I understand that the Company has called for the Unions to all go to DC for meetings as soon as tomorrow.
Anybody else hear this?
Anybody else hear this?
Company Call For Meeting With Unions
- Thread starter Fatherknowsbest
- Start date
A320 Driver
Veteran
GOOD!
Then they can all personally tell Dave that we lived up to our end of the bargain. Time for him to put up or move on.
A320 Driver <_<
Then they can all personally tell Dave that we lived up to our end of the bargain. Time for him to put up or move on.
A320 Driver <_<
Yep,
I've heard the same thing. In a message from MEC President Perry Hayes dated today, AFA will be meeting with the company. This message says in part:
"Your MEC President and Acting MEC Vice-President will be meeting with CEO Dave Siegel on Friday. He has asked for a meeting to give us an update on the "State of the Airline." We will update you after our meeting with Mr. Siegel."
Any guesses as to what's next?
I've heard the same thing. In a message from MEC President Perry Hayes dated today, AFA will be meeting with the company. This message says in part:
"Your MEC President and Acting MEC Vice-President will be meeting with CEO Dave Siegel on Friday. He has asked for a meeting to give us an update on the "State of the Airline." We will update you after our meeting with Mr. Siegel."
Any guesses as to what's next?
PITbull
Veteran
True.
Dave wants to meet with our MEC Officers (Not the voting 6 presidents). Interesting...
I don't know if this is for all the unions. I suspect that if it isn't this moment, it is forthcoming.
Wonder what they want? I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, and Maybe they want to "bridge" the distance between us and them.
Dave wants to meet with our MEC Officers (Not the voting 6 presidents). Interesting...
I don't know if this is for all the unions. I suspect that if it isn't this moment, it is forthcoming.
Wonder what they want? I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, and Maybe they want to "bridge" the distance between us and them.
PITbull,PITbull said:
Say your prayers on that..it's the best thing we can hope for at this point. I know mine would be answered if a 180 degree change of direction were to take place?
Allow yourselves a moment to think on how much better things could be..if we only were all on the same page and pulling in the same direction?
I'm pleased to see how things have solidified between the labor groups...if we could only get CCY on the team? We could show a few around here what being an airline and an airline family is all about. Somebody needs to make that one giant step in that direction (DAVE)...it's time to put up or shut-up.
Don't you think we are gonna get a "we got big troubles guys and we need your help ( as in give backs)" speech from Dave? He is certainly not going to tell us he has a secret plan that will crush LUV, unless it's working for free and I'll pay you back later (whoever is left).
Labor concessions alone cannot close the cost gap between the LCC's and the network airlines. The company and the other network airlines need a comprehensive solution to the economic problems and market forces.
Siegel always signals his moves and last week's speech to the Washington Aero Club was a third-party communication to interested parties. I'm not sure where this will go, but three of Siegel's comments got my attention. They are:
1. "Network carriers will need to find a new cost paradigm, one based on competitive levels of productivity and smarter ways of managing across every level of our business."
2. "Hopefully, government regulators will recognize that that the new competitive market realities, including the dramatic rise of the LCC sector, have dramatically changed the context for judging the benefits and risks of inter-carrier cooperation and coordination."
3. "Again, I don't have all the answers, but I do sense that increased cooperation, coordination, and potentially consolidation between and among network airlines must be another source of strength through enhanced efficiencies, in both marketing and operations."
Separately, were comments by Jeffrey Stanley, manager of economic analysis and regulatory affairs at United, coincidental or purposely timed to occur shortly after Siegel's speech? Stanley's interesting comments were:
1. "We haven't seen recognition by the federal government that low-cost carriers have moved in."
2. Stanley said to avoid extinction, the network carriers have to adapt to compete in revenue and costs. On the revenue side, the carriers are developing lower-fare airlines, tapping into new markets with regional jets and linking with other carriers through efforts like code sharing. On the cost side, the network carriers have to deal with wage and overcapacity issues, Stanley said, along with shrinking hubs and reducing flight schedules.
3. "If things stay the way the are now, there will be several Chapter 7 ( bankruptcy liquidations) down the road, and that's not good for anyone," he said. The most feasible solution to the situation is consolidation in the domestic airline industry, he said.
Regards,
Chip
Siegel always signals his moves and last week's speech to the Washington Aero Club was a third-party communication to interested parties. I'm not sure where this will go, but three of Siegel's comments got my attention. They are:
1. "Network carriers will need to find a new cost paradigm, one based on competitive levels of productivity and smarter ways of managing across every level of our business."
2. "Hopefully, government regulators will recognize that that the new competitive market realities, including the dramatic rise of the LCC sector, have dramatically changed the context for judging the benefits and risks of inter-carrier cooperation and coordination."
3. "Again, I don't have all the answers, but I do sense that increased cooperation, coordination, and potentially consolidation between and among network airlines must be another source of strength through enhanced efficiencies, in both marketing and operations."
Separately, were comments by Jeffrey Stanley, manager of economic analysis and regulatory affairs at United, coincidental or purposely timed to occur shortly after Siegel's speech? Stanley's interesting comments were:
1. "We haven't seen recognition by the federal government that low-cost carriers have moved in."
