[STRONG][FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3]Didn't Mr.Friendly say he was going to be the last ceo U had when he first got here? [BR][/FONT][/STRONG]
![STRONG]](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F%5BBR%5D%5BBR%5D%5BSTRONG%5D%5BFONT+face%3D%22Times+New+Roman%22+size%3D3%5Dlooks+like+between+him+and+bubba+that+is+gonna+come+to+pass.%5B%2FFONT%5D%5B%2FSTRONG%5D&hash=c9ec8312378ab3daafa999d4ead42dd4)
Chapter 7
- Thread starter CSSUP
- Start date
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 12/3/2002 4:31:26 PM acmech wrote:
[P]Whatever happens to U in BK court is not reaaly my concern, except to say, been there done that with TWA. If a so called white night called American Airlines comes knocking, run folks, run. Just look at the demoralizing damage they have done to TWA. In a few more years, there will not be anything left in St.Louis. [/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][STRONG][FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3]Dude,wanna trade? I'll take recall rights at AA in a second instead of waiting for the doors to be closed over here.[BR]If AA comes up with bucks for what they want,more power to 'em.besides it will be all you TWA guys getting recall while we watch the store doors chained shut.[/FONT][/STRONG][/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 12/3/2002 4:31:26 PM acmech wrote:
[P]Whatever happens to U in BK court is not reaaly my concern, except to say, been there done that with TWA. If a so called white night called American Airlines comes knocking, run folks, run. Just look at the demoralizing damage they have done to TWA. In a few more years, there will not be anything left in St.Louis. [/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][STRONG][FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3]Dude,wanna trade? I'll take recall rights at AA in a second instead of waiting for the doors to be closed over here.[BR]If AA comes up with bucks for what they want,more power to 'em.besides it will be all you TWA guys getting recall while we watch the store doors chained shut.[/FONT][/STRONG][/P]
PB,
Well said, sir!
I gave Dave the benefit of the doubt, and voted yes the first go round, always keeping in mind he could be the real deal, or a Wolf in sheep's clothing. After the latest wish list of givebacks and the TPA Massacre, the jury is in - same ol' same ol' - just a shorter Wolf.
And now my worst fears realized - this scenario was planned from the start. Dave took U into bankruptcy WITHOUT the cash on hand for it to be a self financed BK; hence Bonderman and the RSA. This provided a plausible fig leaf for Dave to say, guys, I don't have a choice. That's mostly true, but I think U deliberately left itself little room to manuever to bust unions, knowing it had the tacit backing of the government via the ATSB.
I appreciate the truth, no matter how ugly; I don't like being trifled with and stage managed; so as to further assistance - count me out.
Well said, sir!
I gave Dave the benefit of the doubt, and voted yes the first go round, always keeping in mind he could be the real deal, or a Wolf in sheep's clothing. After the latest wish list of givebacks and the TPA Massacre, the jury is in - same ol' same ol' - just a shorter Wolf.
And now my worst fears realized - this scenario was planned from the start. Dave took U into bankruptcy WITHOUT the cash on hand for it to be a self financed BK; hence Bonderman and the RSA. This provided a plausible fig leaf for Dave to say, guys, I don't have a choice. That's mostly true, but I think U deliberately left itself little room to manuever to bust unions, knowing it had the tacit backing of the government via the ATSB.
I appreciate the truth, no matter how ugly; I don't like being trifled with and stage managed; so as to further assistance - count me out.
On 12/3/2002 6:36:10 PM autofixer wrote:
gilbertguy, That $1.3 billion is now $800 million. All in one month! I think an artery has been severed.
----------------
Yet...AWA reports a single DAY profit of $10 million!!!
![3.gif']](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F%5Bimg+src%3D%27http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usaviation.com%2Fidealbb%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2F11.gif%27%5D+%5Bimg+src%3D%27http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usaviation.com%2Fidealbb%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2F14.gif%27%5D+%5Bimg+src%3D%27http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usaviation.com%2Fidealbb%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2F3.gif%27%5D&hash=39eda734dbee2a60f0324f6f3f4fba28)
gilbertguy, That $1.3 billion is now $800 million. All in one month! I think an artery has been severed.
----------------
Yet...AWA reports a single DAY profit of $10 million!!!
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/3/2002 10:48:21 PM PineyBob wrote:
BUT Diogenes,
The cuts do have to be made! The issue I have is not the end result but rather the matter in which it was orchestrated. I assume you work for US, was there really that much rancor and mistrust between labor and management that cards couldn't be put on the table?
