What parts of UAL will end up with USAir?

[Cosmo]

Chip:

With all due respect, I stand by all of my previous comments. And indeed, IMHO you've done it again.

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/26/2003 928 PM chipmunn wrote:

First, since UA made the mid-December comments, the Chicago-based airline initiated a dramatic fare decrease that US CFO Neal Cohen told the bankruptcy court on Monday was "delusionary" and has cost revenues; during the last 45 days oil has jumped to $38 per barrel, there has been adverse weather, and bookings are off.
----------------
[/blockquote]
You describe what must be the opinion of Neal Cohen regarding the fare changes and their revenue impact, and then use wording that, at least to me, makes it appear to be a fact. This is the type of "slant" that I was referring to.

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/26/2003 928 PM chipmunn wrote:

In regard to Argento's comments about UA labor, today the UA flight attendants outlined a cost savings plan. According to news reports, which Bear96 does not like me posting, the F/A plan will save $1 billion over 6 years.

That's $168 million per year, which is a start, but management said it needs to $2.56 billion per year in labor cuts for its POR.
----------------
[/blockquote]
It's called an opener in a negotiation. I believe that ultimately the AFA portion of the labor cost reductions will be much closer to UA management's position which, IIRC, is about $314 million annually. Isn't this similar to the process that unfolded at US last summer and fall, where US did not get all of its requested cost reductions either (at least not initially)? Why would you expect this process to be significantly different for UA?

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/26/2003 928 PM chipmunn wrote:

Cosmo, I believe that leaves along way to go with war on the horizon. In fact, that's only $2.392 billion per year to go and the company is set. What's your opinion? Moreover, do you believe my comment is once again slanting my post?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Yes, you're absolutely correct here -- UA does indeed have some very large challenges in front of it, including some that it has no control over such as war and fuel prices. No slanting here!

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/26/2003 9:10:28 PM chipmunn wrote:

I believe the AFA position supports Argento's comments of "In fact, quite a respectable body of financial opinion has now concluded that UAL's current condition is so fragile that the airline's failure may well be imminent. Yet UAL's labor unions continue to joust with UAL management (as if UAL management was its enemy), refusing to confront reality."
----------------
[/blockquote]
As you note, that's your opinion (as well as that of Argento), which you are certainly entitled to share as you see fit. But in [b]my[/b] opinion, I don't believe things are quite that dire -- yet. At least a few of the Wall Street analysts give UA about a 50% chance of survival, and the supposedly "in the know" banker (probably from one of the DIP banks)quoted in yesterday's Washington Post article said that UA's current financial position was slightly better than expected. Although it's faint praise, I guess it's better than nothing. But who knows, only time will tell if UA can survive its current predicament.

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/26/2003 9:10:28 PM chipmunn wrote:

Finally, I take great exception to you accusing me of being dishonest especially with you hiding behind a PC while you do so. If you're going to take a shot at me, at least have the courage to identify yourself.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Again, I stand by my previous comments, which would not change regardless of whether I posted them under the "Cosmo" alias or my real name. So you have a choice -- you can read my posts (and respond if desired) or you can ignore them, it's your perogative. But I have no intention of "advertising" my real name on an Internet chat room.

 

[DCAflyer]

Slam & Click said:

I'm very good at (inserting tongue-in-cheek here) stating the obvious. You can check with my sources!


DCAflyer LOL's. Thanks for not taking my "duh" seriously.

DCf

 

[Stick-n-Rudder]

Did'nt someone do some research on RSA back in July or August and find that RSA owns a bunch of A/C leased to UAL? Boeing or Airbus I don't remember? Could'nt Bronner pull the plug on these A/C leases when UAL tries to renegotiate lease costs/payments and put them at US?

