CLE dehubbed

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought UAL/CAL merger that it was promised no-layoffs due to the merger...
Gee, swamt. I find that level of naivete refreshing in someone your age. :lol:

Yeah, over here at PMAA, they told us back in 2003 that the major concessions we gave to keep the company out of bankruptcy would be the last they ever asked for, and that they would NEVER consider bankruptcy as a way to abrogate the union contracts like those other airlines were doing. (Did I mention that they had $5 billion in cash in the banks when we went into bankruptcy, and the only real purpose to the bk was to abrogate the union contracts and eviscerate the pension plan?)

You don't suppose that UAL/CO or PMAA management might have been lying to us, do you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Thx for the laugh jim.  Yes I was being a smart-al-ick.  And yes I too think the company (AA) planned this out for years.  1st the threat of BK, to get what they got and stay out of BK while other airlines floated thru it.  This way they could actually still grow and expand while the other carriers were shrinking and giving up routes and gates, THEN, after they saw what all the other airlines accomplished in BK decided to do it themselves and get double concessions from the employees, freeze and or dump pensions, blah, blah, blah...  But what was different (than the other airlines) AA did it with 5 bil in the bank, and came out of it with not quite 10.5 bil in it's coffers currently and looks to be making record profits in the near future.  The AA employees should be paid back for their contributions in helping the co. get back on it's feet again.  Hope you guys will see this in your new contracts after merger is done...
 
Yes, you're right. We should be paid back for our contributions. However, let's not forget that after 5,000 years of fighting among those Semitic first cousins, there should be peace in the Middle East, but there's just not. :lol:
 
swamt said:
Thx for the laugh jim.  Yes I was being a smart-al-ick.  And yes I too think the company (AA) planned this out for years.  1st the threat of BK, to get what they got and stay out of BK while other airlines floated thru it.  This way they could actually still grow and expand while the other carriers were shrinking and giving up routes and gates, THEN, after they saw what all the other airlines accomplished in BK decided to do it themselves and get double concessions from the employees, freeze and or dump pensions, blah, blah, blah...  But what was different (than the other airlines) AA did it with 5 bil in the bank, and came out of it with not quite 10.5 bil in it's coffers currently and looks to be making record profits in the near future.  The AA employees should be paid back for their contributions in helping the co. get back on it's feet again.  Hope you guys will see this in your new contracts after merger is done...
That's an interesting tale, but not consistent with reality.
 
Yes, AA threatened bankruptcy in 2003 and used that to extract concessions from the employees.   You're incorrect when you talk about the "grow and expand" part.   Between 2003 and 2011,  AA did not "grow and expand."   CO grew and expanded with its bankruptcy contracts.   WN grew and expanded with its new-hires.   B6 and VX grew and expanded.   AA, on the other hand, shrank and contracted.
 
The bankrupt airlines used bankruptcy to slash wages and gut the work rules of their pilots and FAs.    AA slashed wages in 2003 but did not get the work rule changes that the others accomplished, leaving AA's labor costs higher than UA, CO, DL, NW or US.   

After years of negotiating with the unions, some of whom chanted "restore and more,"   AA finally filed for Ch 11 protection to jam the more efficient contracts down the throats of the pilots and FAs (the others weren't so highly paid or expensive).   
 
On the cash in the bank - AA exited Ch 11 with about the same cash balance as it had going into bankruptcy.   The $10 billion figure is the sum of the AA cash plus the US Airways cash.   
 
Yes, record profits might be on the horizon.   Too bad the employees gave back most of their profit sharing (AA management offered 15% first dollar profit sharing in the bankruptcy term sheets).   
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
I don't know why it wasn't announced to the employees first, but this is hardly a surprise, and neither is the timing.

Either airlines make a pre-emptive move like UA and AA have announced (i.e. large pulldowns of RJ flying), or they'll eventually suffer as the regional providers start to default on their ability to fly the schedules they're under contract to fly.

One or more of the regionals are going to implode under the new hiring minimums, and already, we've seen ZK failing to meet schedule, and they've pulled out of a couple smaller markets as a result. Supposedly, they had cancellation rates as high as 20-25% in a few markets?

2014_02_03-greatlakesroutes.jpg


It also wouldn't surprise me to see either MQ or EV get wound down should the pilots decide to die on the hill they're currently holding, but that's another discussion altogether.
 
..which is why it is inexcusable that union leaders failed to understand this trend that was going to happen and protect the jobs of airline employees that are heavily dependent on small RJ flying. Sadly, there was a lengthy thread on this very forum by some who tried to trash Tim Nelson yet he saw this coming and recognized the need to protect UA workers. UA employees voted against the position Mr. Nelson supported and some of the 500 people will be running around the country trying to save their jobs, only to likely do it again in a short time as the process repeats itself with other hubs.

