Does Anybody Have Any Hope For U Or Ual

[Fly]

Getting into chapter 11 is a death sentence.

[post="171628"][/post]​

You will know soon. Ask some senior Delta pilots why they are retiring in droves. Yes World, you're bad wishes for us is going to bite you in the tush. Hahahaha fyi - not all folks at AA are drinking the koolaid. Employee relations haven't popped back yet as you describe.

I must admit, I can't wait to see you squirm

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

 

[Dave]

Mr. Fish,

I appreciate your response and your brief history lesson of UA in the 1990's. I happened to be there for part of it, and still am. What I was attempting to emphasize, and what you hinted at in the beginning of you post, is that there really is no difference between the business models of any of the legacy carriers. Treating employees well is certainly a good thing, but it's not a solution to the problems facing carriers today.

The main culprit in the demise of the 'big' airlines is their ability to charge a reasonable price for their services. When it costs the same amount for a cab ride from JFK to EWR as it does for non-stop air service from JFK to LAX, we have problems.

The solution? I believe the government needs to reexamine the roll it plays concerning fees, taxes, anti-trust issues and mergers. They want to give the public 100 different ways to get from point a to b, and still expect carriers to be profitable. This can't continue.

I know it's not much, but it's a start.

And for the record, I think United will make it.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Fly,
I'm not sure why you are so obsessed with Delta's downfall other than that misery obviously loves company and you're looking for a few friends. The legacy carriers are about to diverge as they never have before; just because carriers like UA and US will continue down the road to oblivion doesn't mean that other carriers will do the same. I'm not planning on cashing in my Skymiles or looking for another carrier anytime soon.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Dave,
while everyone will argue that the economics of the airline industry are not sustainable for any length of time, the low cost carriers are obviously capable of surviving in the current environment. Rightly or not, the US government sees the legacy carriers as tired, old dinosaurs that they would just as soon see fail. Until at least a couple of major ones move off stage, it is not likely that anyone will attempt to stop the consolidation in the industry that has been predicted for well over 25 years. Given that UA and US are the weakest players in the legacy industry, they are going to be at the top of anyone's potential failure list.

 

[Fly]

World, you wonder if I am obsessed with Delta? This, coming from a Delta guy who is 'most active' in the United forum? You sir, have been trying to rub salt in the wounds of United employees since your very first post at this site. Your doom and gloom scenarios for us are in stark contrast to your rosy predictions for Delta. I'm just trying to keep it even. You come here trying to spew your bs and think we should just take it? Neva!!!!

 

[WorldTraveler]

Fly,
I'm sure it doesn't feel good having people "spew" the truth (not bs) at you. You're a big boy, however, and should be able to take the truth - and if it's wrong, counter it. The dumb Delta upon which you wish ill will has now bypassed UA in Latin America and is set to become (if it hasn't happened already) the US' second largest airline - a title UA once held.

UA management has had more than enough case studies to choose from in order to choose a viable path yet they continue to choose a path that is leading to oblivion. Sorry you made the wrong choice; although there have been signs for decades, there aren't too many that could have predicted how fast UA would fall.

Life in the public arena is tough - especially when you were once at the top. You can see me as someone that will toughen you up to help you face the real world where they're even harsher than I am.

 

[WorldTraveler]

And since you've got me wound up, let me add that if I were you, I'd tell my company that the chances of getting help from the government don't improve one little bit by telling them "since we couldn't screw the taxpayers out of a couple billion bucks through the ATSB loan, we now want to screw the taxpayers by dumping our pension plans on them." When UAL realizes that they compete in a deregulated industry and that it is up to them and no one else to determine their future, they might actually have a future.

I certainly know that not all UAL employees think the way you do, but unfortunately they don't speak out near as much as you do.

 

[Fly]

First things first.............. I'm all GIRL. Girl, girl, girl, girl, girl.

2nd......stop trying to bully your point. I'm fine no matter what happens (so please stop worrying.....as if)

3rd...... I am a bad representative of United because I think they will survive? Please explain.

You are a bully and think it's perfectly acceptable to cut us down but obviously start crying when we do it to you.....blah.......Man, you got beat up by a girl....<see avatar>

 

[Bear96]

I certainly know that not all UAL employees think the way you do, but unfortunately they don't speak out near as much as you do.

