Codeshare benefit: Why U and UAL need each other

iflyjetz

Senior
Oct 2, 2002
422
0
My apologies on two counts.
First, for multiply posting this. I got error messages, but it looks like one of the mods has cleaned up my multiple posts. Thank you.

Second, to all U employees. This is a very tense time for us at UAL. Prior to and since U's chap 11 filing, I haven't noticed UAL employees posting negative conjectures on U's future. We'd appreciate the same courtesy from U employees.

I won't edit the original post (I'll hang out my dirty laundry for all to see). This topic is getting to be a hot button for me, and I let my anger color my judgement. My apologies.
 
OP
I

iflyjetz

Senior
Oct 2, 2002
422
0
This post comes from flyertalk.com:
Topic: UA-US Airways . No segment benifit?
Author meFIRST
Posts: 356
From: DCA/IAD. UA Prem Exec 2002, AW Flightfund GOLD, Amtrak Select , was SQ PPS 1998-2002 (and miss it !)
Registered: Oct 2000
posted 11-06-2002 01:01 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just got the e-mail about the long announced US-UA marketing agreement.
Premier bonuses and Premier-qualifying miles.
Beginning January 1, 2003, the paid flight miles you earn on US Airways will count toward Mileage Plus Premier® membership for 2004. In addition, elite members will receive flight bonuses for their paid travel on US Airways. This is the same mileage bonus awarded on United: 25% for Premier members, 100% for Premier Executive® and 1K® members
How about SEGMENTS for Premier qualification?
I could move all my shuttle travel to US (currently using DL) and get 1K easy for 2004

Here''s a link to the site: http://www.flyertalk.com/milesfr.shtml
This is the value of the UAL/U codeshare. This guy would normally fly on DAL, but will now fly on U to get UAL frequent flyer miles. Tearing down each others'' companies is destructive to BOTH companies. We all know the negative $hit out there; no need to hoist it up the flagpole AND THEN speculate worst case scenarios.
Part of the reason why I am posting this is because of the incendiary posts by chip munn, and now usflyboi. Do you really think that UAL employees aren''t aware of the Sisyphus-like task in front of us? Are you really that frickin'' stupid? I''m beginning to think so. How would you feel if I wrote daily posts about the possibility of fragmenting U.
And for what it''s worth, should U ever be fragmented, chip and usflyboi''s posts are going to create sentiment within UAL employees'' ranks that even a staple job is unacceptable. If their crap continues, I know that I''ll be happy to submit chip''s posts at my LEC to help justify taking zero U employees.
 

UAL777flyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
730
0
My opinion is that we all need to be a bit more thick-skinned about this stuff. These are bulletin boards where people are free to post their opinions (hopefully, minus the insults and obvious flame-baiting). You're always going to get that minority of U posters who predict dire doo-doo for UAL, and vice versa. It doesn't mean that reflects the prevailing majority opinion. Try not to let a few naysayers ruffle your feathers. As much as I admire Chip for his attitude and his research, I disagree with many of his opinions, especially as it relates to the never-ending corporate transaction theories between UA/US. But in the end, we all need to realize that this is just a bulletin board. We're not curing cancer here!
 

AOG-N-IT

Veteran
Aug 19, 2002
1,132
1
www.usaviation.com
Good people of UA, Everyone has an opinion or theory as to what is what?...or rather what they happen to invision things to be. Anything you see here...unless it's a posted link to something official...is speculative at best...or pure conjecture. Treat it as such!!

I can give you every assurance on earth..That nobody, encluding our Esteemed Captain wishes you anything short of the best.

I think it has become crystal clear..that both UA and US are in a unique position to help one another advance from the ashes that our shared industry is deeply in.

With that said..The mutual , yet independent progress that both of our Airlines need to be making...Should be , the only issue at hand.

On behalf of myself only...because that's all I represent here...I wish you nothing but the greatest of success...and I'm smart enough to see , that our success is directly linked to yours. Here's to a better and hopefully more profitable future for both groups!!!