I don't mean to come off like a moron here, but I could NEVER last in an environment that was/is that openly hostile and factionalized as it seems here. Help me understand this! So many great people, why can't management and employees make this airline work? Didn't anyone ever hear of empowerment? Thanks
----------------
[/blockquote]
------------------------------------------------------------
Hi PB,
First you never come off as a moron - plus that's my job and I'm quite fond of it. How's that for a union guy pulling seniority on ya?
Second, thank you for flying US and caring enough to share your thoughts. From your experiences with US, you know most of us NEVER forget you pay our wages. I appreciate that.
Third, and in brief answer to your question, yes. The hows, wheres, and whys are a long and dreary tale, but we all prayed Dave would be a departure from the U norm, and gave him major benefit of the doubt - never forget those concessions; we would not have spit on Wolf if he was on fire. Dave blew that one chance, and I am convinced the undoubtedly precarious position we are now in was staged, not arrived at by happenstance or miscalculation. Solely to place labor behind the eight ball, and to continue management as usual, for decades to come.
Here's the irony. After all those kicks in the teeth, we still deliver the goods - we're fighting our guts out to preserve this company. Unfortunately, this just encourages business as usual at the Palace. I can just hear the veeps - "the DOT numbers are still up, let's cut another 2500!!", or, "the beatings will continue until morale improves."
And to your point the cuts must be made - says who, Dave and Bonner? Where's their credibility with me right now? See? The process matters.
I know ALPA is beating the drum too, but that's just to get us to take some more cuts (read ANY of Chip's columns). You're astute enough to know the salary haircut they take in Chap 7, or if the PBGC takes over their pension, so they're all for an 'all for one, one for all' approach. They didn't feel this solidarity when agents pensions were frozen, and then cancelled, in 95 - their reply was "you're worth what you negotiate." So I won't take another one for the team, either.
I will do an honorable job until this rollercoaster ride is over, and then I will get on with my life. I worked my a$$ off to make this airline work, but I planned my finances as if it would fail. Why? "Where there is no vision, the people perish."
----------------
On 12/3/2002 10:48:21 PM PineyBob wrote:
BUT Diogenes,
The cuts do have to be made! The issue I have is not the end result but rather the matter in which it was orchestrated. I assume you work for US, was there really that much rancor and mistrust between labor and management that cards couldn't be put on the table?
I don't mean to come off like a moron here, but I could NEVER last in an environment that was/is that openly hostile and factionalized as it seems here. Help me understand this! So many great people, why can't management and employees make this airline work? Didn't anyone ever hear of empowerment? Thanks
----------------
[/blockquote]
------------------------------------------------------------
Hi PB,
First you never come off as a moron - plus that's my job and I'm quite fond of it. How's that for a union guy pulling seniority on ya?
Second, thank you for flying US and caring enough to share your thoughts. From your experiences with US, you know most of us NEVER forget you pay our wages. I appreciate that.
Third, and in brief answer to your question, yes. The hows, wheres, and whys are a long and dreary tale, but we all prayed Dave would be a departure from the U norm, and gave him major benefit of the doubt - never forget those concessions; we would not have spit on Wolf if he was on fire. Dave blew that one chance, and I am convinced the undoubtedly precarious position we are now in was staged, not arrived at by happenstance or miscalculation. Solely to place labor behind the eight ball, and to continue management as usual, for decades to come.
Here's the irony. After all those kicks in the teeth, we still deliver the goods - we're fighting our guts out to preserve this company. Unfortunately, this just encourages business as usual at the Palace. I can just hear the veeps - "the DOT numbers are still up, let's cut another 2500!!", or, "the beatings will continue until morale improves."
And to your point the cuts must be made - says who, Dave and Bonner? Where's their credibility with me right now? See? The process matters.
I know ALPA is beating the drum too, but that's just to get us to take some more cuts (read ANY of Chip's columns). You're astute enough to know the salary haircut they take in Chap 7, or if the PBGC takes over their pension, so they're all for an 'all for one, one for all' approach. They didn't feel this solidarity when agents pensions were frozen, and then cancelled, in 95 - their reply was "you're worth what you negotiate." So I won't take another one for the team, either.
I will do an honorable job until this rollercoaster ride is over, and then I will get on with my life. I worked my a$$ off to make this airline work, but I planned my finances as if it would fail. Why? "Where there is no vision, the people perish."
usfliboi
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 2,070
- 270
Why dont we call their bluff! If its 200 mill they need lets offer temp pay cuts for 200 mill to get the dip financing and loan! I ll bet it wouldnt be excepted because they want these productivity cuts so down the road theyll line their pckets and well never get them back ! I say make it temporary and see what happens !
