NeedForSpeedNFS
Veteran
- Mar 12, 2004
- 517
- 0
After The Speech
- Thread starter totobird
- Start date
Sorry, but TwiceBaked makes a good point.
If I currently make 45K and with the upcoming concessions, I was going to make 35K I would not be happy at all. I would have to make very tough lifestyle choices to say the least. But I would still be making 35K.
Now if I was making 45K and then elected to vote down any concessions and the company went chapter 7, I now make 0.00.
At least if I am making 35K. I can (hopefully) pay for my food, a roof over my head and hopefully a car. There are plenty of people that make ends meet at 35K. If I find that the sacrifices are to much for me, I am at least drawing a paycheck until I find something else. I would rather have a paycheck of some sort coming in while I am reviewing my options, versus not havaing any income at all.
Personally, I am taking a wait and see approach. I don't know what the concessions will be. I will review the concessions when they come out and determine for myself if I can live with them or not. If I can't I will take my talents elsewhere.....but I will hopefully have a job. Also, if I have to go from making 45K to 35K, it will make it a heck of a lot easier to leave, at 45K I feel trapped by my income level.
If I currently make 45K and with the upcoming concessions, I was going to make 35K I would not be happy at all. I would have to make very tough lifestyle choices to say the least. But I would still be making 35K.
Now if I was making 45K and then elected to vote down any concessions and the company went chapter 7, I now make 0.00.
At least if I am making 35K. I can (hopefully) pay for my food, a roof over my head and hopefully a car. There are plenty of people that make ends meet at 35K. If I find that the sacrifices are to much for me, I am at least drawing a paycheck until I find something else. I would rather have a paycheck of some sort coming in while I am reviewing my options, versus not havaing any income at all.
Personally, I am taking a wait and see approach. I don't know what the concessions will be. I will review the concessions when they come out and determine for myself if I can live with them or not. If I can't I will take my talents elsewhere.....but I will hopefully have a job. Also, if I have to go from making 45K to 35K, it will make it a heck of a lot easier to leave, at 45K I feel trapped by my income level.
MMW: Correct if I am wrong, but isn't it quite time consuming when contracts get opened up??? Dave stated he wanted to begin formal talks on concessions beginning the 1st of April with all Unions. It sounds to be that U is under a strict time frame. We are all being threatened and told basically to like it or leave it.
So my thinking is that the Company is going to try and Ramrod the process down our throats ASAP, have all of our heads spinning and No one will have the slightest clue what we are voting on. It has happened before, why would this time be any different.
How many times, because of a particular "wording" in a contract have employees really been snookered????
So my thinking is that the Company is going to try and Ramrod the process down our throats ASAP, have all of our heads spinning and No one will have the slightest clue what we are voting on. It has happened before, why would this time be any different.
How many times, because of a particular "wording" in a contract have employees really been snookered????
KT
I agree. There has been the sense of urgency since November, but we are only sitting down with the unions in April? If this is truely a do or die situation, then why is it taking so long to impliment the things that you can, without opening the contracts? I don't get it either.
Perhaps it is as you say. The more the time pressures, the more likely things can get squeezed into the contract that can lead to interpretational differences.....better known as gray areas where the company feels they can walk right through a contract clause.
My point was that I would much rather have an income while I am looking to change jobs, versus being thrown to the curb with nothing (except unemployement) and accepting any job that comes along. I am barely scrapping by now.....more concessions will hurt a lot, but I will have to cross those bridges as I come to them..
I agree. There has been the sense of urgency since November, but we are only sitting down with the unions in April? If this is truely a do or die situation, then why is it taking so long to impliment the things that you can, without opening the contracts? I don't get it either.
Perhaps it is as you say. The more the time pressures, the more likely things can get squeezed into the contract that can lead to interpretational differences.....better known as gray areas where the company feels they can walk right through a contract clause.
My point was that I would much rather have an income while I am looking to change jobs, versus being thrown to the curb with nothing (except unemployement) and accepting any job that comes along. I am barely scrapping by now.....more concessions will hurt a lot, but I will have to cross those bridges as I come to them..
I am with you on this. I too, would rather have a job, although what bothers me now, is I may have been off to have taken the VF8. Since unemployment goes on your highest quarters, mine would have been higher before. Now with impending layoffs again and concessions looming, I will be making less money and less unemployment when that happens. Whereas I could have been receiving higher unemployement right now while looking for other prospects. Is is kind of like a catch 22.
