What Will Be The Most Likely Outcome Of U

[usairways_vote_NO]

happy voting

 

[aerosmith]

I hate to be a pessamist but it looks more and more like failure. :angry: :down: :rant:

 

[repeet]

You forgot the most likely scenerio.

The company goes into chapter 11, abrogates employee contracts, and then is killed by strikes. Which, of course, results in chapter 7.

 

[Tim Nelson]

You forgot the most likely scenerio.

The company goes into chapter 11, abrogates employee contracts, and then is killed by strikes. Which, of course, results in chapter 7.

Unfortunately it is pretty clear now that all indicators point to almost exactly what repeet is saying. Bankruptcy is now being shouted in almost every article but nobody [pilots excepted] is there to respond anymore.
My one point of disagreement with repeet is that I don't see any striking. There is no reason to strike since no new financing as a result of the opening of legal 'self help threats' will produce the same results.

regards,

 

[Tim Nelson]

It is not surprising that 70% of the poll respondents agree in one way or the other that failure and the end is very near.

My general observations while talking to fellow members over the past 30 days drew the same conclusions but closer to 90%.
The difference may be that of the minority [30%] who didn't vote for failure, a great deal of them are pilots or management.

regards,

 

[funguy2]

My one point of disagreement with repeet is that I don't see any striking. There is no reason to strike since no new financing as a result of the opening of legal 'self help threats' will produce the same results.

Tim:

I disagree. My understanding of S.1113 of the BK law, which deals with labor agreements, is that the company can ask the judge (or vice versa I suppose) to force new negotiations. The judge cannot void the contract (a change made post-Lorenzo). If the company pushes forward with such a request, and their negotiating position is concessions or else, the unions may have to go to 'self-help' just to maintain the current contracts.

My gut tells me (and some posters on these forums) that some unions feel they have given enough, and that there is no more left to give. So I think you could indeed see a strike if management forces the labor issue in BK Ch. 11. I think this would happen prior to any exit financing strategy being developed, as I think management would have to present cost reductions to lenders/investors in order to obtain exit financing.

That's just my hunch, and based on my understanding of S.1113. If I am wrong, please correct me on S.1113.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim:

I disagree. My understanding of S.1113 of the BK law, which deals with labor agreements, is that the company can ask the judge (or vice versa I suppose) to force new negotiations. The judge cannot void the contract (a change made post-Lorenzo). If the company pushes forward with such a request, and their negotiating position is concessions or else, the unions may have to go to 'self-help' just to maintain the current contracts.

My gut tells me (and some posters on these forums) that some unions feel they have given enough, and that there is no more left to give. So I think you could indeed see a strike if management forces the labor issue in BK Ch. 11. I think this would happen prior to any exit financing strategy being developed, as I think management would have to present cost reductions to lenders/investors in order to obtain exit financing.

That's just my hunch, and based on my understanding of S.1113. If I am wrong, please correct me on S.1113.

funguy2,

Your opinion is valid and not in need of correction since what you say is possible in chapter 11. However, if I'm Company A or Company B, then I want to be able to connect the dots quickly and as long as a strike is 'known' then I can better plan no matter how painful a strike is. It may be that a strike would be a death blow in itself, but I don't think it would produce the greatest consequences for a Union busting company that wants to survive without Labor.

OK, assume the following situation and its variables as 'givens' for the purposes of a model to build:
Company [A] picks a fight with Labor and is able to force a new non-consensual contract on a union. Union has legal self helps available including striking, 'wildcatting', etc.

My reasoning for not forseeing a strike or 'wildcatting' is because by staying on the property as opposed to striking 'in this situation' is just as powerful or more powerful than striking or wildcatting. By staying on the property, which the RLA provides in situations, a union continues to keep its self help 'choices' of striking, wildcatting, etc but doesn't necessarily do it on a timetable that the company can predict. Do you follow me?

In the meantime, the union will accomplish a financial 'constrictinglike' stranglehold on any potential new financing which is the air needed for Company A to breathe. Do you agree?

However, nothing is new here. It was a union measure that worked at Pan Am, a video was actually put out that explained this lethal end game move on a company that desperately needed financing but wanted to 'stick it to Labor'. A terrible and miscalculated consequence for the Pan Am company.
Pan Am forced a contract on the Teamsters union and even though the union was allowed to strike at let's say, 12 midnight, it chose to keep its members on the property which made a very unclear picture for potential investors. Because Pan Am was suffocating, it finally gave in to the IBT. Only after giving the Teamsters an unusually handsome contract enhancement that managed to piss off the TWU and ALPA did it get financing but it was too late.

In the end, Pan Am died and all the jobs with it, but the point is that if
Company [A] wants to first make war with its labor unions, then it will have a difficult fight on its hands, if it needs financing. And let's not beat around the bush, anytime a company official makes subtle references about abrogating contracts he is waging war with Labor

Here is the formula:
Company [A] wages war on Labor + Non-consensual contract = no financing = death of company and jobs.