 

[RowUnderDCA]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/27/2003 8:58:23 AM DCAflyer wrote:

My theory of the most plausible scenarios: (1) UAL downsizes DIA and moves significant hub operations from DIA to ORD, and U picks up many of UAL's gates at DIA to set the stage for a mid-continent hub; (2) UAL downsizes ops at LAX (increasing ops at SFO) and U increases ops at that station, including significant RJ flying; (3) UAL downsizes ops at IAD and U increases ops to make IAD an international focus-city for STAR connections and, perhaps, Carribbean feed; (4) UAL dumps So-Am operations and U picks those ops up (hence the switch from 330-300 to -200 series), flying from either PHL, CLT, or IAD. On another note, I would not be at all surprised to see PIT downsized even more to focus RJ ops on a station with greater O&D traffic. PIT would be a maintenance hub more than anything else.

Just my two cents!

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

that gets my vote for the most plausible fantasy on the board. (the 'plausible corporate transaction')

 

[PITbull]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/26/2003 9:05:22 PM PineyBob wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/26/2003 8:41:27 PM Cosmo wrote:

[/blockquote]
And IMHO you seem to have a blind spot to any airline issue that is not labor-related. Also, I see a changed revenue environment where you see a "union busting conspiracy theory". And while there is probably some truth to the argument that some airline managements are not upset that the unions may be taking a hit, I don't believe that is the primary driver of the problems facing the airline industry today. But on the broader point, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
----------------
[/blockquote]

It is merely prudent business to advance your cause when another business entity is weakest. Delta has taken steps to hinder US's competitive advantage because US is essentially powerless to fight back. Similarly Dave & Jerry are pressing their advantage because the unions can't fight back and win right now. This is Capitalism 101 and a chapter that seems to be taken from Sun Tzu's "Art Of War".

What is PITbull supposed to do? Bend over and say "Please Sir may I have another"? Of course he's crying "FOUL"! What would you expect? His life and heart are with the Union! For him not to defend his position would be as heinous as the actions Dave & Co. are taking against him and his union brethren. Frankly IMHO the actions taken by Dave & Co. are required if the company is to survive. I think deep down PITbull knows that. But he also knows that some are not contributing their "fair share" to the cause of US's survival. Wolf & Gangwal profit for essentially ruining the company while ranks & file in many cases are eligible for Food Stamps or the school lunch program for their children. Think if I was in his shoes I'd be a little testy too.

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

Bob,

I think I might be loving you! And I'm a she.

That is exactly my sentiments! How very astute of you to understand our position. You are definitely in "full view" of the entire situation here at U; both industry stand point as well as Labor. Thank you.

Cosmo,

With all due respect,
If you would kindly re-read what I wrote I stated that you IMPLIED those things; not your quote, in between your quote, in my humble opinion. And actually, I re-read yours and you stated "jousting"; I read that wrong. Know where my heads at...sorry.

 

[PITbull]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/27/2003 1:09:34 AM T-bone wrote:

PITBULL WROTE,
Quite the opposite of what you say. I know this for a fact. Pilots in the summer had no retorhic of "union busting". Only a few AFA union Presidents took note of this. The rest of U labor was in denial. Only because of Round #2 and the recent pension issue has Labor "opened their eyes". Especially watching all the other Majors starting to implement the same "plan".

Dear PIt,
I think the unions understood the problem. I believe it was the rank and file that where in denial.
This has been the cause of many misunderstandings. The actual relationship between the MEC or E-board or what have you, and the actual feeling of the troop's, has been at times diametrically opposed.
In the case of some union's increased info and better education has provided no boon; their still lost.


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

T-Bone,

I'm not sure I understand your reply above. The Union membership understood the problem as it was conveyed to them by their Union Leadership, which was directly conveyed to THEM by this mangement, which is evidenced by the votes of all the labor groups. However, as time progressed, and management came back again, the sentiment by the "rank and file" changed, again as evidenced by the narrowing of the "FORs" and "AGAINSTs". My point, and I guess it did not come across clearly, is that There were ONLY a few outspoken leaders (AFA leaders specifically) who publically gave information to their members that the severity of the concessions were much MORE than what the co. NEEDED at that time. One thing, though, that I want to clear is that these outspoken leaders at AFA never thought there was a " Union Busting Conspiracy Theory". No sir. It was THE REAL MCCOY. And, I beleive, that now, that many of those who doubted, members and leaders alike, do, as well.