It also says that UAs network remains highly vulnerable to further cutbacks because they do not have the scope allowances to add anywhere close to the number of large RJs or mainline aircraft they need to replace small RJ flying.

It also validates exactly why DL has moved so aggressively to get rid of 50 seat RJs and to do the deal with WN to pick up the 717s.

It will take mainline salaries to maintain air service and there will be many small and medium-sized cities in the US that will lose air service if current legacy carriers cannot upgrade to at least large RJs in the next couple years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Mergers bring layoffs, hubs downsized or closed. Those savings that management keeps talking about when trying to garner support for the merger come from eliminating redundancies, marginal hubs, combining of gates and ticket counters, etc.
 
Rich Delaney, 02 February 2014: Download

IAM members in CLE, along with the rest of America, found out Saturday afternoon of United's plans to radically change the operation of the station. District 141 found out at the same time; no advanced discussion, no opportunity to talk about alternatives. We have since had discussion with United management regarding this announcement. We will meet with management this coming week to explore all possibilities to address the needs and futures of our CLE membership. The company has made it clear that their decision to drastically shrink CLE's operation is not going to change. The discussions need to focus on what options our contracts provide to find long term employment for our members whether in CLE or other stations across the system. All options will be fully explored, based on existing language that address the security and seniority rights of members.

The brief discussion held with United this weekend raised several points. The company's decision was based on criteria other than the performance and work ethic of IAM members in CLE. Our members come to work, work hard, and provide excellent service to United's customers. The problems of CLE are not caused or solved by the employees. The company's announcement exposes the problem of reliance on Express operations. United's decision to stop domestic expansion and instead rely on other airlines to provide so much of their passengers has been developing for years. The expansion of the Express operation has put our membership at risk in line stations all through the system as mainline operations were reduced or eliminated. What we are seeing in CLE today is the other side of a risky business model that places so much emphasis on the operation of other airlines. As fuel cost continue to stay at an absurdly high level, the inefficiencies of small regional jets are exposed and the high cost of operating these aircraft becomes a drain on the overall success of the airline. Recently implemented changes in Federal Air Regulations regarding training and duty periods for regional jet flight crews are also proving to expose the hidden costs of "low cost" airlines.

The recent negotiations between District 141 and United focused on the expansion of Express operations and the impact the contracting out of so much of United's operation to these airlines was having on our membership. Changes made in our contracts provide some protection against this contracting out. The situation in CLE is not about contracting out - it is about ceasing operations by other airlines. The current level of mainline operations in CLE will remain - it is the loss of Express operations that is causing this planned loss of jobs.

United has told us that the effect of this decision will be felt by our members in June. We will work as quickly as we can to see what options will be available to impacted members and give them as much time as possible to evaluate their options and make decisions that are best for themselves and their families.

United's announcement of profitability in 2013 has raised many questions from members regarding the Profit Sharing provisions of our Agreements. Most confusing is the references to percentage levels and what they truly mean. Naturally, members question how our contract can refer to a 5% Profit Sharing figure while the company announces a 1.1% payment. It is essential to understand the differences between these references. During the recent negotiations the determination was made to increase the guaranteed wages of employees by reducing the amount of money due the IAM through Profit Sharing and put that money into the hourly rate of pay for all members.

Our contract calls for the company to place 5% of their pre-tax profits into a pool for IAM members. This percentage changes every year, based on the declared profit of United, and is not tied to the earnings of employees. The pool of money created by the pre-tax profit is then distributed among all IAM members. This distribution is based on each person's earnings compared to the total earnings of all IAM members for the year. This calculation establishes a fixed percentage for all IAM members so that those members that earned more receive a greater share of the profit than those members that did not work as much or earn as much. All money placed in the Profit Sharing pool is distributed among members; no Profit Sharing money is given to the IAM.

The rules governing the Profit Sharing program have been in place for over 10 years without change. The only adjustments that have been made over that time is the percentage amount committed to IAM members. Our financial advisor is currently reviewing this year's distribution, based on information recently provided by United to insure that the provisions of our contract are followed completely.

 
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
So funny he keeps referring to them as IAM members, they have hardly been dues paying IAM members for four months besides the small handful of sUA employees at CLE. Why did the IAM give CLE a cinderella date for SCOPE?