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/4/2002 3:57:05 PM usfliboi wrote:
Why dont we call their bluff! If its 200 mill they need lets offer temp pay cuts for 200 mill to get the dip financing and loan! I ll bet it wouldnt be excepted because they want these productivity cuts so down the road theyll line their pckets and well never get them back ! I say make it temporary and see what happens !
----------------
[/blockquote]
-----------------------------------------------------------
I agee with your sentiment, but we all need to keep in mind, they may NOT be bluffing. In life, as in poker, you have to pay to see the other guy's cards.
Luck to us all - seeing as how 'corporate planning' is an oxymoron around here.
----------------
On 12/4/2002 3:57:05 PM usfliboi wrote:
Why dont we call their bluff! If its 200 mill they need lets offer temp pay cuts for 200 mill to get the dip financing and loan! I ll bet it wouldnt be excepted because they want these productivity cuts so down the road theyll line their pckets and well never get them back ! I say make it temporary and see what happens !
----------------
[/blockquote]
-----------------------------------------------------------
I agee with your sentiment, but we all need to keep in mind, they may NOT be bluffing. In life, as in poker, you have to pay to see the other guy's cards.
Luck to us all - seeing as how 'corporate planning' is an oxymoron around here.
Piney Bob
Your thesis of driving costs out of a business is spot on, because if you don't, your competitor will. I'd like to share a little U background with you, and a smidgen of cost comparisons.
Agents were unrepresented at U until 1999. Most of the team currently in place, from station manager up to veep, was in place for a decade prior to that. Trust me, they assiduously wrung costs out, the highlight of which was freezing the DBRP and replacing it with 401k's. This coupled with wage stagnation, layoffs, reduction of vaction and abolition of sick leave, while the represented groups held their ground, and IMPROVED their contracts, paved the way for successful CWA and IAM organization drives.
The initial contracts contained ZERO featherbedding for agents. The 401k was not done away with or improved - it stayed as is. The PDO's (personal days off) were converted back to vacation and sick days, but the accrual was not improved. Wages were the parity plus one deal. In short, we stopped the bleeding, but didn't start the healing. And I'm proud to say, as a Southern, gun totin', truck driving, bourbon swillin', anti-union redneck, I put my job on the line to organize fleet service - U drove me to it.
The way this all worked out caused the animus you questioned in another post - it wasn't cricket for the same guy signing paychecks to increase one group's compensation, while decreasing another. Another example as to how agents fared vis a vis other work groups within U - they all viewed 'parity plus one' a concession. Agents got their first raise in five years with that formula.
Now to WN. Their senior fleet agents top out at $25. Our heyday was 21.33, now 19 and change, and heading south. They have a 401k, we had a 401k for 12 years. Health care about the same. Work rules? Everybody, including Dave says this is the deal. Here's where they're full of it. The CWA and IAM fleet contracts prescribe cross utilization in class II (small to medium sized)stations. Management NEVER schedules it! I've seen them pay overtime in fleet, rather than schedule an available CWA agent to do the work. That's in management's court -we're ready, willing and able. We clean, deice, airstart and perform the security checks - stuff we didn't do 10 years ago. I'd wager fleet has had as much or more responsibilities added to it's job description than any other represented group. Lastly, WN is 90 to 95% union - so it's not necessarily a bad thing.
So why does WN flourish? Three reasons;
1. Single fleet type - if everything else between U and WN were equal, this would be the winning edge.
2. Superior business plan - I think it's bad policy to bypass small and medium cities, but you can't blame WN for taking advantage of existing business and regulatory conditions. A sensible fare structure goes a long way, too.
3. Espirit de corp - WN stands behind it's employees, and not to bugger them. The creates a virtuous cycle.
Now as to the foregoing, who has the initiative - the boss or the grunts?
I strapped this airline on my back to carry it across the goal line. Look at our monthly DOT stats - that's us accomplishing that, not management. Coming from PI, we all worked that way, and along with a bunch of the old AL guys, are the main reason this airline has lasted this long. We were to stupid to give up or quit. These are the folks Dave wants to outsource.
That's where I'm coming from.
Your thesis of driving costs out of a business is spot on, because if you don't, your competitor will. I'd like to share a little U background with you, and a smidgen of cost comparisons.
Agents were unrepresented at U until 1999. Most of the team currently in place, from station manager up to veep, was in place for a decade prior to that. Trust me, they assiduously wrung costs out, the highlight of which was freezing the DBRP and replacing it with 401k's. This coupled with wage stagnation, layoffs, reduction of vaction and abolition of sick leave, while the represented groups held their ground, and IMPROVED their contracts, paved the way for successful CWA and IAM organization drives.