I noticed in looking at the VF list, the majority of those that took it were our high end Reserves. These were the folks who really got slammed with the Time Balancing. I am one of them.
Problem with this Time Balancing, no one Ever Knows when they are coming and going. If not flying, you have to basically sit by the phone with your bags packed at all times. I feel like I'm in prison.
So I thinking that the folks who did take the VF had a better vision than me. I had major hopes.
I noticed in looking at the VF list, the majority of those that took it were our high end Reserves. These were the folks who really got slammed with the Time Balancing. I am one of them.
Problem with this Time Balancing, no one Ever Knows when they are coming and going. If not flying, you have to basically sit by the phone with your bags packed at all times. I feel like I'm in prison.
So I thinking that the folks who did take the VF had a better vision than me. I had major hopes.
Don't give up hope yet.....hoepfully with the additional flying things will be looking up for you. If we go from 10 to 12 hours of hard time flying per a/c, that will mean additional flight time and blocks. Hopefully that will help your situation and allow more reserves to get their time in.
MMW: Thanks for the support. Now, do you mean 10-12 hours per a/c or 10-12 hours hard time flying for crews? I am a little confused there. Contractually, we are not allowed to fly over 8 hours scheduled hard time. But of course that could be one of the things the Company wants to change.
On WinBid trip sheets, it will state what a particular pairng could have worked (legally and contractually). For example: I have an old trip sheet. This is a 3-day pairing 33174. It states Pairing 33174 WORKS 67% of the time it could have (legally and contractually). I have never understood this. Is this NOT the company's doing????? First duty day was 12:08, Blk 7:11. 2nd. duty period was 3:38, Blk. 1:42. Third duty peiriod 11:43. Blk. 7:06 All Hard time. Looking at the turns or AVG GRND was: 00:52. I am trying to conceptualize this Rolling Hub thing. If we start in PHL, it would have to affect everwhere else I would think. Because just about everything that goes down in PHL effects the rest of the system. So why not Roll PIT and CLT at the same time we start Rolling PHL??? :huh:
Now, do you mean 10-12 hours per a/c or 10-12 hours hard time flying for crews? I am a little confused there. Contractually, we are not allowed to fly over 8 hours scheduled hard time. But of course that could be one of the things the Company wants to change.On WinBid trip sheets, it will state what a particular pairng could have worked (legally and contractually). For example: I have an old trip sheet. This is a 3-day pairing 33174. It states Pairing 33174 WORKS 67% of the time it could have (legally and contractually). I have never understood this. Is this NOT the company's doing????? First duty day was 12:08, Blk 7:11. 2nd. duty period was 3:38, Blk. 1:42. Third duty peiriod 11:43. Blk. 7:06 All Hard time. Looking at the turns or AVG GRND was: 00:52. I am trying to conceptualize this Rolling Hub thing. If we start in PHL, it would have to affect everwhere else I would think. Because just about everything that goes down in PHL effects the rest of the system. So why not Roll PIT and CLT at the same time we start Rolling PHL??? :huh:
KT
The 10-12 hard time flight hours would be for airplanes. We utilize and airplane on average 10 hours a day. If we can increase that to 12 hours, we get more bang for our buck, with less capital expenditures.
As for conceptualizing PHL as a rolling hub......picture flying a plane in there and having no more then 35-40 minutes on the ground and you are gone again. Genereally, if you are the first flight arrival in a bank, you could wait up to 90 minutes to depart because you have to wait for everyone else to get in, connect and then leave. So you have a ruch of airplanes in, then a long conga line for the end of the runway. Now with the rolling hub, flights come and go constantly. Less wait time on the ground, less taxi out time, more flights, more work for you. That is pretty basic. There will be markets like PHL-ALB where there may not be a strong O & D market so you may see the flights go from mainline to MDA and from 4 flights a day to 8. This means there would be a flight leaving every couple of hours, so there would still be connecting traffic that wouldn't have to wait a considerable amount of time.
As ofr your example of a trip pairing.....your first day was 12:08 duty day, with 7:11 hard time, day 2 was 3:38 duty day and 1:42 hard tims, day 3 is 11:43 duty day and 7:06 hard time. Imagine with the rolling hub, we take away some of that sit time. Now your duty days drop to 9-10 hours and your hard time stays at 7. With all the added flying, you become more productive and we need more people to cover the extra flying.
