CWA local leader recommends...VOTE NO!!

[diogenes]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/3/2003 2:37:07 PM MrAeroMan wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/3/2003 2:25:55 PM sdavis29 wrote:



[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 1/3/2003 1226 PM Do_it_for_Dave wrote:


there are a lot of smaller station that operate both mainline and express flts to the same dest...by using rjs to increase seats for flts used by express, they can easily use 2 mainline flts a day..peak am and pm to carry the heaviest loads and to carry the mail and frt still traveling... by doing this they can close many small stations to express or mda....while still keeping there "279" and crews in the air....

the t/a for mech,,,they already know their numbers..the t/a for afa/alpa..they can come real close with projected available aircraft and faa minimums....as for cwa and i would imagine fsa...
it is kinda like signing a blank check..




----------------
[/blockquote]
The numbers just don't add up to support this. Sorry
----------------
[/blockquote]
------------------------------------------------------------

Well sir, please tell us what they do add up to.

 

[sdavis29]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/3/2003 3:08:34 PM MrAeroMan wrote:
[P]Another thread on here discusses this and does it well with some conservative numbers. What puzzles me is what do they do with the a/c the rest of the day if they only fly into small cities in the morning and night?[BR]Do you think possibly management may re-enter into markets they abandoned due to casm? ie BWI? Just a thought but I do not think they would've abandoned as many routes as they have had it not been for the cost structure. With the cost structure more in line it may open up more opportunities for routes that were otherwise unprofitable.[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]very possible, however again if they should choose to open new cities...until they go over 4 flts..they are not covered cities thus can be totally contract...keep jets flying with no increase in jobs..[BR][BR]

 

[sdavis29]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/3/2003 3:27:20 PM MrAeroMan wrote:
[P]Not if they reintroduce service to cities already served.[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]mainline no, but if it is a station that went to express.....there is the 2 flt rule and the contract has no clause that i can see stating whether this could be considered a new station,ie possibly 4 flts,,,and as far as bwi goes...usairways has already given it up twice.....[BR][BR]

 

[sdavis29]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/3/2003 1226 PM Do_it_for_Dave wrote:
[P]Why doesn't the CWA let people revote, if they change their minds. I know many people who want to change their votes. Both ALPA and AFA allow people to change their electronic vote prior to the deadline.[BR][BR]This CWA agreement does not call for any additional layoffs, they got a board seat, and the company took off the table almost all of the outsourcing proposals, including those for DM employees.[BR][BR]Vote based upon the facts and not your emotion. Voting yes is the best choice for me.[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]while their is no direct call for layoffs, the languauge does allow for sars...ie q the line, assist pax with check in and boarding passes....granted these jobs can be done for a lot less pay than what is being payed now...what it will do is in leau of layoffs, it will effectively reduce pay for a good % of cust service agts as sars can be utilized in many more stations then just the hubs...we would also be voting blind as there is no information as to the process of adding sars...[BR][BR]there are a lot of smaller station that operate both mainline and express flts to the same dest...by using rjs to increase seats for flts used by express, they can easily use 2 mainline flts a day..peak am and pm to carry the heaviest loads and to carry the mail and frt still traveling... by doing this they can close many small stations to express or mda....while still keeping there "279" and crews in the air....[BR][BR]the t/a for mech,,,they already know their numbers..the t/a for afa/alpa..they can come real close with projected available aircraft and faa minimums....as for cwa and i would imagine fsa...[BR]it is kinda like signing a blank check..[BR][BR][BR][BR]

 

[MrAeroMan]

Not if they reintroduce service to cities already served.

 

[MrAeroMan]

Another thread on here discusses this and does it well with some conservative numbers. What puzzles me is what do they do with the a/c the rest of the day if they only fly into small cities in the morning and night?
Do you think possibly management may re-enter into markets they abandoned due to casm? ie BWI? Just a thought but I do not think they would've abandoned as many routes as they have had it not been for the cost structure. With the cost structure more in line it may open up more opportunities for routes that were otherwise unprofitable.

 

[diogenes]

[This CWA agreement does not call for any additional layoffs, they got a board seat, and the company took off the table almost all of the outsourcing proposals, including those for DM employees.

------------------------------------------------------------

Intriguing, I got the same pitch today from an IAM honcho - "this proposal does not call for additional furloughs." But I got from a different honcho that stations would be reclassified in March of 03, with some class II stations being redesignated as express, and some class I stations being redesignated as class II.

I guess both are right, technically. The proposal does not call for IMMEDIATE furloughs. The language does provide for reclassification, and the furloughs that go with it, going forward.

Too slippery for me to keep a handle on - why can't we have a spreadsheet like the mech's got. It's all laid out to where a sixth grader could understand it.

Maybe it's to keep the mechs from becoming confused!


Anyway, two things to keep in mind;
1. The $14 mil bogey number fleet has to hit - where are those savings coming from, if not furloughs and downgrades to express?
2. Wholesale change will not occur January 11; it will take a little time for MDA/express to ramp up - I've heard could be 2004 for MDA.