The initial contracts contained ZERO featherbedding for agents. The 401k was not done away with or improved - it stayed as is. The PDO's (personal days off) were converted back to vacation and sick days, but the accrual was not improved. Wages were the parity plus one deal. In short, we stopped the bleeding, but didn't start the healing. And I'm proud to say, as a Southern, gun totin', truck driving, bourbon swillin', anti-union redneck, I put my job on the line to organize fleet service - U drove me to it.
The way this all worked out caused the animus you questioned in another post - it wasn't cricket for the same guy signing paychecks to increase one group's compensation, while decreasing another. Another example as to how agents fared vis a vis other work groups within U - they all viewed 'parity plus one' a concession. Agents got their first raise in five years with that formula.
Now to WN. Their senior fleet agents top out at $25. Our heyday was 21.33, now 19 and change, and heading south. They have a 401k, we had a 401k for 12 years. Health care about the same. Work rules? Everybody, including Dave says this is the deal. Here's where they're full of it. The CWA and IAM fleet contracts prescribe cross utilization in class II (small to medium sized)stations. Management NEVER schedules it! I've seen them pay overtime in fleet, rather than schedule an available CWA agent to do the work. That's in management's court -we're ready, willing and able. We clean, deice, airstart and perform the security checks - stuff we didn't do 10 years ago. I'd wager fleet has had as much or more responsibilities added to it's job description than any other represented group. Lastly, WN is 90 to 95% union - so it's not necessarily a bad thing.
So why does WN flourish? Three reasons;
1. Single fleet type - if everything else between U and WN were equal, this would be the winning edge.
2. Superior business plan - I think it's bad policy to bypass small and medium cities, but you can't blame WN for taking advantage of existing business and regulatory conditions. A sensible fare structure goes a long way, too.
3. Espirit de corp - WN stands behind it's employees, and not to bugger them. The creates a virtuous cycle.
Now as to the foregoing, who has the initiative - the boss or the grunts?
I strapped this airline on my back to carry it across the goal line. Look at our monthly DOT stats - that's us accomplishing that, not management. Coming from PI, we all worked that way, and along with a bunch of the old AL guys, are the main reason this airline has lasted this long. We were to stupid to give up or quit. These are the folks Dave wants to outsource.
That's where I'm coming from.
If they do not comply, Mr. Bronner said in the interview, the airline would go out of business and be liquidated in bankruptcy court. "What's their alternative?" he asked rhetorically. "If they don't want to do this, we'll Chapter 7 it."
A lot of conversation on these Boards centers on who is right and who is wrong. It's gone beyond that. From all appearances, management has lost control. If that is the case, then the unions are wasting their time. The real issue is twofold. Firstly, if business is continuing to unravel (or failing to respond to efforts to improve it), DIP financing or not, the company would run out of cash. Secondly, through a series of missteps, effective control is going to be in the hands of people whose prime motivation is to make money on an investment. They do not appear very "user friendly" at this point. You could argue that they aren't in there yet, but since they are the only immediate source of additional capital, they really are. The resultant paralysis is probably one of the main reasons MDA hasn't gone very far. With their plans not working, management uses the only tool it has left....reducing employment. Like a bad haircut, you really can take too much off the top. Note to Bronner: threatening Ch. 7 really creates an incentive for vendors to make concessions. Wonder if he learned that in business school?
Deelmakur,
You're probably right. I think most employees realize U could be going under. In such a circumstance, the best strategy is to get the most out of it while you can. The alternative, surviving at half of our former size, with a punative contract in place for the next decade, creates a sizeable body of nays, as well. Besides, why cooperate with blackmail?
You're probably right. I think most employees realize U could be going under. In such a circumstance, the best strategy is to get the most out of it while you can. The alternative, surviving at half of our former size, with a punative contract in place for the next decade, creates a sizeable body of nays, as well. Besides, why cooperate with blackmail?
[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/6/2002 11:17:10 PM diogenes wrote:
So why does WN flourish? Three reasons;
1. Single fleet type - if everything else between U and WN were equal, this would be the winning edge.
2. Superior business plan - I think it's bad policy to bypass small and medium cities, but you can't blame WN for taking advantage of existing business and regulatory conditions. A sensible fare structure goes a long way, too.
