What's new

August 2013 Pilot Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey Clax,

Are you going to blame Parker, Nicolau, West Pilots for layoffs more than a decade ago?

US Airways loses its chief executive
Troubled airline's chairman will fill both positions
Bankruptcy is possible
Carrier has laid off 11,000 workers, seen heavy losses of cash
November 28, 2001|By Paul Adams | Paul Adams,SUN STAFF
Rakesh Gangwal resigned yesterday as president and chief executive of US Airways Group Inc., leaving behind a troubled labor situation and a struggling airline that many say could succumb to bankruptcy as early as next year.

The Arlington, Va.-based airline - the nation's sixth-largest and the second-biggest at Baltimore-Washington International Airport - announced that Gangwal's longtime mentor, US Airways Chairman Stephen M. Wolf, will take over both positions effective immediately. A brief statement released by the company said Gangwal's departure "is based upon his decision to work in the field of private equity and venture capital."

The management shake-up comes as US Airways is attempting to restructure in the wake of record losses, which reached $766 million in the third quarter. Even before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks sent airline profits tumbling, the carrier was hemorrhaging cash and reeling from its failed merger with UAL Corp.'s United Airlines.

Airline analysts were not surprised by the news, but were divided over whether the resignation would be the first of many high-profile departures as US Airways seeks to rebuild investor confidence. The company's stock closed down 41 cents, or 4.9 percent, yesterday at $8 per share.

"I would imagine that things are extremely rocky on US Airways' board given the widespread predictions that it will likely run out of cash here before the middle of next year," said Paul Stephen Dempsey, a University of Denver transportation law professor and chairman of Frontier Airlines. "In those circumstances, heads often roll."

Financial details of Gangwal's departure were not disclosed; however, he received total compensation of about $12 million in 2000, including restricted stock, according to a company filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Gangwal will not be able to collect on a lucrative severance package approved last year as part of US Airways' merger negotiations with United. Under their contracts, Wolf, Gangwal and General Counsel Lawrence Nagin would have been able to share $45 million in severance benefits if they left during a 30-day window that ended Nov. 12.

Raymond Neidl, an analyst with the investment firm ABN-Amro, said the management change may mean that Wolf is planning to dig in and turn the airline around. Until the United merger deal fell apart in July, critics have said, Wolf and Gangwal were focused on a strategy that involved merging the company with United, rather than running it as an independent carrier.

"There are probably only a handful of executives that have the experience and skills for turning around a troubled airline, and Wolf is one," Neidl said.

Analysts said Wolf - who has made a career of restructuring troubled airlines - will face his biggest challenge to date. US Airways laid off 11,000 employees and cut capacity by 23 percent after the Sept. 11 attacks. While most airlines followed a similar path, US Airways' bottom line was especially hard hit because federal regulators shuttered Washington's Reagan National Airport for three weeks. National is home to the airline's profitable Washington-New York-Boston shuttle operations.

The airline is burdened with the highest operating costs of any major airline, making it vulnerable to attack from budget carriers like Southwest Airlines, JetBlue Airways and AirTran Airways. Meanwhile, the carrier is under fire from union leaders, who have criticized management's staffing cuts as draconian and unnecessary.

Labor leaders said they are taking a wait-and-see approach to the management change in the hopes that it will lead to progress in disputes over staff reductions and the introduction of more regional jets into US Airways' route system. But Wolf has a reputation for being intractable, labor leaders said.

"Over the years he's been less accessible and more elusive than Gangwal, and he has a history of being combative and playing the blame game against employees," said First Officer Roy Freundlich, a spokesman for the US Airways unit of the Air Line Pilots Association.

Analysts said Wolf faces the most difficult negotiations of any airline executive in the industry.

"He is feared by the unions, so him being more involved, depending on your viewpoint, may be better or worse," said Darryl Jenkins, executive director of the George Washington University Aviation Institute.