 

[savyinvestor]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/27/2003 446 PM PineyBob wrote:

I have never felt that the company engaged in "union busting". To me "Union Busting" is when a company takes actions to disrupt the formation, operation and solication of membership in union activities.

Union Busting in the case of US Airways is "Collateral Damage" in US's quest to remain in business. I never believed and still don't that it was ever the primary intent of the company to "break" the union. Now powerful economic forces and the activities of 9/ll are at play and the end result will be that the backs of some of the most powerful unions in the world will if not broken be badly bent.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Bob, I couldn't agree with you more. If there was a more powerful union than ALPA I am not aware of it. So few in number could disrupt and intimidate an entire airline. Look at their givebacks and pension. These were negotiated from a position of power and as some would suggest at the expense of their fellow employees. Hopefully those days are over so no company can be held hostage by so few. Savy

 

[Cosmo]

PITbull:

While I don't always agree with your positions, such as your "union busting" conspiracy theory as the guiding force with airline managements at this time, I do understand that life has gotten much rougher for you and your colleagues at US. So if you thought I came at you a bit too strongly when I replied to you in one of my previous posts, you have my sincere apologies.

 

[LavMan]

The airlines are conspiring to union bust thru baseball arbitration, S. 1327 authored by Senators John McCain and Trent Lott. The airlines thru the ATA has hired some of the best and highest paid lobbiests to ensure this bill passes.

This bill intends to take away a transportation worker's right to vote on a contract and take away thier rights to strike.

This country was founded on basis of democracy, this bill intends to take away our democratic rights, which is everything total opposite of what this country was founded on and based on.

That is UNION BUSTING!

Airlines Lobby Congress to Change Labor Union Laws
Source: The Denver Post
Publication date: 2003-01-20


Jan. 20--WASHINGTON--As they struggle to stay aloft financially, the nation's largest airlines are financing a campaign to significantly weaken the negotiating power of their unions.
Major carriers -- including United Airlines Corp., which has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection -- want Congress to change labor laws so that unions and management submit to binding arbitration when they're unable to reach contract agreement. That would eliminate the possibility of strikes, airline lobbyists say, preventing unions from obtaining wages and benefits that airlines say they can't afford.

The change would affect pilots, flight attendants, mechanics and other union workers for almost every airline. In Colorado, at least 6,000 workers would be affected.

"It's such an overreaction in light of all the concessions we've made," said Duane Woerth, spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association. "If the airlines had lobbied this hard for tax relief, we'd have it by now. It's just preposterous."

Airlines as a group lost more than $9 billion last year, with the largest carriers losing the most. With Republicans in control of the U.S. House and Senate, airlines and their lobbyists see a unique opportunity to act now.

As they make the rounds on Capitol Hill, lobbyists are pointing to United as an example of a case when unions won unsustainable salary increases.

"It serves as a reminder that we don't have time. We need to act," said Susan Molinari, president of the airline-backed group Communities for Economic Strength Through Aviation. "Everyone understands that this is a crisis."

Poor management choices on a variety of issues contributed to the problems, Molinari said, but labor costs have often been devastating. The threat of a strike gives airlines little choice but to accede to most union demands, she said.

There have been six airline strikes since 1992.

Unions say it's absurd to blame them for contracts that are negotiated by both sides. They say unions have been willing to take salary cuts to keep their employers solvent. And they argue that binding arbitration won't work because they need to negotiate not just wages but the rules dictating how they work.

