Alpa Orders Nc To Obtain New Agreement

Let me see if I have this straight...

Paraphrasing from various posts:

The creditors are calling the shots.
The creditors don't care about the employees, only about getting their money.
The judge's only concern is the creditors.
The judge will grant every motion filed by the company in order to protect the creditors.

Did I miss anything?

So these heartless creditors, already pushing a "150 plane plan", will take pity on us poor employees and sign off on a plan that returns less if we'll just agree to reach an agreement.

Any faulty logic here?

Jim
 
At this point, the 150 mainline aircraft plan does not include the EMB-170. The plan envisions about 16,000 mainline furloughs.

Again, each union has been briefed on this plan and in the case of ALPA, the RC4 ignored the advice of every ALPA offical and advisor and are primarily to blame if the creditor's force this plan onto management.

The company does not want to abondon the TP, but may have no alternative due to union resistance to change.

Regards,

USA320Pilot
 
USA320Pilot said:
At this point, the 150 mainline aircraft plan does not include the EMB-170.
[post="184052"][/post]​

Well, then there must be fault in your logic, or somebody's logic, because US Airways does not have a fleet of 150 Airbus aircraft to fit the plan.

Perhaps more aircraft can be ordered after BK, but that would mean a fleet of 127 Airbii, not 150.

Again, each union has been briefed on this plan and in the case of ALPA, the RC4 ignored the advice of every ALPA offical and advisor and are primarily to blame if the creditor's force this plan onto management.

Perhaps the RC4 see through proposition, given that the company only has 127 Airbii... Not 150. Maybe the RC4 see that there is more than meets the eye. Seems like thus far, they have successfully read between the lines.
 
USA320Pilot said:
At this point, the 150 mainline aircraft plan does not include the EMB-170. The plan envisions about 16,000 mainline furloughs.

Again, each union has been briefed on this plan and in the case of ALPA, the RC4 ignored the advice of every ALPA offical and advisor and are primarily to blame if the creditor's force this plan onto management.

The company does not want to abondon the TP, but may have no alternative due to union resistance to change.

Regards,

USA320Pilot
[post="184052"][/post]​

I think you stated in another post about how CH 11 allows for fixed cost reduction that cannot be accomplished without the courts aid. That argument while good in theory is a fallacy. It is evidenced by CAL and the UAIR BK. UAIR is the only legacy carrier who has seen its pre 9/11 non-labor cost rise as a percentage of unit costs. Outside of UAL which is still in BK, the benifit of judicial help wasn't worth squat. The non judicial restructuring of the other legacies have been more sucessful. Why?, Because of shrewder decisions and a lack of knee-jerk reactions to right size. Shrinkink does not work in this industry, for a various number reasons. CAL which after its CH 11 in 83-85 enjoyed a still great route structure and labor wages at 50% of the industry standard but remained a crap-box outfit till 1995. A decade with a serious competive advantage, with 2 bankruptcies and they were with weeks of a 3rd and tuning out the lights. They turned the corner because of competent management and concentrating on the customer and revenue. What turned it around wasn't the so called huge competitve advantage because of cheap labor, it only aided a dedicated talented mangement who used it to "build" and "grow" the company and rewarded the employees along the way. Just as mergers in corporate america and the airline speciffically have proven not to deliver the value promised so will rightsizing or downsizing lead an airline into oblivion. History has shown it tima and again. It is only the arrogance of some to believe that they will succed where everyone else in a similar persuit has failed. If it is tried it will be a spiral inward to oblivion. I will even have the decency not to post "who first said it here first?"
 
whlinder said:
That sounds about right; I'm looking at the 4th quarter 2003 DOT top 1000 city pairs (by passengers) and the 1000th ranked market (PHL-SNA) has 184 passengers each way per day, on average. 5% of 60000 is 3000, so that figure makes sense.

I'd say get some Dash 8 Q400s and fly them to cities within an hour of LGA/PHL/DCA/BOS but new aircraft aren't going to be given to this airline.
[post="184021"][/post]​

whlinder:

Do you have link to the DOT Top 1000 or is that a subscription only available source?
 
Beautifully put Bud8. When I was a U employee i never posted. But I completely agree with you. And I AM sad. so many people hurt over the years. But today in a courtroom somewhere is the final beginning of the end for U. I reckon it will be bad and probably kind of slow, but whatever the final numbers are you cant disrupt that many lives without an effect.
Its funny when you change your perspective you change you.
I wont post either.
 
Amen, Sir Bud.

Have we considered the possibility of returning the A330s for 320s/19s? They should be worth about a 2-3 per one ratio.
 
QUOTE(USA320Pilot @ Sep 24 2004, 12:02 PM)

Again, each union has been briefed on this plan and in the case of ALPA, the RC4 ignored the advice of every ALPA offical and advisor and are primarily to blame if the creditor's force this plan onto management.

To USA320Pilot
How do you know that the agreement would have passed if the RC 4 agreed to send it to the membership for vote?