Wolf engineered the recovery of Republic Airlines, which was later merged with Northwest Airlines, and Flying Tiger Airlines, which combined with Federal Express. He went on to broker the sale of United Airlines to employees in the early 1990s. It was during those years that Wolf and Gangwal began their long partnership.

Wolf left United in 1994, taking Gangwal with him to consult for Air France in Paris. When Wolf departed that job in 1996 to head USAir - later renamed US Airways - Gangwal was not far behind.

"He's been joined at the hip with Stephen Wolf for all those years," said Michael Boyd, an Evergreen, Colo., aviation consultant.
 
Or Robert Seigel

Appeal No. 13-15000
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date: August 21, 2013

IV. CONTRARY TO USAPA’S ASSERTIONS, THE DISTRICT COURT
DID NOT REACH THE UNDERLYING QUESTION OF WHETHER
USAPA IS BOUND BY THE NICOLAU AWARD.
USAPA makes the specious argument that because US Airways did not Appeal “the district court’s ruling that USAPA is not bound by the Nicolau Award and is free to negotiate something other than the Nicolau Award,” that “ruling” should be summarily affirmed.
This argument distorts the district court’s opinion, which did not hold that USAPA is not bound by the Nicolau Award. To the contrary, the district court specifically concluded that “[w]hen the collective bargaining agreement is finalized, individuals will be able to determine whether USAPA’s abandonment of the Nicolau Award was permissible, i.e. supported by a legitimate union purpose. The court, moreover, cautioned that “the West Pilot Defendants may have
viable legal claims in the future should the collective bargaining agreement contain
a seniority provision harmful to a subsection of the union. US Airways’ opening brief challenged only the district court’s ruling on ripeness, because the district court held that the threshold issue of ripeness prevented it from addressing whether the Nicolau Award is in fact binding on USAPA under the circumstances of this case. This appeal does not and cannot present the underlying question of whether USAPA breaches its DFR if it pursues a non-Nicolau seniority regime because the district cour specifically declined to rule on that question.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above and in US Airways’ opening brief, this Court
should reverse the judgment below.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Robert A. Siegel


Just how would a Judge "reverse" a judgement that had "four" possible outcomes? Maybe issue a "different" opinion, but a reversal? That would imply that there are only two possible outcomes, yes? Not the case with the DJ. Nobody seems to be at all focused on the fact that the DJ also calls for "any other" remedy that the Court finds appropriate. The DJ, as filled, is not a "ying or yang" thang. It is and remains a request by the company to be "insulated" (held harmless"), from whatever the USAPA seniority list eventually turns out to be. The company could not care less one way or the other, they just don't want any "contingent" liability. If the Court gives that to them, majority will rule and anyone "unhappy" at that point can sue to their hearts content, good luck with that. The DJ appeal itself is just more of the company's covering their ass in the event that the merger craters. Why do you suppose that they didn't file the appeal until after the DOJ announcement? Could it be that they didn't give a rats ass about it had the merger sailed through? I think so.


seajay
 
Just how would a Judge "reverse" a judgement that had "four" possible outcomes? Maybe issue a "different" opinion, but a reversal? That would imply that there are only two possible outcomes, yes? Not the case with the DJ. Nobody seems to be at all focused on the fact that the DJ also calls for "any other" remedy that the Court finds appropriate. The DJ, as filled, is not a "ying or yang" thang. It is and remains a request by the company to be "insulated" (held harmless"), from whatever the USAPA seniority list eventually turns out to be. The company could not care less one way or the other, they just don't want any "contingent" liability. If the Court gives that to them, majority will rule and anyone "unhappy" at that point can sue to their hearts content, good luck with that. The DJ appeal itself is just more of the company's covering their ass in the event that the merger craters. Why do you suppose that they didn't file the appeal until after the DOJ announcement? Could it be that they didn't give a rats ass about it had the merger sailed through? I think so.


seajay

Seajay, the company hides it's true intent inside a brown bag you see in the Crew News sessions. What's more telling is what Siegel writes addressing the court. That's where the contents of the brown bag is disclosed.