Warmest Regards
AOG-N-IT
 
C

chipmunn

Guest
Iflyjetz: [BR][FONT size=2][BR]The information I post is what I've heard from informed sources. I fully recognize why UA employees do not like the comments about fragmentation and personally understand your concern.[BR][BR]We at US have heard those same comments about our company for the past decade. However, to be fair, I believe the potential threat of UA fragmentation has somewhat been brought on by the UA employees.[BR][BR]Since 1995 UA ALPA has tried on four occasions to create a pre-nuptial seniority list with US, regardless of the merger economic benefits. In November 1995, this issue killed the merger and if the two companies had integrated in the mid 90's, how strong would the combined airline be today?[BR][BR]I'll tell you. The world's strongest airline without the liquidation threats we both face today.[BR][BR]But, how about this. In exchange for givebacks, how would you like it if US ALPA attempted to bypass ALPA Merger Policy with a pre-nuptial seniority list clause, had a requirement to recall all of our furloughees to fly any acquired assets before pilots from the acquired airline could be hired, used RSA money to acquire UA assets, and only took the a number of pilots for the remaining positions, if there were any? [BR][BR]Or how about if US simply bought UA assets like US did with Pan Am's LHR hub without employees? Do you think the Pan Am employees like what occurred in England?[BR][BR]Furthermore, could it be pre-nuptial seniority list clause and the governance issue are major reasons why UA is on the verge of bankruptcy? Furthermore, could it be people like Bondermann, Davis/Ornstein, Soros, Bethune and others are looking at fragmenting/liquidating UA so they do not have to deal with UA labor?[BR][BR]I fully understand the economic benefits on integrating what UA & US call Chicago West and Chicago East, but I will go on record and say I believe pre-nup's and governance do not work. In fact, they alienate management and investors.[BR][BR]In my opinion, if US and UA had merged, we likely would not be having this conversation today, but that is history. We are where we are.[BR][BR]Nobody wants to see UA and US survive more than me whether its independent or joint, but there are market forces in play with some heavy hitters that will likely determine the fate of both UA and US. Moreover, I know for fact our two companies have talked about different corporate combinations since the last merger termination and I was not the one who broke the news. I simply stated a unique corporate transaction, so if you want to shoot the messenger, why don't you do it to Argento who publicly broke the news on this board that has been known on the Street and within the Bush Administration since last fall. [BR][BR]Chip [/FONT]
 

Pacemaker

Senior
Sep 3, 2002
475
0
Chip,

Some of your comments have merit. But I agree with another poster who says the last thing we ant to do as US Airways employees is antagonize anyone.

I understand that various discussions go on from time to time in corporate boardrooms. But hear this: the preponderance of evidence, including past history, current events, and likely future outcomes, suggest that the only fragmentation scenario will be the parting-out of US Airways. I think we want as many of our employees as possible to retain a job in such an even, don't you?

Please consider toning down your UAL comments, however accurate you may believe them to be. If this is seen as an infringement on your right to free speech here on the board, I agree to some extent; but I feel we need to be pragmatic.
 

magsau

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
787
0
Finally chip has given his reason for dislike of UAL. SENIORITY. All of this bile about UAL is his grudge against his fomer employer and the ALPA unit of UAL. He says so in the above post. Just because he did not get to keep his old UAL seniority number when he quit UAL for U, he has started a war of doom and gloom for the future of UAL.

Chip, you cannot will UAL to oblivion. We have our problems, much like U, so why not show some adult behavior and get over the past. That is what we are trying to do at UAL and it might help your mental state if you could move on with your life.
 
C

chipmunn

Guest
Magsau:

Your comments are off base and so far I am much, much better off by going to US than UA. At US I was fortunate to be A scale, upgraded to Captain in 4 years, and have better working conditions.

If I would have gone back to UA, I would have lost 10 months of seniority, been B Scale, taken 8 years to upgrade to Captain, parti****ted in the ESOP pay loss, and the retirement reduction. Moreover, I would have seen part my ESOP shares sold by State Street and likely my 401(k) share (if I had any) sold by AON.

I do not have a so-called hard on for UA and just like DL, HP, CO or anybody else for that matter, I only want the best for your company.

Do I disagree with UA ALPA's continued attempt to bypass the ALPA International Merger Policy. Absolutely. Here's why...

Let me ask you this, let's say RSA buys UA assets or the entire airline and merges the entity into US's lower cost contracts. US becomes the survivor and before the transaction the pilots obtain a LOA with a pre-nuptial seniority list clause, all 1800 US furloughees must be recalled before any UA pilot transfers, and only the UA pilots necessary to fly any remaining assets would employed by US. How would you like this deal?

Magsau, this isn't about me. It's what is being talked about on Wall Street, in Washington, WHQ, & CCY. I simply report what I've heard from informed sources and it's up to the reader to decide how they want to interpret the information.

I'm not trying to pour salt into anybody's wounds and I certainly understand the bankruptcy and fragmentation threat.

However, could it be the ESOP, governance, pre-nuptial, and IAM issue, in the final analysis, become the reason(s) for UA's demise? Could the board decide it needs to file for bankruptcy to stop having important corporate decisions made in the union halls versus WHQ? Could the ATSB decide the company will never be viable as long as the airline has its current governance structure and have governance in its cross hairs?