United Airlines spokesman Chris Braithwaite declined to comment on the issue, referring questions to the airlines' trade group. Airlines mostly are lying low on the issue, letting lobbyists campaign. But at a recent Senate hearing on aviation issues, American Airlines chief executive officer Don Carty told lawmakers: "We need to examine the labor code. We do think it needs to be changed for the long- term health of the industry."

Other airlines, through their largest trade group, hired a slew of high-powered lobbyists to push the effort. Molinari, a Republican former U.S. representative from New York, sat on the House Transportation Committee and knows key lawmakers. Other lobbyists hired by airlines include former U.S. secretaries of transportation Neil Goldschmidt and James Burnley, former Sens. Slade Gorton and Chuck Robb, and former U.S. Reps. Vic Fazio and Vin Weber.

Lobbyists call the group a grassroots effort because it has support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable and scores of local tourism bureaus and chambers of commerce. They argue that aviation is critical to the economy, so everyone has a stake in the industry's economic health.

In addition to working in Washington, lobbyists through those state and local groups are pushing voters to call their representatives and indicate their support for the change.

"These are airlines that say they're broke and are asking for enormous concessions from their workers, and they hire the most expensive lobbyists in town to push a bill that would weaken worker rights," said Michael Buckley, a spokesman with the AFL-CIO, which is working with airline unions to fight the airline lobbying effort.

The total cost to airlines isn't known. Molinari would not say how much airlines are spending for lobbying, although she said it's insignificant compared to what one airline would pay for one union contract for one year. Documents detailing amounts spent on lobbying for all of 2002 haven't yet been filed with the Senate.

Congress appears to be paying attention. At a recent hearing on the state of the airline industry, Sen. John McCain, a Republican who heads the Senate Commerce Committee, repeatedly asked about labor costs and how they contributed to current woes.

McCain in August 2001 introduced legislation that would require unions to submit to binding arbitration. Under his bill, the secretary of transportation could declare an emergency when union negotiations stalled. Each side would then present its last best offer, and a panel of three arbitrators would chose between the proposals.

McCain's bill lost momentum after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when Congress turned to more pressing security issues.

Since then, Republicans have retaken control, and McCain in particular is in a position of power. Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., co-sponsored McCain's bill last year and now heads the aviation subcommittee.

Airline lobbyists said they think McCain is preparing to reintroduce the legislation. A spokeswoman for McCain didn't respond to several inquiries on the issue.

"We're hopeful," Molinari said.

Union workers are "taking this very seriously," the AFL-CIO's Buckley said. "It's the highest priority of the airline unions."

If McCain gets the proposal passed, it would still need to be passed in the House. A spokesman for Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chairman of the House's aviation subcommittee, said there would "probably be some support for that."

"We'd take a look at it," Mica spokesman Gary Burns said. "I think there is a certain level of interest."

But other observers say there is a sizable gulf between interest and passage into law. Getting enough votes will be difficult, one transportation expert said, because many moderate and even conservative Republicans are hesitant to vote against labor.

This isn't the first time airlines have tried to change the Railway Labor Act, a 76-year-old law covering airline and railroad workers. It currently requires presidential intervention to prevent a strike.

Every attempt since 1959 has failed, said Bradley Bartholomew, a labor analyst with the Newfoundland Group who also works as a pilot for a major airline.

"If you look at it historically, it's very difficult to change labor law," he said. "But if you look at the last two or three years, with the shift in Washington, I would say there's a heightened chance."

 

[Light Years]

Uh... so we all agree on Denver then?

 

[PITbull]

Delete, sorry.

 

[PITbull]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/27/2003 446 PM PineyBob wrote:

I have never felt that the company engaged in "union busting". To me "Union Busting" is when a company takes actions to disrupt the formation, operation and solication of membership in union activities.

