Alpa Orders Nc To Obtain New Agreement
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
USA320Pilot said:
Once again, there is still no reason to believe had ALPA and US Airways come to a consentual agreement a month ago, or two months ago, that US Airways would not have avoided Bankruptcy. You are holding on to the notion that bankruptcy was avoidable. It was not, at least not in the last two to three months. While I take no joy in predicting that bad things will happen to good people, I believe on March 19th, I called "something" happening by October. Since at the time asset sales were still in the consideration set, I did not discount that possibility, however, I believed at the time it would be a BK filing. Looks like I was correct, many months prior to US Airways looking for Concession Round 3. Apparaently the "RC4" knew this too.
Had US Airways implemented the Transformation Plan during BK 1, maybe BK 2 could have been avoided... But the transformation plan did not even have a name until about 5-6 months ago. However, prior to 5-6 months ago, the airline was attempting to run a PIT hub with Mid-Atlantic, making a high cost hub even higher cost on a CASM basis. Meanwhile, the negotiations 1-2 months ago cannot change what happened 16 months prior (lack of implementing a plan).
You continue to live in a dream world and sell-out your ALPA brethren, by supporting ideas like "furlough out of seniority" and "S1113 protection clauses".
If you believe that the S1113 clause that was part of the ALPA negotiations were such a slam dunk, how come you never mentioned that it only protected ALPA members from a S1113(e) motion for a whopping 60 days?
Yeah...
This situation is so much better than an agreement would have been. <_<
Whatever your "feelings" towards the RC4 are, it is hard not to note that the freakin situation just keeps getting worse over time, not better.
Would an agreement out of BK saved ALPA from this..? Dunno.
But I do know that you have a hard time convincing many people that having had an agreement would have made us worse off than right now.
Really, cmon. :angry:
This situation is so much better than an agreement would have been. <_<
Whatever your "feelings" towards the RC4 are, it is hard not to note that the freakin situation just keeps getting worse over time, not better.
Would an agreement out of BK saved ALPA from this..? Dunno.
But I do know that you have a hard time convincing many people that having had an agreement would have made us worse off than right now.
Really, cmon. :angry:
PITbull
Veteran
USA320Pilot said:
C-mon, I even knew that the pilots DC plan was goners. I know from upper managment that the DC plan was something managment did not want to fund...that is why they put AFA and IAM pensions on the table. They wanted the pilots DC plan, and had to take ours with it.
You are so disolutioned if you think the RC4 capitulation would have saved your DC plan even remotely.
Don't you remember when I asked you months ago what was the company's contribution owed to your DC plan for the year...YOU WOULDN'T ANSWER. I ALREADY KNEW, BECAUSE SENIOR MANAGMENT TOLD ME.
Your DC plan was a goner. Period. Had nothing to do with the RC4. But I guess you need to blame those you think you can control...and those you can't, you just give in....too damn of a weak argument.
Phoenix
Veteran
PITbull
Veteran
Rico said:
So, is management teaching YOU a lesson. Have you learned that you need to capitulate when they ask?
When the company tells you to jump, you need to be in the air....god forbid, we would have any folks on here who had a spine!!! :angry:
Some folks never learn from hx..no matter how much it repeats itself. So far, none of labor has really done anything different than the same old....how far should head be inserted....
I standby what I said, that anyone will have a hard time convincing people that having had an agreement would have made us worse off than right now.
Bankruptcy sucks, and I think only now some of you are starting to get a clue why that is the case.
Feel free to correct me with actual reasons or facts, not limp attacks about backbones or other hypocritical statements. :glare:
Bankruptcy sucks, and I think only now some of you are starting to get a clue why that is the case.
Feel free to correct me with actual reasons or facts, not limp attacks about backbones or other hypocritical statements. :glare:
High Iron
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 495
- 0
I standby what I said, that anyone will have a hard time convincing people that having had an agreement would have made us worse off than right now
Standby what?? What did you say? You had a hard time believing having an agreement wouldnt've made it worse than it was now. Some do, some don't. ( most don't....hence, no deal ) The whole thing was woulda', shoulda, coulda' conjecture, repasted here for your viewing enjoyment:
--Yeah...
This situation is so much better than an agreement would have been.
Whatever your "feelings" towards the RC4 are, it is hard not to note that the freakin situation just keeps getting worse over time, not better.
Would an agreement out of BK saved ALPA from this..? Dunno.
But I do know that you have a hard time convincing many people that having had an agreement would have made us worse off than right now.
Really, cmon
Then:
Feel free to correct me with actual reasons or facts, not limp attacks about backbones or other hypocritical statements
And you're demanding "facts" and "actual reasons" to debunk the above? "Dunno".
Nice attempt at sophistry that fell flat. Try another angle.
Standby what?? What did you say? You had a hard time believing having an agreement wouldnt've made it worse than it was now. Some do, some don't. ( most don't....hence, no deal ) The whole thing was woulda', shoulda, coulda' conjecture, repasted here for your viewing enjoyment:
--Yeah...
This situation is so much better than an agreement would have been.
Whatever your "feelings" towards the RC4 are, it is hard not to note that the freakin situation just keeps getting worse over time, not better.
Would an agreement out of BK saved ALPA from this..? Dunno.
But I do know that you have a hard time convincing many people that having had an agreement would have made us worse off than right now.
Really, cmon
Then:
Feel free to correct me with actual reasons or facts, not limp attacks about backbones or other hypocritical statements
And you're demanding "facts" and "actual reasons" to debunk the above? "Dunno".