As for rolling PIT and CLT....that is not as easy to do. In order to make a rolling hub more cost effective, you need a stronger O & D market. Not to say that simplifying and lowering fares wouldn't stir up traffic in PIT and CLT too, but it won't be enough to support a rolling hub. I think that is why you will see additional traffic in DCA, BOS and LGA. These are other very strong O & D markets. PIT and CLT will see additional flying because of the increases in utilization, but they will most likely stay as banking hubs.
The 10-12 hard time flight hours would be for airplanes. We utilize and airplane on average 10 hours a day. If we can increase that to 12 hours, we get more bang for our buck, with less capital expenditures.
As for conceptualizing PHL as a rolling hub......picture flying a plane in there and having no more then 35-40 minutes on the ground and you are gone again. Genereally, if you are the first flight arrival in a bank, you could wait up to 90 minutes to depart because you have to wait for everyone else to get in, connect and then leave. So you have a ruch of airplanes in, then a long conga line for the end of the runway. Now with the rolling hub, flights come and go constantly. Less wait time on the ground, less taxi out time, more flights, more work for you. That is pretty basic. There will be markets like PHL-ALB where there may not be a strong O & D market so you may see the flights go from mainline to MDA and from 4 flights a day to 8. This means there would be a flight leaving every couple of hours, so there would still be connecting traffic that wouldn't have to wait a considerable amount of time.
As ofr your example of a trip pairing.....your first day was 12:08 duty day, with 7:11 hard time, day 2 was 3:38 duty day and 1:42 hard tims, day 3 is 11:43 duty day and 7:06 hard time. Imagine with the rolling hub, we take away some of that sit time. Now your duty days drop to 9-10 hours and your hard time stays at 7. With all the added flying, you become more productive and we need more people to cover the extra flying.
As for rolling PIT and CLT....that is not as easy to do. In order to make a rolling hub more cost effective, you need a stronger O & D market. Not to say that simplifying and lowering fares wouldn't stir up traffic in PIT and CLT too, but it won't be enough to support a rolling hub. I think that is why you will see additional traffic in DCA, BOS and LGA. These are other very strong O & D markets. PIT and CLT will see additional flying because of the increases in utilization, but they will most likely stay as banking hubs.
Well, Piney, I remember this: Several years ago, shortly after Wolf came into the picture, I went to work one day and unbeknownst to all of us, we had changed our Name to USAirways. Suddenly we were going to be "The Carrier of Choice". I believe that was to become the big Slogan. We repainted airplanes, revamped concources, got new uniform pieces, and right before our eyes everything USAir was fading and we were now USAirways.....The Carrier of Choice. And for a brief period of time, there seemed to be a sense of trust and respect and pride. We all felt (for a brief period of time ) that we actually were going to BE "The Carrier of Choice". I saw the changes in many people across the boards. If my memory serves me correctly, Everyone came on Board, system wide. I saw it in the rampers, caterers, Agents, F/A's, Pilots, Everyone. We all felt we were being groomed to be "The Carrier of Choice". Everyone was working their asses off to make sure it would happen.
What we didn't know is that we were being groomed to be sold!!! Kurplunk!!! There goes the trust, the respect the pride. Once again we were all back to what was before. No vision, uncertaintly about our futures. Now I saw worry, sadness, and contempt for Management. This was before 9/11 mind you. And saddly with the events of 9/11 it has only gotten worse. In all of my years I can only recall (a brief period of time) where there was trust and respect, some hope and a vision.
What we didn't know is that we were being groomed to be sold!!! Kurplunk!!! There goes the trust, the respect the pride. Once again we were all back to what was before. No vision, uncertaintly about our futures. Now I saw worry, sadness, and contempt for Management. This was before 9/11 mind you. And saddly with the events of 9/11 it has only gotten worse. In all of my years I can only recall (a brief period of time) where there was trust and respect, some hope and a vision.
PITbull
Veteran
The web cast "theme" is this, all of labor contracts need to "transform" into Low cost". We will be come LCC as others will follow suit after U. Then we will all be competing as LCC, no one knowing where the bottom is. Ultimately, cosnsolidation will have to happen, and wages and benefits will remain at their lowest for a very very long time.