[post="171732"][/post]​

Well as one UA employee who has stayed out of this discussion, let me say that I think Fly has you pegged pretty accurately.

You want to appear to be an even-keeled impartial observer focusing on only the facts and numbers, but it is pretty obvious to anyone who has been paying attention that you are no different than Chip Munn over on the U forum: you smugly portray every tidbit about UA in the worst possible light, and in contrast try to innocently portray everything about your favored airline in the BEST possible light. Your strange obsession and hatred (jealousy? who knows; who cares) of UA is shining through loudly and clearly, and you protest too much. You seem to think all of us UA employee dolts aren't smart enough to pick up on your tactics which only speaks volumes about your (mis)perceptions of the airline industry and its people.

You seem to really, really, REALLY want to believe that your favored legacy airline truly is indestructible (which is strange in and of itself because at least Chip is an employee of his favored airline and so has something tangible at stake in all of this while you are a, well, just look at Fly's avatar), but the reality of the situation will soon come crashing down around both of you leaving you with that deer-in-the-headlights look which will give all of us a good chuckle.

It is really too bad you are so transparent in your motives which only serves to undermine your credibility, because otherwise you have some pretty good insights into the industry and are fairly articulate. If you could get rid of your biases, you might be taken more seriously.

But until then, since you brought it up, WorldTraveler, many thanks to Fly for exposing you and calling it as SHE sees it, as do many of us!

 

[Just Plane Crazy]

UA can survive and without a loan from the ATSB. It will take some gutsy moves and concessions from the management as well as some cooperation from the employees and unions. At the end they might be only the third largest carrier in the US but at least they are still alive and they could build it up from there to challenge the top two at that time.

 

[Dave]

Worldtravler,

That's fine that the United States government views legacy airlines that provide a liveable wage with benefits and retirement plans as 'tired old dinosaurs'. Personally, that pretty much sums up my feeling about our government. If they, you, or anyone else think the solution to the airline woes is to have us belly up, you're extremely short sighted. The 'walmartization' of the working class in this country obviously concerns me more that it concerns you. Why do you think you folks at Delta are somehow immune? Are you really stupid enough to believe that somehow everything will just somehow work out for you?

I commuted up for a trip today on Song. Thankfully, the fellows in the front didn't share your views.

 

[mrfish3726]

Cudos Worldtraveler,

They are riding on a wing and a prayer if the BK judge doesn't intercede and appoint someone (trustee) to get UAL management's head out of the sand. It's only just begun; think of how they will all feel when UAL is hammering them again for MORE concessions. Wonder how many of them will be willing to save that tired old DINO???? That's why they will be right behind USAIR. Government probably doesn't care at all about what is happening at UniTED or USAIR. They have made it perfectly clear that these companies are forever on their own. The US aviation industry will survive with or without either carrier. History has proven that time after time.

 

[UAL_TECH]

Well as one UA employee who has stayed out of this discussion, let me say that I think Fly has you pegged pretty accurately.

You want to appear to be an even-keeled impartial observer focusing on only the facts and numbers, but it is pretty obvious to anyone who has been paying attention that you are no different than Chip Munn over on the U forum: you smugly portray every tidbit about UA in the worst possible light, and in contrast try to innocently portray everything about your favored airline in the BEST possible light. Your strange obsession and hatred (jealousy? who knows; who cares) of UA is shining through loudly and clearly, and you protest too much. You seem to think all of us UA employee dolts aren't smart enough to pick up on your tactics which only speaks volumes about your (mis)perceptions of the airline industry and its people.

You seem to really, really, REALLY want to believe that your favored legacy airline truly is indestructible (which is strange in and of itself because at least Chip is an employee of his favored airline and so has something tangible at stake in all of this while you are a, well, just look at Fly's avatar), but the reality of the situation will soon come crashing down around both of you leaving you with that deer-in-the-headlights look which will give all of us a good chuckle.

It is really too bad you are so transparent in your motives which only serves to undermine your credibility, because otherwise you have some pretty good insights into the industry and are fairly articulate. If you could get rid of your biases, you might be taken more seriously.

But until then, since you brought it up, WorldTraveler, many thanks to Fly for exposing you and calling it as SHE sees it, as do many of us!