Nice attempt at sophistry that fell flat. Try another angle.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
Rico,
Speaking for me ...
Let's say we had accepted the first company offer. Counting just the pay and DC plan, that's way over 23% and could have started a month ago. The 1113e filing doesn't start till approved and lasts till Mar 31, 05 while an agreement lasts thru 09. So let's see - 6 months of 23% (11.5% if averaged over one year) or 16.5% for 5 years and loss of the DC plan forever.
BK was coming anyway, with loss (at least temp) of pre-petition DC money either way (though that would have been less money with an agreement.
Once in BK, the company could have filed 1113 (e or not) after 60 days or at any time with a "threat of liquidation or material reduction in mainline flying", so no real protection by having an agreement. (You did notice the "threat of liquidation" in the filing, didn't you?)
There are some facts. Will eventual 1113 filings even some, most, or all of this out or be even worse? Don't know. Heck, the company hasn't even had the 1113e approved by the judge yet.
Jim
Speaking for me ...
Let's say we had accepted the first company offer. Counting just the pay and DC plan, that's way over 23% and could have started a month ago. The 1113e filing doesn't start till approved and lasts till Mar 31, 05 while an agreement lasts thru 09. So let's see - 6 months of 23% (11.5% if averaged over one year) or 16.5% for 5 years and loss of the DC plan forever.
BK was coming anyway, with loss (at least temp) of pre-petition DC money either way (though that would have been less money with an agreement.
Once in BK, the company could have filed 1113 (e or not) after 60 days or at any time with a "threat of liquidation or material reduction in mainline flying", so no real protection by having an agreement. (You did notice the "threat of liquidation" in the filing, didn't you?)
There are some facts. Will eventual 1113 filings even some, most, or all of this out or be even worse? Don't know. Heck, the company hasn't even had the 1113e approved by the judge yet.
Jim
Sounds like Boeing Boy laid out an argument for why ALPA memebers would have been worse-off with the pre BK deal...
But that wasn't my point. My point was that BK 2 was unavoidable, with or without a deal. The financials dictated it. Two weeks, or a month, of reduced pilot salaries would not have changed the situation much. Therefore, US Airways management was trying to sell snake-oil to ALPA. This makes it hard to negotiate anything in good-faith.
US Airways problems are still based in its business model, not employee costs. The company keeps going after employee costs because: 1. Its relatively easy. 2. Its quick (vs. the year or two it will take to develop the FLL focus city, for example). 3. Its immediate cash in the bank.
Meanwhile, the company is only half-fixing the core issues. Maybe that will change, now, I don't know. But for the moment, US Airways still has 2 aircraft for every mission, still has an assorted cadre of Express carriers, still has too large of a PIT hub, still has disasterous employee and public relations strategies. Some parts of the Transformation Plan are being implemented, but I submit that its "too little too late," as here we are in BK again, losing the financing for the RJ's which were the backbone of the plan... Now, management will have to come up with a whole new plan, and the last ome took at least two years to develop (assuming that Lakefield took Seigels plan and adjusted it)... Does US Airways really have another two years to figure out what is going on? The answer is no.
So there we were, with management saying we'll avoid BK with more employee concessions, when the plan they had was failing (or at least not producing results fast enough), and they don't really know what will happen next. Seems to me that the only certainty during those negotiations was BK. It was a foregone conclusion when the company was negotiating with ALPA in the last two months. That was the point.
But that wasn't my point. My point was that BK 2 was unavoidable, with or without a deal. The financials dictated it. Two weeks, or a month, of reduced pilot salaries would not have changed the situation much. Therefore, US Airways management was trying to sell snake-oil to ALPA. This makes it hard to negotiate anything in good-faith.
US Airways problems are still based in its business model, not employee costs. The company keeps going after employee costs because: 1. Its relatively easy. 2. Its quick (vs. the year or two it will take to develop the FLL focus city, for example). 3. Its immediate cash in the bank.
Meanwhile, the company is only half-fixing the core issues. Maybe that will change, now, I don't know. But for the moment, US Airways still has 2 aircraft for every mission, still has an assorted cadre of Express carriers, still has too large of a PIT hub, still has disasterous employee and public relations strategies. Some parts of the Transformation Plan are being implemented, but I submit that its "too little too late," as here we are in BK again, losing the financing for the RJ's which were the backbone of the plan... Now, management will have to come up with a whole new plan, and the last ome took at least two years to develop (assuming that Lakefield took Seigels plan and adjusted it)... Does US Airways really have another two years to figure out what is going on? The answer is no.
So there we were, with management saying we'll avoid BK with more employee concessions, when the plan they had was failing (or at least not producing results fast enough), and they don't really know what will happen next. Seems to me that the only certainty during those negotiations was BK. It was a foregone conclusion when the company was negotiating with ALPA in the last two months. That was the point.
I'd say that getting pilot agreements before bankruptcy, could have attracted DIP financing in bankruptcy avoiding the need to have the ATSB and employees (through 1113e) effectively provided DIP financing. Eh... maybe.
RowUnderDCA said:
Getting agreements from the unions pre-bankruptcy (this one) would have only meant that you would have been getting paid less before management filed CH11 again anyway. Look on the bright side, you have been getting decent pay for the last few weeks. Had you agreed to more cuts in May, June, July etc. all it would have meant is lower pay from that time on. They were going to file anyway and ask for more. You know the old saying give an inch and take a mile. The old Neville Chamberlin appeasment idea is all A320 and others want. Just my opinion of course.