I recognize the UA employees had no option but to execute the ESOP and the alternative could have been worse. However, there are those who believe the governance clause is a noose around managements neck, which could drive your company in bankruptcy, where all bets are off. This sucks, but it's a fact.

Will a corporate transaction happen between our companies? I do not know, but its repeatedly been talked about in different forms since the merger termination and with so many moving parts, we’ll just have to wait and see if something occurs.

Regards,

Chip
 

AOG-N-IT

Veteran
Aug 19, 2002
1,132
1
www.usaviation.com
Chip, This situation is definately Fluid..but it's fluid in terms of profits gushing from every crack in the structure.

This past week there was a Managers Meet in CLT...and word coming from Informed Sources stated that Chapter 7 (Liquidation) for U was anything but out of the question.

The problems still remains...We are shrinking like a snail in the Arizona sun...and yet we are only thinking in terms of reducing service..and of course the Employee Ranks. Nothing is being done in tangible terms to reform our business plan..or making us less wasteful. We are not doing enough to lure or endear our previous customers back to us.

It's almost a certainty that a 245 Acft fleet is going to happen...and if it does? With the same marketing strategy...and work rules in place? Plan to see another shot taken at the remaining people left standing...and this my friend, without drastic reform , will be the equivelant of a Band-Aid over a Sucking Chest Wound. The results since the first round of reductions and the concessions that follwed...Speak in a loud thunderous voice...That only CCY seems to fail to be hearing.

UA has thier own brand of issues to resolve...but unless we don't start getting busy about righting our own issues? We will never have to be concerned about merging senority lists...or worry about anything close to a Unique Corporate Transaction of any kind.

To much energy is being wasted on these subjects...and way too little on internal Damage Control Until these kind of things take place...and Profits start showing signs of return...all the rest of this UA/US wrangling is wasted words!!!

 

UAL777flyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
730
0
Good points all. I would say that the quicker US can get their restructuring and new business plan accepted and then emerge from Ch.11, the better they will be. The longer they remain in bankruptcy under the umbrella of a continually worsening industry revenue picture, the more their future existance is in jeopardy. The problem is that it is virtually impossible to generate more revenue in this environment. Even fare sales are having mixed results. Therefore, the best hope is to get more cost out of the airline. That is basically where you have the most control these days.
 

767jetz

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
3,286
2,779
[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/8/2002 5:06:06 PM chipmunn wrote:

In my opinion, if US and UA had merged, we likely would not be having this conversation today, but that is history. We are where we are.

Chip [/FONT]
----------------
[/blockquote]

Yeah, we'd all be singing Kumbaya on the unemployment line...

60 bucks a share? Give me a break!
 
C

chipmunn

Guest
767jetz:

The merger I discussed was the November 1995 deal negotiated between Gerry Greenwald and Seth Schofield. If the two company's had combined at that time, the synergistic combination just prior to the booming economy during the late 90's and 2000 would have printed cash.

Instead UA ALPA insisted on a pre-nuptial seniority agreement that was categorically rejected by US ALPA and the deal collapsed.

I agree if the last merger attempt had been completed, in light of September 11, both airlines would be in big trouble. However, if the 1995 deal had proceeded UA would not beon the verge of bankruptcy and potential fragmentation.

Chip
 

UAL777flyer

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
730
0
Chip,

I would grant you that if UA and US had merged in 1995, the revenue generated during the late 90's would have been monumental. However, we'd still b dealing with a high cost airline. I don't believe for a second that a combined UA/US circa 1995 would have gotten any cost out of the airline. Yes, their domestic U.S. marketshare would be awesome, but we'd still be dealing with driving out significant costs from the combined company. On the face of it, the combined company in 1995 might not be talking about possible bankruptcy. However, I think much of that speculation would center on who would have run the combined airline. If Goodwin/Dutta would have been in charge just like they were here without the merger, I have no doubt that the combined company would be in deep doo-doo also. Bad leadership is bad leadership, no matter how much money you're making. It eventually comes back to bite you. But it does make for interesting speculation.
 

Farley

Advanced
Aug 21, 2002
190
0
I have to agree with 777flyer. First, if U and UAL had merged in 1995, the resulting airline would have been a powerful force. But the cooling economy and 9/11 would have imposed the same havoc as it has on all the other airlines.

Second, it didn't happen, so endlessly debating the ifs, and would have beens, and attempting to place blame for something that never happened, is futile.
 

Latest posts