CAL or DAL?

[ThirdSeatHero]

Do you honestly believe that the investors, hedge funds, banks and brokerage houses on Wall Street and elsewhere in the Big League financial community give a rat's ass about employees at all, let alone their pensions? They do deals like this because it is a way for them to make a quick buck. It is all about the almighty dollar. It will always be about the money. Don't think for a moment that any of those people, including Senior executives at UA and the Board of Directors, care one bit about the average employee affected by such a possible combination. They're in it for themselves. As long as they protect their millions, they are satisfied. It's class warfare, airline style. Enjoy the ride.

I'd agree for the most part, however, with that said the state of labor relations at any given airline is factored in to a small degree, or in the case of airlines like NWA to a larger degree.

A smooth transition/merger, i.e. no employee friction means greater an quicker returns for the banks and brokerage houses. Just check any of the recent analysis on NWA almost to the last the terrible labor relations factors are there.

 

[iflyjetz]

Senior executives and the BOD do care when the Unions strike as the pilots in 2000.

We went on strike in 2000? Crap! I never went on strike with my fellow UAL pilots. ... am I a scab?

 

[UAL_TECH]

We went on strike in 2000? Crap! I never went on strike with my fellow UAL pilots. ... am I a scab?

Nope, just have a poor work ethic.......

B) UT

 

[iflyjetz]

Deleted :censored:

 

[JungleClone]

I should have clarified my point. Senior Executives and the BOD have no concern for the welfare and success of the employees. They might say that they do. But when push comes to shove, they will do whatever they need to in order to ensure their own survival and/or wealth, even if it comes at the expense of the employees, as often is the case in the insane airline business. UA Senior Mgmt was FORCED to care about the pilot slowdown in the Summer of 2000. But that was a problem of their own making. During ESOP, Senior Mgmt promised seemless post-ESOP contracts. Jim Goodwin and the other in-over-their-head execs, i.e. Rono Dutta, severely miscalculated and went off on their US Airways conquest instead of first giving the employees what they were promised. And it nearly broke the company in half. It took years for UA to turn customer ill will around. They let that debacle go on for the entire summer in 2000, which just goes to show how incapable of running UA they were. The only reason UA Mgmt and the BOD cared during the Summer of 2000 is because they finally realized they had a huge problem that had to be dealt with. But you can make the point that they also knew that any chance for success in the US Airways merger fiasco meant they HAD to settle with the pilots and get them onboard.

 

[novaqt]

Jungle: I should have clarified my point. Senior Executives and the BOD have no concern for the welfare and success of the employees. They might say that they do. But when push comes to shove, they will do whatever they need to in order to ensure their own survival and/or wealth, even if it comes at the expense of the employees, as often is the case in the insane airline business.

Novaqt: So true!

Jungle: UA Senior Mgmt was FORCED to care about the pilot slowdown in the Summer of 2000. But that was a problem of their own making. During ESOP, Senior Mgmt promised seemless post-ESOP contracts.

Novaqt: We were promised Industry Leading Seamless Contracts.

Jungle: Jim Goodwin and the other in-over-their-head execs, i.e. Rono Dutta, severely miscalculated and went off on their US Airways conquest instead of first giving the employees what they were promised. And it nearly broke the company in half.

Novaqt: James Goodwin was a puppet of Stephen Wolf. How he made it out of the accounting department into the ranks of senior management and then to CEO was beyond me. James Goodwin is intellectually inferior and had no business getting as far as he did in the company. That was a recipe for failure. Dutta, on the otherhand had the brains, but lacked leadership skills. He was there because of pure politics of the day. The same was true at USAirways. Both Wolf and Rangwal came to USAirways from United to fulfill Wolf's merger of the two airlines. It was a big big mistake not to go with John Edwardson. Greenwald wanted Edwardson to follow him, instead, somehow Goodwin was selected over Edwardson

Jungle: It took years for UA to turn customer ill will around. They let that debacle go on for the entire summer in 2000, which just goes to show how incapable of running UA they were. The only reason UA Mgmt and the BOD cared during the Summer of 2000 is because they finally realized they had a huge problem that had to be dealt with.