Those who choose to concede to lower the bar, don't ever complain again to your union leaders on how could this happen. Just look in the mirror. If you feel you can't afford to live like that, than a) you can quit, or B) you can influence those to believe as you.
Ultimately, working for USAirways is not worth a living. If you love the job regardless of paying your bills or not, keep it. If the concessions go through, most of us will leave, and U Managemenet will propser just on the premise to get rid of the mature workforce.
Eventually, as jobs in America decline, those folks who are able to pay for health care to a physician or specialist decline, lawyers, contractors, builders, automobile purchases etc.. decline... Every one will fill the trickle down effect of living at lower wages and unaffordable health care. Even the professionals will not see the business in their office from those americans who have been forced to take lower wages and benefits with threats of liquidation. Folks will not afford to take vacations and fuel prices will continue to soar at unaffordable leveles for the average worker, even to go back and for th to work. Utiilities will be in default and so will taxes, and personal BK will rise to unimaginabale levels. Just watch.
Government will than rise to the occassion to start regulating in order for balance to be brought into the economic system.
The capitalists will have their "hay day' for a short while, than it will change.
In the meantime, just from my conversations with managment this week and their horrible arrogance and outright disconnect...verbal outbursts with me and my defense of our work group...which they refuse to evaluate and help certain indivduals that they have in their pwer to do so...(And YOU, JERRY, know exactly what I am talking about with your unforgivable, rude, holier -than- thow, statments,)
MY POSITION IS AN OVERWHELMING..." NO MORE"!
Those who choose to concede to lower the bar, don't ever complain again to your union leaders on how could this happen. Just look in the mirror. If you feel you can't afford to live like that, than a) you can quit, or B) you can influence those to believe as you.
Ultimately, working for USAirways is not worth a living. If you love the job regardless of paying your bills or not, keep it. If the concessions go through, most of us will leave, and U Managemenet will propser just on the premise to get rid of the mature workforce.
Eventually, as jobs in America decline, those folks who are able to pay for health care to a physician or specialist decline, lawyers, contractors, builders, automobile purchases etc.. decline... Every one will fill the trickle down effect of living at lower wages and unaffordable health care. Even the professionals will not see the business in their office from those americans who have been forced to take lower wages and benefits with threats of liquidation. Folks will not afford to take vacations and fuel prices will continue to soar at unaffordable leveles for the average worker, even to go back and for th to work. Utiilities will be in default and so will taxes, and personal BK will rise to unimaginabale levels. Just watch.
Government will than rise to the occassion to start regulating in order for balance to be brought into the economic system.
The capitalists will have their "hay day' for a short while, than it will change.
In the meantime, just from my conversations with managment this week and their horrible arrogance and outright disconnect...verbal outbursts with me and my defense of our work group...which they refuse to evaluate and help certain indivduals that they have in their pwer to do so...(And YOU, JERRY, know exactly what I am talking about with your unforgivable, rude, holier -than- thow, statments,)
MY POSITION IS AN OVERWHELMING..." NO MORE"!
ELP_WN_Psgr
Senior
- Nov 29, 2003
- 419
- 0
Okay. I am a WN fan and sometimes apologist. I was around, albeit not employed by, WN during their infancy.
I just wanted to state that so folks won't misinterpret my commentary.
I am not going to go so far as PitBull and blame the capitalistic system for all U's woes.
Here are a few things that struck me as interesting in all of this brou-ha-ha:
1. Siegel talking about "he WILL cut his wages back to those of a LCC CEO and not invoke his golden parachute provisions embedded in his contract."
Q: If he was concerned about the company's viability, why hasn't he done that already? And what about the rest of management? If it is a question of "we've got to pay a lot of money to keep all that talent onboard" I would argue that the talent he's paying so much money for has darn near run this company into the ground and he probably wouldn;t do any worse to hire some 16 yr olds at minmum wage to be VP-Fleet Planning and VP-Inflight Service.
2. Both management and labor are culpable in the contractual arena - Labor for asking too much and management for giving in. This is probably true especially in the area of work rules. I am not wholly convinced asking senior people to reduce their wages to entry level amounts is fair. A much better solution would be to renegotiate contracts with lower entry level wages and then grow the airline to prosperity. If your employee with 25 yrs of experience is making $24 an hour, let them stay there. Just don't start the new hires off at $15. Play with the contracts to loosen work rules (ramp agents can do aircraft pushbacks) and reduce starting wages, not the wages of folks who have invested a lot of time and effort in the company.