3. Espirit de corp - WN stands behind it's employees, and not to bugger them. The creates a virtuous cycle.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Don't forget, WN never paid top dollar for other airlines and, in the case of PSA, proceeded to pull out of most of the cities they served (in fact, not counting western cities USAir/Piedmont already served, virtually ALL the western city routes they paid top dollar for) and transfer the new employees east. Brilliant move. Also, they didn't have a clown as their Chairman/CEO whose didn't have much experience actually MANAGING an airline, merely applying paint and duck tape to spruce it up for resale. A clown who demanded, and got, top dollar for his abyssmal performance. You could also include other dumbass decisions like the alliance with British Airways (and giving away London routes in the process), no fuel hedging strategies, inferior software systems for handling reservations, too many hubs, some less than 100 miles apart (BWI and PHL), too many reservations centers, some owned, some rented, high cost company HQ location, reliance on high fares in virtual monopoly markets for profits (and counting on low cost carriers never entering those markets), Metrojet, Business Select, etc etc etc. DUMB DUMB and DUMBER. Oh yeah...and treating employees as liabilities, not assets.
----------------
On 12/6/2002 11:17:10 PM diogenes wrote:
So why does WN flourish? Three reasons;
1. Single fleet type - if everything else between U and WN were equal, this would be the winning edge.
2. Superior business plan - I think it's bad policy to bypass small and medium cities, but you can't blame WN for taking advantage of existing business and regulatory conditions. A sensible fare structure goes a long way, too.
3. Espirit de corp - WN stands behind it's employees, and not to bugger them. The creates a virtuous cycle.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Don't forget, WN never paid top dollar for other airlines and, in the case of PSA, proceeded to pull out of most of the cities they served (in fact, not counting western cities USAir/Piedmont already served, virtually ALL the western city routes they paid top dollar for) and transfer the new employees east. Brilliant move. Also, they didn't have a clown as their Chairman/CEO whose didn't have much experience actually MANAGING an airline, merely applying paint and duck tape to spruce it up for resale. A clown who demanded, and got, top dollar for his abyssmal performance. You could also include other dumbass decisions like the alliance with British Airways (and giving away London routes in the process), no fuel hedging strategies, inferior software systems for handling reservations, too many hubs, some less than 100 miles apart (BWI and PHL), too many reservations centers, some owned, some rented, high cost company HQ location, reliance on high fares in virtual monopoly markets for profits (and counting on low cost carriers never entering those markets), Metrojet, Business Select, etc etc etc. DUMB DUMB and DUMBER. Oh yeah...and treating employees as liabilities, not assets.
AgM,
Spot on, and again begs the question, who had the initiative?
The one major place I see labor in error was not agreeing to RJ's a long time ago. But I see even this as a management screw up. We had RJ's, in the shape of F28's, until U pissed them away. But even after the F28's went bye-bye, THE PAY SCALE REMAINED IN ALPA'S CONTRACT! All Wolfe had to do was buy the birds and say guys, go fly them. But nooooo, Wolfe wanted to set the stage for outsourcing (which we see unfolding as we speak, lending credence to the Wolfe/Dave conspiracy theories) and would not bring RJ's onto mainline. ALPA helped all of us in the short-term with their scope clause, but maybe wasn't so wise in the long run. RJ's absolutely have a role to play, and it would have been wiser to keep them in-house. NW IAM did a better job on this issue. When NW management wanted to go RJ in a big way, they and the IAM agreed to grandfather the stations that went RJ under the existing contract - no outsourcing or 'B' scale.
I still wonder if the long term handling of U is due to arrogance/stupidity or a conspiracy. Been a lot of black helicopters over the house lately.
Spot on, and again begs the question, who had the initiative?
The one major place I see labor in error was not agreeing to RJ's a long time ago. But I see even this as a management screw up. We had RJ's, in the shape of F28's, until U pissed them away. But even after the F28's went bye-bye, THE PAY SCALE REMAINED IN ALPA'S CONTRACT! All Wolfe had to do was buy the birds and say guys, go fly them. But nooooo, Wolfe wanted to set the stage for outsourcing (which we see unfolding as we speak, lending credence to the Wolfe/Dave conspiracy theories) and would not bring RJ's onto mainline. ALPA helped all of us in the short-term with their scope clause, but maybe wasn't so wise in the long run. RJ's absolutely have a role to play, and it would have been wiser to keep them in-house. NW IAM did a better job on this issue. When NW management wanted to go RJ in a big way, they and the IAM agreed to grandfather the stations that went RJ under the existing contract - no outsourcing or 'B' scale.
I still wonder if the long term handling of U is due to arrogance/stupidity or a conspiracy. Been a lot of black helicopters over the house lately.