Novaqt: You are absolutely correct. Goodwin and Dutta were in way over their heads. They took their eyes completely off the ball then to focus on the USAirways merger. Companywide, low-level and mid-level management were away in Chicago for months to work on the proposed merger and were away from the day-to-day running of the company. For those managers left behind to run the day-to-day operations was too overwhelming for them and workloads backed up or did not get done.

Jungle: But you can make the point that they also knew that any chance for success in the US Airways merger fiasco meant they HAD to settle with the pilots and get them onboard.

Novaqt: True, but I'm not sure they did recognize this until it was simply too late.

 

[JungleClone]

Jim Goodwin was chosen over John Edwardson because ALPA refused to support Edwardson. They viewed him as a hardliner, which, when compared with Goodwin, was probably accurate. So you can thank ALPA for that turn of events. Had Edwardson been tapped to run UA, I think it's safe to say that the fortunes of UA over the last 6 years would have been drastically different and much more positive in my view. Edwardson had what it takes to run UA successfully. But he never had a chance of being selected because of ALPA's opposition.

 

[novaqt]

Jim Goodwin was chosen over John Edwardson because ALPA refused to support Edwardson. They viewed him as a hardliner, which, when compared with Goodwin, was probably accurate. So you can thank ALPA for that turn of events. Had Edwardson been tapped to run UA, I think it's safe to say that the fortunes of UA over the last 6 years would have been drastically different and much more positive in my view. Edwardson had what it takes to run UA successfully. But he never had a chance of being selected because of ALPA's opposition.

You're right, it was ALPA that did not want Edwardson. ALPA was scared because they were unable to get a secure reading of him. Edwardson was well-liked at CDW where turned that company around.

 

[JungleClone]

Well UA-ALPA got what it wanted.....Jim Goodwin, a CEO they could (and clearly did) run roughshod over. They fleeced him into a record-setting labor agreement, which I'm sure was a quid pro quo in terms of securing ALPA's support for the US Airways debacle. The irony of that is that with ALPA's pressure to get Jim Goodwin appointed CEO so they could extract from him the record-breaking contract they wanted, they helped play a hand in nearly running UA into the grave. While I would never imply that the Summer of 2000 alone is what got UA into bankruptcy, it clearly played a role. My point is more along the lines of ALPA putting its' own interests ahead of the company as a whole in ensuring the appointment of a man (Goodwin) as CEO who had no inkling how to successfully run the airline. Unfortunately, UA's corporate arrogance during that time-frame helped to blind them from the many mistakes that were made. But I suppose that ALPA was only doing what it was supposed to do: look out for the long-term prosperity of its' members, even if it came at the expense of the company as a whole. But management is just as much to blame for the failure of the system.

 

[UAL_TECH]

Well UA-ALPA got what it wanted.....Jim Goodwin, a CEO they could (and clearly did) run roughshod over. They fleeced him into a record-setting labor agreement, which I'm sure was a quid pro quo in terms of securing ALPA's support for the US Airways debacle. The irony of that is that with ALPA's pressure to get Jim Goodwin appointed CEO so they could extract from him the record-breaking contract they wanted, they helped play a hand in nearly running UA into the grave. While I would never imply that the Summer of 2000 alone is what got UA into bankruptcy, it clearly played a role. My point is more along the lines of ALPA putting its' own interests ahead of the company as a whole in ensuring the appointment of a man (Goodwin) as CEO who had no inkling how to successfully run the airline. Unfortunately, UA's corporate arrogance during that time-frame helped to blind them from the many mistakes that were made. But I suppose that ALPA was only doing what it was supposed to do: look out for the long-term prosperity of its' members, even if it came at the expense of the company as a whole. But management is just as much to blame for the failure of the system.

How did that philosophy work out? :blink:
Like one of the Drivers told me, 'Can't eat stock!'
Good Post and 'nuts on' !!!

B) UT