3. If the hub and spoke model is structurally unsound (and it is), is it really a good idea to throw good money after bad and try to finance and hang on to a broken business plan on the backs of your employees?
4. Siegel has tried to paint WN as the enemy. I would argue he is still fostering an attitude that the traveling public, in their search for value, is the enemy. Why else would a trip Monday morning from PIT to CLT, with a return Wednesday afternoon, cost over $ 1050? That's $525 each way. For a 440 mile trip. That is roughly $1.20 a mile. Does anyone know what similar length walk up fares on WN price out at? The argument that "you get so much more on US" doesn't hold up. Does he think that the traveling public is so stupid as to not realize what constitutes a fair price and what does not? Does he cruise along thinking people are oblivious to when an airline is bending them over a table? Is it scary to chop fares when you are losing money? Sure it is. Do you guys have a choice? No. is it too late? It may already be.
I just wanted to state that so folks won't misinterpret my commentary.
I am not going to go so far as PitBull and blame the capitalistic system for all U's woes.
Here are a few things that struck me as interesting in all of this brou-ha-ha:
1. Siegel talking about "he WILL cut his wages back to those of a LCC CEO and not invoke his golden parachute provisions embedded in his contract."
Q: If he was concerned about the company's viability, why hasn't he done that already? And what about the rest of management? If it is a question of "we've got to pay a lot of money to keep all that talent onboard" I would argue that the talent he's paying so much money for has darn near run this company into the ground and he probably wouldn;t do any worse to hire some 16 yr olds at minmum wage to be VP-Fleet Planning and VP-Inflight Service.
2. Both management and labor are culpable in the contractual arena - Labor for asking too much and management for giving in. This is probably true especially in the area of work rules. I am not wholly convinced asking senior people to reduce their wages to entry level amounts is fair. A much better solution would be to renegotiate contracts with lower entry level wages and then grow the airline to prosperity. If your employee with 25 yrs of experience is making $24 an hour, let them stay there. Just don't start the new hires off at $15. Play with the contracts to loosen work rules (ramp agents can do aircraft pushbacks) and reduce starting wages, not the wages of folks who have invested a lot of time and effort in the company.
3. If the hub and spoke model is structurally unsound (and it is), is it really a good idea to throw good money after bad and try to finance and hang on to a broken business plan on the backs of your employees?
4. Siegel has tried to paint WN as the enemy. I would argue he is still fostering an attitude that the traveling public, in their search for value, is the enemy. Why else would a trip Monday morning from PIT to CLT, with a return Wednesday afternoon, cost over $ 1050? That's $525 each way. For a 440 mile trip. That is roughly $1.20 a mile. Does anyone know what similar length walk up fares on WN price out at? The argument that "you get so much more on US" doesn't hold up. Does he think that the traveling public is so stupid as to not realize what constitutes a fair price and what does not? Does he cruise along thinking people are oblivious to when an airline is bending them over a table? Is it scary to chop fares when you are losing money? Sure it is. Do you guys have a choice? No. is it too late? It may already be.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
ELP_WN_Psgr,
Very salient points - there's only a very small thing I can quibble with.
"he WILL cut his wages back to those of a LCC CEO"
I believe what he said was that he had told Bronner that he was "willing to accept compensation comparable to the LCC's". Willing is different than will - he didn't say if Bronner had agreed or not. Compensation is different than wages - bonuses and the like can make a big difference.
Just a minor point - like what the meaning of "is" is.
Jim
Very salient points - there's only a very small thing I can quibble with.
"he WILL cut his wages back to those of a LCC CEO"
I believe what he said was that he had told Bronner that he was "willing to accept compensation comparable to the LCC's". Willing is different than will - he didn't say if Bronner had agreed or not. Compensation is different than wages - bonuses and the like can make a big difference.
Just a minor point - like what the meaning of "is" is.
Jim
Bugsy's ace in the hole is our ages. most employess are between 45-50 years old.
Too old to be desired as new employess in a new industry and too young to retire from this soap opera. Best of luck to everyone.
Too old to be desired as new employess in a new industry and too young to retire from this soap opera. Best of luck to everyone.