2. Stanley said to avoid extinction, the network carriers have to adapt to compete in revenue and costs. On the revenue side, the carriers are developing lower-fare airlines, tapping into new markets with regional jets and linking with other carriers through efforts like code sharing. On the cost side, the network carriers have to deal with wage and overcapacity issues, Stanley said, along with shrinking hubs and reducing flight schedules.
3. "If things stay the way the are now, there will be several Chapter 7 ( bankruptcy liquidations) down the road, and that's not good for anyone," he said. The most feasible solution to the situation is consolidation in the domestic airline industry, he said.
Regards,
Chip
PITbull
Veteran
Chip,
I don't know what the "gloom sayer" means when he refers to carriers going into Chapter 7. United WILL EMERGE, and the most of the network carriers are stabilizing.
One network carrier is not reporting stabilization nor a hint of profit, and that is U, in spite of all the billions in cost savings in a year from labor, gov, vendors, BK AND ALLIANCES, etc.
If he is so afraid of competing with LUV, then I will take their contract all inclusive, with wages, benefits, and work rules. Then, what excuse will they have? BTW, their f/as top out rate is $47.77 and their duty day average is 10.5.
There's a huge raise for U f/as and a decrease in duty day average. Keep in mind, their f/a crew staffing is at FAA minimums, and guess what???? So are ours! There you go...apples to apples.
I don't know what the "gloom sayer" means when he refers to carriers going into Chapter 7. United WILL EMERGE, and the most of the network carriers are stabilizing.
One network carrier is not reporting stabilization nor a hint of profit, and that is U, in spite of all the billions in cost savings in a year from labor, gov, vendors, BK AND ALLIANCES, etc.
If he is so afraid of competing with LUV, then I will take their contract all inclusive, with wages, benefits, and work rules. Then, what excuse will they have? BTW, their f/as top out rate is $47.77 and their duty day average is 10.5.
There's a huge raise for U f/as and a decrease in duty day average. Keep in mind, their f/a crew staffing is at FAA minimums, and guess what???? So are ours! There you go...apples to apples.
Pacemaker
Senior
- Sep 3, 2002
- 475
- 0
Chip, I'd love to believe that Dave is going to drop some kind of UCT bombshell at the union meeting, but here's what I think:
He'll talk doom-and-gloom for a couple hours, replete with an extensive powerpoint presentation. He'll make no demands - yet.
Give it a couple of weeks, then he'll swoop in for another kill.
He'll talk doom-and-gloom for a couple hours, replete with an extensive powerpoint presentation. He'll make no demands - yet.
Give it a couple of weeks, then he'll swoop in for another kill.
Pitbull & Pacemaker:
The cost difference between Southwest and US Airways is not due to labor expense.
However, if you look at the employee to aircraft ratio US Airways is higher indicating a productivity difference. In addition, Southwest outsources its heavy maintenance and does not have DB retirement plans.
The big cost difference is in the business model due to expensive hub and spoke systems and less expensive point-to-point flying. That's not easily changed.
I suspect management is going to come out with a multiple point plan to reduce CASM to about 8.5 cents that will be surprising, to say the least.
Pacemaker, your scenario is possible and we have seen it before, but again, labor costs are not the major issue.
Regards,
Chip
The cost difference between Southwest and US Airways is not due to labor expense.
However, if you look at the employee to aircraft ratio US Airways is higher indicating a productivity difference. In addition, Southwest outsources its heavy maintenance and does not have DB retirement plans.
The big cost difference is in the business model due to expensive hub and spoke systems and less expensive point-to-point flying. That's not easily changed.
I suspect management is going to come out with a multiple point plan to reduce CASM to about 8.5 cents that will be surprising, to say the least.
Pacemaker, your scenario is possible and we have seen it before, but again, labor costs are not the major issue.
Regards,
Chip
I can't help but notice this...Seigels whine is almost a cryout as to not having the faintest idea of how to make U work as a stand-alone airline (Minus alliances of course)
I also see where it's heading or being requested that some form of Re-Regulation is being sought because the legacy carriers (U and UA mainly) have no clue on how to compete with the LCC's
What are they suggesting here? protection and territorial dominance under government rule?...is this cry to consolidate a winged version of Amtrak or Aeroflot in the works?
Heck...why doesn't Seigel and his UA echo-partner just fess up to the fact that they have signed on for something that they themselves have no idea how to fix of rectify....step off boys , somebody else out there has bound to have an idea that you have failed to consider.
Remember folks...Chip himself said....Employee Concessions or Give-backs is not the answer in regards to fixing these issues...maybe making a stand and actually running the farging airline is !!
I also see where it's heading or being requested that some form of Re-Regulation is being sought because the legacy carriers (U and UA mainly) have no clue on how to compete with the LCC's
What are they suggesting here? protection and territorial dominance under government rule?...is this cry to consolidate a winged version of Amtrak or Aeroflot in the works?
Heck...why doesn't Seigel and his UA echo-partner just fess up to the fact that they have signed on for something that they themselves have no idea how to fix of rectify....step off boys , somebody else out there has bound to have an idea that you have failed to consider.
Remember folks...Chip himself said....Employee Concessions or Give-backs is not the answer in regards to fixing these issues...maybe making a stand and actually running the farging airline is !!