Josh
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
700UW said:
The brief discussion held with United this weekend raised several points. The company's decision was based on criteria other than the performance and work ethic of IAM members in CLE. Our members come to work, work hard, and provide excellent service to United's customers. The problems of CLE are not caused or solved by the employees. The company's announcement exposes the problem of reliance on Express operations. United's decision to stop domestic expansion and instead rely on other airlines to provide so much of their passengers has been developing for years. The expansion of the Express operation has put our membership at risk in line stations all through the system as mainline operations were reduced or eliminated. What we are seeing in CLE today is the other side of a risky business model that places so much emphasis on the operation of other airlines. As fuel cost continue to stay at an absurdly high level, the inefficiencies of small regional jets are exposed and the high cost of operating these aircraft becomes a drain on the overall success of the airline. Recently implemented changes in Federal Air Regulations regarding training and duty periods for regional jet flight crews are also proving to expose the hidden costs of "low cost" airlines.
no one ever said that the work ethic of any employees was ever the issue.

Of course the issue is that UA's business plan was flawed. That is what unions are supposed to protect members against, isn't it?

If there is no threat to employees because of a company's business practices and strategies, what is the point of a union?

The fact, plain and simple, is that IAM leadership with 700's support on this forum sent an agreement to its members that everyone knew left hundreds of employees exposed to cutbacks because of UA's faulty over-reliance on small RJs.

Saying that the membership voted on it as if that excuses poor advise from union leadership doesn't cut it.

Arguing that it is flying done by other airlines is not an excuse. UA's own employees worked those flights and UA itself bought that capacity on those regional airlines.

Union leadership failed to protect the jobs of UA's hard-working CLE employees, sold them a contract that everyone realized would be used against the membership in short order, and now we face the likelihood that the process will be repeated over and over again as the economics of UA's network make further job cuts more and more necessary.
 
Your lying again, I have never supported the leadership at UA nor did I speak out in favor of the agreement.
Prove it otherwise or retract your statement as your lying.
 
No one can prevent cuts or layoffs in the industry, but with a union contract there is a strict set of rules that must be followed, unlike Delta who can do what they want when they want.
 
DTW, DFW, CVG, MEM, DFW, TPA, MCO, shall I continue?
 
Leadership 7.5.
 
Why by the end of the year will Delta's pilots gain a 20% raise over the last two years and no other employees at DL has gained that?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
700UW said:
I said it was up the UA members to make their decision. Go look at the thread.
thank you.

Perhaps you would be the same amount of man to admit that the DL people are capable of making their own decisions, and have.

We could list dozens of cities that US has closed and yet you say that unions are powerless to stop this kind of thing.

What exactly is the benefit of a union if it can't protect jobs? This contract did no better job than what DL provided its employees in MEM.
Despite what you want to believe, unions don't provide any benefit that DL employees want.

Get over yourself and realize you are selling worn and out-of-date merchandise that no one wants.

take up your fight with DL employees. They know that DL pilots haven't gained 20% pay raises over 2 years.

You were called on the carpet yet again for using inaccurate compensation data.

And since it wasn't done by swamt, I'm quite sure it wasn't doing it for me.
 
I am pro-union and I will continue to support unions and their members, dont like dont read it.
 
I guess you dont want people to be informed of the facts, I guess you would rather they believe Ford and Harrison, which Delta gives millions of dollars to fight unions.
 
Are you that dense?
 
Delta's pilots by the end of 2014 will have gotten a 20% increase from 2012 till the end of 2014, why are you lying again?
 
So Delta, ALPA and the WSJ are liars and you know more than them?
 
Here we go again:
 
The nearly 11,000 pilots will receive a 4% pay increase on this week, another increase of 8.5% in January and then two annual increases of 3%, according to an earlier union bulletin that explained the terms of the deal reached May 15. By the end of 2014, pay rates will be nearly 20% higher than they are today, ALPA said in that bulletin. A 737 captain who earned $153 an hour in 2008, the year Delta and Northwest Airlines merged, will be paid $217 an hour effective in January 2015.
 
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
yes, and that is not over a 2 year period.

and it still doesn't change that you supported a contract that now is putting 500 people running around the country looking to save their jobs.

that is what we are talking about here. Be a man and admit that you took the wrong side of the issue and trashed Mr. Nelson who did push for protections that could have helped these employees.

I don't care if are pro-union or not. When you make major strategic failures as you have with recommendations about the UA contract, you have to own up to your failures or be further discredited as being able to address real and current labor issues.
 
June 29, 2012 till the end of 2014 is 2 1/2 years, excuse the journalism from the WSJ.
 
Still why are the pilots getting 20% and no other employees at DL got that?
 
Hmm, I wonder why.
 
I took no side on the issue at UA, go find a post where I said good or bad about the UA deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Status
Not open for further replies.