D%3D&NEb25uZWxs=MjAwMi0wOS0wNA%3D%3D&static
=yes

i like the part about copyright protected and can''t be used at all.

----------------​

 

[USFlyer]

----------------
On 6/14/2003 9:41:20 PM PITbull wrote:

Nice chatting with you though, did you fall in love with me yet?

----------------​

No, not really.

 

[delldude]

----------------

Nice chatting with you though, did you fall in love with me yet?

----------------

oh,baby.......................
----------------​

 

[PITbull]

----------------
On 6/16/2003 1023 PM USFlyer wrote:

----------------
On 6/14/2003 9:41:20 PM PITbull wrote:

Nice chatting with you though, did you fall in love with me yet?

----------------​

No, not really.

----------------​

Yea, me neither.....

 

[PITbull]

----------------
On 6/17/2003 5:29:24 AM PineyBob wrote:

----------------
On 6/16/2003 1023 PM USFlyer wrote:

----------------
On 6/14/2003 9:41:20 PM PITbull wrote:

Nice chatting with you though, did you fall in love with me yet?

----------------​

No, not really.

----------------​

Jeez PITbull,
I thought you only had eyes for me? We could have been the Carville & Matilin of the US Aviation board. But I guess you threw me over for another with bigger "wings"

----------------​

Now you Bob, I always luv