Most telling quote: " the district court specifically concluded that “[w]hen the collective bargaining agreement is finalized, individuals will be able to determine whether USAPA’s abandonment of the Nicolau Award was permissible, i.e. supported by a legitimate union purpose. The court, moreover, cautioned that “the West Pilot Defendants may have viable legal claims in the future should the collective bargaining agreement contain a seniority provision harmful to a subsection of the union"

I think the argument above makes it clear their stance on the subject.
 
Oh, come on. 'fess up.

You are delighted with Kasher, a fellow-USAPA basher.

And the 3% grievance, though looking bleak, is still in process.
Bleak? It's dead. DEAD just like the pension investigation scam. Dead, gone, buried. You guys really have a fundamental misunderstanding of arbitrations....and you're incapable of learning.
 
....the West Pilot Defendants may have viable legal claims in the future should the collective bargaining agreement contain a seniority provision harmful to a subsection of the union"

I think the argument above makes it clear their stance on the subject.

As explained by the Ninth Circuit, “seniority rights are creations of the collective bargaining agreement, and so may be revised or abrogated by later negotiated changes in this agreement.”Hass v.Darigold Dairy Products Co.751 F.2d 1096, 1099 (9th Cir. 1985). And a union “may renegotiate seniority provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, even though the resulting changes are essentially retroactive or affect different employees unequally.”
 
Really?

Show me Kasher's final award document.

First off, i don't take pleasure in your pension loss or begrudge you 3%. That being said, you guys don't just beat a dead horse, you pay lawyers $$$ hundreds an hour to beat the dead horse for you. It is painfull to watch.

Bean
 
As explained by the Ninth Circuit, "seniority rights are creations of the collective bargaining agreement, and so may be revised or abrogated by later negotiated changes in this agreement."Hass v.Darigold Dairy Products Co.751 F.2d 1096, 1099 (9th Cir. 1985). And a union "may renegotiate seniority provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, even though the resulting changes are essentially retroactive or affect different employees unequally."

Renegotiate?

In other words, renege, which means:

1) default on, fail to honor, go back on, break, back out of, withdraw from, retreat from, welsh on, backtrack on;

2) Break one's word/promise about
"he reneged on his campaign promises"
 
First off, i don't take pleasure in your pension loss or begrudge you 3%. That being said, you guys don't just beat a dead horse, you pay lawyers $$$ hundreds an hour to beat the dead horse for you. It is painfull to watch.

Bean
Good point...we couldn't win it if we called it in the air...
 
Renegotiate?

In other words, renege, which means:

1) default on, fail to honor, go back on, break, back out of, withdraw from, retreat from, welsh on, backtrack on;

2) Break one's word/promise about
"he reneged on his campaign promises"
Pretty weak spin there, pal. negotiate and renegotiate are totally different than renege, as I am sure you know. If you guys would have tried to RENEGOTIATE with YOUR new union, you would have come out much better than you are going to. Instead, your greed took over and you hung onto your fake lottery ticket. breeze
 
First off, i don't take pleasure in your pension loss or begrudge you 3%. That being said, you guys don't just beat a dead horse, you pay lawyers $$$ hundreds an hour to beat the dead horse for you. It is painfull to watch.

Bean

You know what bean, I believe you when you say you take no pleasure in the losses.

You know the first real grievance I remember losing? Back in the early '90s our contract said that the company could not transfer routes to affiliated carriers(I believe that was Henson and Jetstream then) while we had pilots on furlough. Well, they did. Several cities went to Henson. I thought the arbitration was a slam dunk. We lost it. Opened my eyes to the RLA.
 
Really?

Show me Kasher's final award document.
Monitor your ass*ole, it will be stampeding for the bullseye shortly. You really should recognize the signs of failure by now shouldn't you? Here's a hint, when your fake scab union puts out a "comminique" whereby they trash an arbitrator they themselves hired and hint at pursuing "all available alternate channels" you should know that you are well fk'ed and far from home. You don't speak usapian yet?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top