You explicitly blame the RC 4, but there is a chance you would still be in this same position if it had been sent to vote.
 
I never said the 150 aircraft plan was all Airbus. I suggested it would be B757s and A320 family aircraft. For more information on the 150 aircraft mainline fleet plan and possibly 16,000 furloughs please contact your union Rep who has the details. Will it occur? I do not know. Is this a plan that could be implemented? Absolutely...ask your Reps.

By the way, this is the reason for the out of seniority furloughs, no severance pay, and no MDA pilot displacements.

In regard to ALPA rank-and-file sentiment, at last week's MEC meeting there were about 120 pilots in attendance on Tuesday and about 80 on Wednesday. Of those in attendance only two spoke in support of the RC4.

The meeting was heated with lawsuit threats, recall charges filed again with ALPA legal support for the removal of the PHL Reps (this time these guys are toast), and a lot of emotion. There were a number of standing ovations for those who spoke out against the RC4, who by the way, are in trouble on many fronts.

The RC4 clearly do not have the support of the majority of pilot's.

Separately, the RC4 are receiving emails voicing displeasure with the militant attitude by employees from other labor groups, which I have received.

Regards,

USA320Pilot
 
Ahh, all of this sentiment, and yet the RC4 remain in office. I wonder why....

Could it be that they represent a majority of the voting population of the PIT and PHL pilot populations?
 
Precisely Clue.

They don't get unsupportive emails from the constituents they represent. That is a fact. They are accurately representing the view of the pilots they represent. That is, the MAJORITY of pilots at US Airways.

For some reason some people will not understand this basic premise.

mr
 
USA320pilot,
MANY employees of the company knew Siegels plan was flawed from the start. But , he still remained. Until Bronner looked at the value of his investment did he ultimately wise up to Siegel. Many employees know Lakefield is headed down the path of destruction too.

The only way to save this airline now is to work WITH the employees and create revenue. Something this management and previous management (Siegel) failed miserably. With the US readying for war in the middle east in the spring of 2003 it's incomprehensible that Harvard graduates couldn't realize that fuel costs would go up. Maybe not to the extent they are now but a projection of 80 cents for the atsb loan when fuel was already at 83 and rising, come on now !!!
 
funguy2 said:
In any event, the US Airways website reveals the following:

Total Jet Aircraft: 282

767-200ER: 10
757-200: 31
737-400: 45
737-300: 69
(Boeing Total: 155)

A330: 9
A321: 28
A320: 24
A319: 66
(Airbus Total: 127)

Thus, if the plan is to go to "150 Aircraft", it would appear impossible by remaining all Airbus. And let's not get into the notion that more Airbuses can be obtained, since aircraft financing for the company has dried up like a mirage in the Sahara.

What USA320Pilot's intentions are for telling us the company is going to 150 Airbus aircraft, only he knows. Maybe he is trying to convince someone that the company should go Airbus so he can keep his job... It would appear if the plan is to go to 150 Aircraft, that Boeing is the way to go, given that US Airways has about 150 of them, and they probably cost less to lease. (After all, jetBlue, and to a lesser extent Frontier and America West have kept the USA demand for Airbus products high, while 737-300/400s are no longer in production, and most Boeing customers are upgrading to NGs.... Thus the value of the 737-300/400 fleet has declined, and should be available to lease for less than the Airbus products... of course, they do have increased maintenance exposure...)

Of course, the problem with this from USA320Pilot's point of view, is probably 1) he loses his job with out of seniority furlough, 2) it does not support his contention of busting the IAM via the Airbus arbitration (it becomes a moot point if there are no Airbuses on the property).

For all I know, USA320Pilot "overheard" a plan to go to 150 Aircraft and assumed it would be the Airbuses that go.
[post="183987"][/post]​
I agree, there is far more leverage with lessors concerning the relatively hard -to-place Boeing fleet than with fairly new Airbuses. For an airline out to convice a BK judge that it can survive, it needs access to cheap airplanes.

Not to worry A320PILOT, Mesa will have plenty of need for an Airbus pilot experienced in flying broken airplanes for the good of the corps. And they have ALPA advisors too!!
 
It's funny that the malcontents do not show up at the MEC meetings, the RC4 refuse to answer questions when addressed from the body, and their supporters refuse to identify them self. In fact, their supporters are cowards too and refuse to identify them self.

Interestingly, the RC4 may not have too much to handle and now have shifted their view. Maybe people should find out why.

The DC plan notional monies are history, pilots lost their July, Augsut, and September DC plan contributions, and now they face a motion reducing their pension to a 10% 401(k). All due to the RC4 and their supporters, who have argued against every ALPA officer, advisor, and the majority of the MEC. Furthermore there could be out of seniority furloughs and no severance pay with the only pilots probably protected are the one's flying the A320.

The RC4 has done a bang up job!!!!

Regards,

USA320pilot