 

[flyonthewall]

If RSA backs out as the equity investor, US would have to repay the $300 million debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing and immediately replace it with another DIP in order to
continue operations. If the tentative agreement were rejected, that would be just about impossible to achieve.

The bottom line is that if RSA backs out because of rejection of the tentative agreement,it would mean almost certain liquidation of the airline. Who would really be stupid enough to want to call someone's bluff with those existing facts.

 

[MrAeroMan]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/3/2003 3:40:08 PM sdavis29 wrote:



[BLOCKQUOTE]
----------------
On 1/3/2003 3:27:20 PM MrAeroMan wrote:


Not if they reintroduce service to cities already served.[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]


[/P]mainline no, but if it is a station that went to express.....there is the 2 flt rule and the contract has no clause that i can see stating whether this could be considered a new station,ie possibly 4 flts,,,and as far as bwi goes...usairways has already given it up twice.....


----------------
[/blockquote]
But what cities went express that would be worth opening mainline again? I just think 279 a/c is a lot of flying and would result in a lot of cities keeping jets rather than losing them.

 

[diogenes]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/3/2003 3:08:34 PM MrAeroMan wrote:

Another thread on here discusses this and does it well with some conservative numbers. What puzzles me is what do they do with the a/c the rest of the day if they only fly into small cities in the morning and night?
----------------
[/blockquote]
------------------------------------------------------------

Well, the logic of that convinced me!

 

[Robc98]

It is my belief that this "MrAeroman" is probably a member of this wonderful management team...his posts are pro company and he has yet to identify himself as to his occupation with this airline....or is he one of our prestiged flyers who has nothing better to do but sit here and stir the flames....fight the good fight!!

 

[sabre]

good article

 

[luv2fly]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/3/2003 1:58:23 PM flyonthewall wrote:


Why is he changing his view now and going against the committee and what the CWA has already stated that they would recommend a yes vote? ----------------
[/blockquote]

Perhaps it is because he wanted to let the membership decide. He may have tried to negotiate the best deal under the circumstances. That doesn't mean he has to endorse it.

 

[ANNother Voice]

while their is no direct call for layoffs, the languauge does allow for sars...ie q the line, assist pax with check in and boarding passes....granted these jobs can be done for a lot less pay than what is being payed now...what it will do is in leau of layoffs, it will effectively reduce pay for a good % of cust service agts as sars can be utilized in many more stations then just the hubs...we would also be voting blind as there is no information as to the process of adding sars...

there are a lot of smaller station that operate both mainline and express flts to the same dest...by using rjs to increase seats for flts used by express, they can easily use 2 mainline flts a day..peak am and pm to carry the heaviest loads and to carry the mail and frt still traveling... by doing this they can close many small stations to express or mda....while still keeping there "279" and crews in the air....

the t/a for mech,,,they already know their numbers..the t/a for afa/alpa..they can come real close with projected available aircraft and faa minimums....as for cwa and i would imagine fsa...
it is kinda like signing a blank check..



________________

Yes, you are right about the SARS taking over our work at the counter but it is the easier work that anyone can handle and the by adding mainline flights in Express stations, it allows those of us who are currently mainline to keep working. Remember, part of this TA is that the company commits to flying a certain number of mainline flights, which I was told is the number they currently operate. This does not include the RJ flying that will be added. Therefore, those of us that are here, should stay for the most part. I don't see the kiosk machines growing to the point that it will take all of the agent jobs away. I don't know about you, but lately, I would welcome the help from SARS or anyone else who was willing to deal with customers at the counter.

 

[sdavis29]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/3/2003 3:54:35 PM MrAeroMan wrote:
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/3/2003 3:40:08 PM sdavis29 wrote: [BR][BR][BR][BR]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/3/2003 3:27:20 PM MrAeroMan wrote: [BR][BR][BR]Not if they reintroduce service to cities already served.----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE][BR][BR][BR]mainline no, but if it is a station that went to express.....there is the 2 flt rule and the contract has no clause that i can see stating whether this could be considered a new station,ie possibly 4 flts,,,and as far as bwi goes...usairways has already given it up twice.....[BR][BR] [BR]----------------[BR][/BLOCKQUOTE][BR]But what cities went express that would be worth opening mainline again? I just think 279 a/c is a lot of flying and would result in a lot of cities keeping jets rather than losing them.[BR]
[P][/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]1 city that was just mentioned in another post by Chris Chiames Sr. V.P. COPORATE AFFAIRS[BR]was avl..the market could use am/pm jet...and seasonal in summer for the multitude of camps the kids go to...[BR]rdu is another city...3 mainline flts a day..subtract 1 and bingo..express[BR]usairways just announced 2 added flt daily dca-rsw....so planes could be used there..[BR]also there is the stations that only have a couple of lts...sna srq are two which while still flying to these cities...the work can be contracted...with some tweaking of routes and schedules it would be relatively easy to put many small cities under express or mda ops...[BR]not saying you are wrong in your take on this, but it is very possible[BR][BR][BR][BR][img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/10.gif']