Union Busting in the case of US Airways is "Collateral Damage" in US's quest to remain in business. I never believed and still don't that it was ever the primary intent of the company to "break" the union. Now powerful economic forces and the activities of 9/ll are at play and the end result will be that the backs of some of the most powerful unions in the world will if not broken be badly bent.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Bob,

When I speak of "union busting", I do not mean to infer in the traditional sense. But rather in the tremedous amount of furloughs.As our airline is driven by pasgr revenue; our union business is driven by dues dollars. Flight attendant ranks presently down 48% and counting. 4,800 to date system wide. Our union financially is suffering tremedously. And with UA furloughs, which is the biggest membership for AFA, we are doomed. We are in "crisis" mode. Pilots down over 1,800 and counting, CWA, I believe just about where we are, and IAM, I get conflicting numbers but its huge and counting.

However management, they say approx 10%. But who knows, they don't really tell. I do know we sit at 34 VPs and we had 29 before 9/11. Promotions have occurred, as well, after every round of negotiations.

WE are trying desperately to remedy this without creating an increase in dues which would be another HIT to our members. I could never support that at the present.

So, we are down to the bear bones. Our leadership work around the clock to ensure THAT OUR MANAGEMENT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FEW PAGES OF OUR CONTRACT WE HAVE LEFT.

Crippling a labor group (union busting) is telling your employees that you can't go out into the open market with your skills and find work at the wage you are making, according to the rethorhic of this management. But, in their same breath, same voice, have said that THEY (management) with their talents, could leave here and find work making more money than they are currently receiving. So, what you have here is a beaten down Labor group (and I should say groups) of employees that feel "worthless" not valued, and they accept whatever the co. wants. THAT IS WHAT I WITNESSED.

 

[PITbull]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/27/2003 5:15:20 PM LavMan wrote:

The airlines are conspiring to union bust thru baseball arbitration, S. 1327 authored by Senators John McCain and Trent Lott. The airlines thru the ATA has hired some of the best and highest paid lobbiests to ensure this bill passes.

This bill intends to take away a transportation worker's right to vote on a contract and take away thier rights to strike.

This country was founded on basis of democracy, this bill intends to take away our democratic rights, which is everything total opposite of what this country was founded on and based on.

That is UNION BUSTING!

Airlines Lobby Congress to Change Labor Union Laws
Source: The Denver Post
Publication date: 2003-01-20


Jan. 20--WASHINGTON--As they struggle to stay aloft financially, the nation's largest airlines are financing a campaign to significantly weaken the negotiating power of their unions.
Major carriers -- including United Airlines Corp., which has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection -- want Congress to change labor laws so that unions and management submit to binding arbitration when they're unable to reach contract agreement. That would eliminate the possibility of strikes, airline lobbyists say, preventing unions from obtaining wages and benefits that airlines say they can't afford.

The change would affect pilots, flight attendants, mechanics and other union workers for almost every airline. In Colorado, at least 6,000 workers would be affected.

"It's such an overreaction in light of all the concessions we've made," said Duane Woerth, spokesman for the Air Line Pilots Association. "If the airlines had lobbied this hard for tax relief, we'd have it by now. It's just preposterous."

Airlines as a group lost more than $9 billion last year, with the largest carriers losing the most. With Republicans in control of the U.S. House and Senate, airlines and their lobbyists see a unique opportunity to act now.

As they make the rounds on Capitol Hill, lobbyists are pointing to United as an example of a case when unions won unsustainable salary increases.

"It serves as a reminder that we don't have time. We need to act," said Susan Molinari, president of the airline-backed group Communities for Economic Strength Through Aviation. "Everyone understands that this is a crisis."

Poor management choices on a variety of issues contributed to the problems, Molinari said, but labor costs have often been devastating. The threat of a strike gives airlines little choice but to accede to most union demands, she said.

There have been six airline strikes since 1992.

Unions say it's absurd to blame them for contracts that are negotiated by both sides. They say unions have been willing to take salary cuts to keep their employers solvent. And they argue that binding arbitration won't work because they need to negotiate not just wages but the rules dictating how they work.

