Dave Siegel

[ISP]

I was just reading a post over at airliners.net, and it brought me back to the days of Siegel. The basic themes of the post were that 1) he is a sh*t for taking the compensation that US is now giving him, 2) he never communicated with the rank and file, and 3) he botched the 1st bankruptcy.

From being a CP and checking in at USAviation every now and then, I clearly remember how much Siegel was hated. However, I believe that everyone would be better off now if he wasn't forced out.

For starters:

1) What makes Siegel worse than the others? Wolf, Gangwal, Scofield, Lakefield cannot go down as better CEO's. Can they?

2) US Airways has undergone more negative changes under Lakefield in the past 2 months than under the entire time under Siegel's tenure. What has happened? The mainline fleet has decreased from 282 to 245 - something that Siegel threatened, but never came through on. In fact, wasn't it Siegel who suggested that with pay cuts, the fleet could grow from 282 to 320?

3) During Lakefield's tenure, First Class has gone from being top of the line to "worst than America West." Yes, Siegel was the one who eliminated glasses in F and salt and pepper shakers, but I've never seen anything like this. F was still very competitive during the Siegel era. I got full dinner meals, etc, now I get a snack box.

 

[BoeingBoy]

ISP,

I guess it's late and not too many folks here since no one has responded yet. Not being bashful about sharing my opinions, I'll take my best shot. Take it for what it's worth.....

1 - I won't even attempt to rank the last half dozen or so CEO's - I'm sure different folks would rank them differently. So let's stipulate that Siegel wasn't as bad as the others you mentioned. Unfortunately, less bad isn't the same as good.

2 & 3 - Please don't take this one as a slight, because I certainly don't mean it that way, but from the "inside" perspective there's more important things to be concerned about than whether a drink is served in glass or plastic, whether the salt & pepper is in shakers or packets, whether there's a full meal or a snack box. There's such minor issues as "Will we have a job in 6 months?" or "Do I uproot my family to follow my job or start over somewhere else?"

You're right that there have been more changes lately than while Siegel was here, but it's not like Siegel left a thriving, vibrant airline that Lakefield managed to ruin.

There's an old aviation axiom that says that aircraft accidents are rarely the result of a single cause. Instead, they're usually the result of a chain of events, a chain that goes unbroken. Break any link in that chain and the accident doesn't happen.

From my perspective, based on nearly 30 years in this industry and 10 years before that being closely associated with and observing this industry, that axiom is very appropriate to this company. We are where we are because of a long chain of decisions and external events. Over the last decade or so, no one CEO is totally responsible for us being where we are today, but no CEO is blameless either.

Siegel's mistake, in my opinion was two-fold - using all available financing available coming out of BK1 to order RJ's and not making structural changes to increase efficiency.

According to Back Aviation Solutions, we took delivery of 55 RJ's in the first 8-1/2 months of 2004 alone, plus 7 in 2003, for a total of 62. These do not count the RJ's added by affiliates. If we had gotten 1 A320-series and 1 RJ instead of each 3 RJ's, we would have had 20 more mainline aircraft. That's enough to lower CASM by over 1 cent all by itself (and not counting the upward pressure that the extra RJ's exert on system CASM). Add in structural changes to allow the airline to operate more efficiently, and we would have among the lowest CASM's of the legacy carriers. That's the opportunity that Siegel flubbed.

And lastly, you mentioned Siegel's talk of a 320 airplane mainline fleet. What is ironic (or sad) is that at the same time Siegel was saying that, the annual report was saying that we would be unlikely to get the narrowbody aircraft we had on order because of financing the RJ's he had ordered. The latest annual report (2004) says the same thing, by the way.

Jim

 

[SVQLBA]

Siegel's "They're coming to kill us" employee broadcast must count as one of the worst examples of leadership ever and should become a standard reference on how not to lead companies in crisis. It wasn't so much what he said, but how he said it. You can be sure if Gordo or Herb had been in that position, they wouldn't have said the same things.

 

[nycbusdriver]

With typical 20/20 hindsight, I kind of miss Rakesh Gangwal.

Sure he suffered from foot-in-mouth disease from time to time, but I think he really wanted to OPERATE the airline in a successful manner. He was, however, influenced and outmaneuvered by the dark-side forces of Stephen Wolf, whose sole intention was to make a quick buck on the sale of USAir. I think when Gangwal realized this fact, he resigned rather than have his name further sullied in Wolfe's shadow.

Gangwal was smart and creative, IMHO, and he was an AIRLINE person. He certainly needed a semester or two of charm school, but Bob Crandall managed to succeed with the personality of a kill-trained Doberman.

So I think there might have been hope if Gangwal had stayed and eventually gotten complete control. I don't think we would be in bankruptcy for a second time, although the first was inevitable. I'm not certain that labor at USAirways would be in any better shape than it is now, but I think at this point labor and management might have been actually rowing in the same direction under Gangwal.

Bottom line: I think Gangwal desired USAirways to succeed, even if simply to build his own resume. And I think Gangwal has the smarts to have pulled it off.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

ISP whos to say Siegal wasn't here long enough to make things worse off then they are now? Or even maybe not even around anymore. Hindsight

 

[funguy2]

Siegel's mistake, in my opinion was two-fold - using all available financing available coming out of BK1 to order RJ's and not making structural changes to increase efficiency.

I absolutely agree.

But, I don't think that Lakefield is all that different from Seigel... Two reasons:

1. Lakefield was part of US Airways' BOD, which approved of all of Seigel's plans.

2. Lakefield, more or less, carried out Seigels plans. When Seigel left and Lakefield stepped in, there was no time lost in "re-evaluating" the plan, like occured after Seigel took over for Wolf. I am sure some items have been changed slightly as industry conditions warranted... But its important to to note that not only did Lakefield's implementation of Seigel's plan not miss a beat, but also, when Seigel left, he left alone... His major subordinates, the ones actually doing the research and defining the details of the plan, all remained in place, at least for a while...

Just because there is a new CEO, doesn't mean there has been any new thinking. I beleive Seigel also had floated the idea of out-of-seniority furloughs and an mostly-Airbus fleet of 150 or so Aircraft. It was clear to me, at the time, that the "growth" was a rouse to get folks like USA320Pilot to go along... It worked.

 

[Winglet]

Siegel was like most CEOs . . . . . he was going to do what's best for Siegel, not the company.

Proof is in the $7 million+ he packed in his suitcase when he left after ruining the company.

One of U's many problems is that there wasn't a complete house cleaning at CCY. Still have the same ol' piglets sucking on the same old teats.

 

[NYPD]

From the very beginning, Lakefield was NOT the one calling the shots. He has also never addressed (formally) the rank and file. He's a mere puppet. Just plain worthless actually.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

Siegel was like most CEOs . . . . . he was going to do what's best for Siegel, not the company.

[post="252381"][/post]​

Is that anything like the employees that are now taking these severance packages and quiting?