A predictable outcome and difficult situation indeed.

regards,

 

[oldiebutgoody]

I believe that what you are saying is true. But here is the rub. Neither Bronner NOR Lakefield have run labor intensive operations before, and much of what they know of this business is from Siegel's playbook. We ALL know just how "employee friendly" Continental was during Siegel's term there (it wasn't), and, in fact, the rumors of it's impending demise were on everyone's lips for YEARS. CO was known for exceptionally poor customer service, employee relations and was largely seen as "just hanging on", until Bethune replaced Siegel and his henchmen with real operations folks (rather than union busters). I believe that if Bronner and Lakefield can wake up and see just what kind of influence the past management team was having on UAIR and their investment they will quickly move in another direction, which will be positive for all. The FIRST thing they need to learn is NOT to be dropping terms like Chapter 11, restructuring, furloughs and layoffs in the media, since all it does is paint UAIR in a VERY NEGATIVE light (even if true, leaving a positive impression has got to be better than a negative one). I'm still a believer that with the right management, a good route network, and better employee morale (employees can cost the company FAR MORE than just about any other cost) that this company can still make it.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

repeet though I could call you names and rant and rave ....I will instead say you are so right, they only give you 10 questions in poll and I could probably put 10 more. I didn't sit down and work it out well just threw the poll together so you are rigt I left out selections I shouldn't have.

But hey if U is around in a week or two we can start another.

 

[funguy2]

Tim:

If I read you correctly, your assertion is that Labor, instead of enacting self-help at the first possible opportunity, could operate under the non-agreed to contract while continuing to use the threat of immediate self-help at any time over time (since the only requirement is a 30-day waiting period, no requirement to begin strike on 31st day). Thus the threat of uncertainty of the timing of self-help scares away potential investors on the basis of "we can work around the predicatable".

I think I now understanding what you are saying, and I think this self-help option does have merit, and could be "successful" in terms of coming to a contactual end. Certainly, once the uncertainty is removed, the company would be able to focus on financing, and move forward, with employees on-board again. This seems plausible, however, I am in no position to say likely or unlikely.

However, any time a threat-style tactic is used, those who threaten must be willing to enact what they have threatened. So while it is possible that the union forces the company to capitulate via the threat of self-help, the company could also "call the bluff" of the union and force them to act. If the company does this, the strike may be inevitable (or the union caves). The only question is if one side caves before this point.

Thanks for the clarification... As I said, this seems plausible to me, depending of what the union in question feels it should do.

 

[El Gato]

C11 or C7, the IAM and AFA are going to kill the company and everyone else's jobs with it. The sky waitresses and elevator repairmen will be out there in front of the terminals holding up "We won" signs while the other folks who wanted to keep their jobs get screwed out of their livelihoods. Yep, unions chalk up another "victory" if that happens.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

EL GATO

Yep it's the union's AFA and IAM that killed this company. That sure was easy to figure out you are brilliant. Actually if you trying to put down mechanics you should not use the term elevator repairmen try grease monkeys. The former is the job they should have got into.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

EL GATO

You and everyone else on these boards whining about your jobs should be preparing for the worst and moving on. Don't you get it? It is over. Stop placing blame get out and get training and find a job. Enough already you have had years to prepare for this outcome and have no one to blame but yourself if you are not ready.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Tim:

If I read you correctly, your assertion is that Labor, instead of enacting self-help at the first possible opportunity, could operate under the non-agreed to contract while continuing to use the threat of immediate self-help at any time over time (since the only requirement is a 30-day waiting period, no requirement to begin strike on 31st day). Thus the threat of uncertainty of the timing of self-help scares away potential investors on the basis of "we can work around the predicatable".

I think I now understanding what you are saying, and I think this self-help option does have merit, and could be "successful" in terms of coming to a contactual end. Certainly, once the uncertainty is removed, the company would be able to focus on financing, and move forward, with employees on-board again. This seems plausible, however, I am in no position to say likely or unlikely.

However, any time a threat-style tactic is used, those who threaten must be willing to enact what they have threatened. So while it is possible that the union forces the company to capitulate via the threat of self-help, the company could also "call the bluff" of the union and force them to act. If the company does this, the strike may be inevitable (or the union caves). The only question is if one side caves before this point.

Thanks for the clarification... As I said, this seems plausible to me, depending of what the union in question feels it should do.

I dug up this current event to further show that anyone who thinks that US AIRWAYS can get financing without an agreed labor deal is fooling themselves.

From the 'foreign carrier forum'
Air Canada, the world's 11th largest carrier, must get all of its unions to agree to cuts to secure the backing of Deutsche Bank AG <DBKGn.DE> to underwrite a C$850 million rights offering to creditors.

A $1.5 billion loan package from General Electric Aviation Services (nyse: GE - news - people) is also conditional on a final agreement between Air Canada and Deutsche Bank. "


US AIRWAYS has no choice but to liquidate or to lossen their grip on greed and come up with innovative negotiations...and I'm not talking about profit sharing or stock which is a bigtime dead issue with most airline workers. I have some ideas that could work but my opinion does not carry authority with US AIRWAYS.

regards,

 

[greasemonkey-seeking-nirvana]

EL GATO

Yep it's the union's AFA and IAM that killed this company. That sure was easy to figure out you are brilliant. Actually if you trying to put down mechanics you should not use the term elevator repairmen try grease monkeys. The former is the job they should have got into.

YUP GREASEMONKEY IS THE PROPER TERM!!