United Airlines spokesman Chris Braithwaite declined to comment on the issue, referring questions to the airlines' trade group. Airlines mostly are lying low on the issue, letting lobbyists campaign. But at a recent Senate hearing on aviation issues, American Airlines chief executive officer Don Carty told lawmakers: "We need to examine the labor code. We do think it needs to be changed for the long- term health of the industry."

Other airlines, through their largest trade group, hired a slew of high-powered lobbyists to push the effort. Molinari, a Republican former U.S. representative from New York, sat on the House Transportation Committee and knows key lawmakers. Other lobbyists hired by airlines include former U.S. secretaries of transportation Neil Goldschmidt and James Burnley, former Sens. Slade Gorton and Chuck Robb, and former U.S. Reps. Vic Fazio and Vin Weber.

Lobbyists call the group a grassroots effort because it has support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable and scores of local tourism bureaus and chambers of commerce. They argue that aviation is critical to the economy, so everyone has a stake in the industry's economic health.

In addition to working in Washington, lobbyists through those state and local groups are pushing voters to call their representatives and indicate their support for the change.

"These are airlines that say they're broke and are asking for enormous concessions from their workers, and they hire the most expensive lobbyists in town to push a bill that would weaken worker rights," said Michael Buckley, a spokesman with the AFL-CIO, which is working with airline unions to fight the airline lobbying effort.

The total cost to airlines isn't known. Molinari would not say how much airlines are spending for lobbying, although she said it's insignificant compared to what one airline would pay for one union contract for one year. Documents detailing amounts spent on lobbying for all of 2002 haven't yet been filed with the Senate.

Congress appears to be paying attention. At a recent hearing on the state of the airline industry, Sen. John McCain, a Republican who heads the Senate Commerce Committee, repeatedly asked about labor costs and how they contributed to current woes.

McCain in August 2001 introduced legislation that would require unions to submit to binding arbitration. Under his bill, the secretary of transportation could declare an emergency when union negotiations stalled. Each side would then present its last best offer, and a panel of three arbitrators would chose between the proposals.

McCain's bill lost momentum after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when Congress turned to more pressing security issues.

Since then, Republicans have retaken control, and McCain in particular is in a position of power. Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., co-sponsored McCain's bill last year and now heads the aviation subcommittee.

Airline lobbyists said they think McCain is preparing to reintroduce the legislation. A spokeswoman for McCain didn't respond to several inquiries on the issue.

"We're hopeful," Molinari said.

Union workers are "taking this very seriously," the AFL-CIO's Buckley said. "It's the highest priority of the airline unions."

If McCain gets the proposal passed, it would still need to be passed in the House. A spokesman for Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chairman of the House's aviation subcommittee, said there would "probably be some support for that."

"We'd take a look at it," Mica spokesman Gary Burns said. "I think there is a certain level of interest."

But other observers say there is a sizable gulf between interest and passage into law. Getting enough votes will be difficult, one transportation expert said, because many moderate and even conservative Republicans are hesitant to vote against labor.

This isn't the first time airlines have tried to change the Railway Labor Act, a 76-year-old law covering airline and railroad workers. It currently requires presidential intervention to prevent a strike.

Every attempt since 1959 has failed, said Bradley Bartholomew, a labor analyst with the Newfoundland Group who also works as a pilot for a major airline.

"If you look at it historically, it's very difficult to change labor law," he said. "But if you look at the last two or three years, with the shift in Washington, I would say there's a heightened chance."

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

This is THE time when it will take a great organizing effort by all of Labor in America. This is our time. AFL-CIO will now have to use all that affiliated money and put it to work!

And, I do not need to tell you LavMan, cause I know you know, action is underway.

 

[LavMan]

PIT, we at the IAM have the Day of Action to march on Capitol Hill and we will be inviting all transporation unions to join us on the hill, at the time of the march and rally, we will have members in their respective legislators offices and tell them to look out the window, and tell them those people vote!

 

[PITbull]

I am with you, LavMan!