[post="171746"][/post]​

Thanks Bear,
Ditto!!

Take Care,
B) UT

 

[MachPi]

The reason why the legacy airlines are getting their heads handed to them is very simple: they've been around long enough to have senior people and large numbers of retirees. Need I remind anyone that these people were promised that, if they worked hard, in the end they would be rewarded with a decent retirement.

Every time a new LCC crops up, with no older worker/retiree costs, they will of course be able to provide a comparable service to the travelling public for less than the legacy carriers must charge. Unless the legacy carriers can call upon some added value---eg, vast network--- they are doomed, no matter how wonderful their management or workers are. And frankly, these 'added values' don't translate well on the consumer's home computer; I've never seen an 'added value' sort column on travelocity.

This cycle is infuriating. It means that every few years legacy carriers will either a) cut benefits so that their cost structure---with senior workers--- resembles the next start-up's cost structure with brand-new workers, or B) die. Either way, someone is being hung out to dry.

It's all very Darwinian. Some of you will automatically say "That's the way capitalism is, a company that doesn't stay on its toes doesn't deserve to make it." Yes, it's very easy to say that when you aren't affected by the consequences.

Jetblue, for example, doesn't succeed because it has fantastic workers and intelligent management (although a low numbskull ratio never hurt any company); it succeeds because it hasn't yet, nor will it have to for a long, long time, provide for the welfare of retirees.

My point is that when a company doesn't have to respond to the costs and needs of senior workers and retirees, it will obviously fare better in the marketplace, everything else being equal. And my point goes a little farther than that: the airline industry, the way it has evolved, systematically (if not with malice o' forethought) penalizes senior workers and those workers' companies, and there's not a thing any individual can do about it except be lucky.

How can this cycle be fixed? A universal seniority list would do it, but I'm not holding my breath. Pilots and FAs and Mechs, left to themselves, will never agree to this, because the ones it might hurt---the lucky few who picked a winning horse early in their careers---have no motivation to back it. The ones it would help have all been furloughed or are just holding on with their present companies, and have other fish to fry.

I don't even know why I brought it up. Maybe just for the record.

 

[UAL_TECH]

The reason why the legacy airlines are getting their heads handed to them is very simple: they've been around long enough to have senior people and large numbers of retirees. Need I remind anyone that these people were promised that, if they worked hard, in the end they would be rewarded with a decent retirement.

Every time a new LCC crops up, with no older worker/retiree costs, they will of course be able to provide a comparable service to the travelling public for less than the legacy carriers must charge. Unless the legacy carriers can call upon some added value---eg, vast network--- they are doomed, no matter how wonderful their management or workers are. And frankly, these 'added values' don't translate well on the consumer's home computer; I've never seen an 'added value' sort column on travelocity.

This cycle is infuriating. It means that every few years legacy carriers will either a) cut benefits so that their cost structure---with senior workers--- resembles the next start-up's cost structure with brand-new workers, or B) die. Either way, someone is being hung out to dry.

It's all very Darwinian. Some of you will automatically say "That's the way capitalism is, a company that doesn't stay on its toes doesn't deserve to make it." Yes, it's very easy to say that when you aren't affected by the consequences.

Jetblue, for example, doesn't succeed because it has fantastic workers and intelligent management (although a low numbskull ratio never hurt any company); it succeeds because it hasn't yet, nor will it have to for a long, long time, provide for the welfare of retirees.

My point is that when a company doesn't have to respond to the costs and needs of senior workers and retirees, it will obviously fare better in the marketplace, everything else being equal. And my point goes a little farther than that: the airline industry, the way it has evolved, systematically (if not with malice o' forethought) penalizes senior workers and those workers' companies, and there's not a thing any individual can do about it except be lucky.

How can this cycle be fixed? A universal seniority list would do it, but I'm not holding my breath. Pilots and FAs and Mechs, left to themselves, will never agree to this, because the ones it might hurt---the lucky few who picked a winning horse early in their careers---have no motivation to back it. The ones it would help have all been furloughed or are just holding on with their present companies, and have other fish to fry.

I don't even know why I brought it up. Maybe just for the record.

[post="171808"][/post]​

MachPi,
Thanks, this is a 'keeper'!!!
Take Care,
B) UAL_TECH