Does Anybody Have Any Hope For U Or Ual

[mrfish3726]

MACHPI,

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 die. Either way, someone is being hung out to dry.

Your post is incredible, first because you don't really know what your talking about. And second, most people filling jobs at the LCC's are people who have been furloughed by the Legacy carriers. So should you fault people that do this kind of work because they like the airline business. You want to blame the LCC's but don't want to find fault in the way managment at the Legacy carriers have drug them through the dirt time and again (hence your future pay cuts). SO folks have to make a living, some a pretty good living at the LCC's. I make more at F9 than I did at UAL, and the work force here is a majority of older employees from other carriers. Just because you work at one of the BIG airlines, makes you no better than anyone else working in the aviation industry. An airplane is an airplane, and a customer is a customer no matter who you work for.

 

[MachPi]

MACHPI,

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 die. Either way, someone is being hung out to dry.

Your post is incredible, first because you don't really know what your talking about. And second, most people filling jobs at the LCC's are people who have been furloughed by the Legacy carriers. So should you fault people that do this kind of work because they like the airline business. You want to blame the LCC's but don't want to find fault in the way managment at the Legacy carriers have drug them through the dirt time and again (hence your future pay cuts). SO folks have to make a living, some a pretty good living at the LCC's. I make more at F9 than I did at UAL, and the work force here is a majority of older employees from other carriers. Just because you work at one of the BIG airlines, makes you no better than anyone else working in the aviation industry. An airplane is an airplane, and a customer is a customer no matter who you work for.

[post="171818"][/post]​

You misunderstood my post.

First, by "senior worker," I mean someone who's worked at a company for many years. Someone who is making the kind of money that should be made by someone who's worked for a company a long time. A sixty year old man at Jetblue is not a "senior worker," since he's not seeing those 10 or 20 or 30 year payscales.

Second, and more importantly, Jetblue will necessarily be a "legacy carrier" in 20 years or so, provided it makes it that long, meaning that it will finally have "senior workers" that are finally enjoying the top-end of the payscale charts handed out to them when they got hired by the company. Then you can look for a new start-up to come along and hand Jetblue its collective head, because the top-end of their payscales will still be paper dreams--- until it's their turn to be the legacy carrier in another 20 years.

Those people who start with a successful airline will end up pretty well. Those people who hire on with that same company 20 or 30 years later will not.

My post wasn't about American or Jetblue or Southwest; it was about the airline industry.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Ms. Fly et al,

1. I suppose I happened to persuade USAToday to create their business section front page article about UA and its woes. Not exactly flattering but typical of United management’s approach to business – blame everyone else for what is happening to UAL: more competition, lack of public and government support. It is management’s job to reallocate UAL’s assets so that they can be more productive. It is highly problematic for UA when AA can gain market share and show higher revenues when AA and UA’s route systems are very similar – except for the Pacific routes flown by UA which have shown tremendous improvement and should give UA a noticeable improvement.

2. The LCCs do not as a whole NOT pay their employees a living wage. I’ll remind you once again that WN employees are some of the most productive in the industry. And lest you retort that they run a different business model, explain why CO, DL, and NW all have consistently been much more efficient in running their businesses than UAL. While the productivity statistics for recent quarters are not out, UA is certain to show remarkable improvement BUT so have every other legacy airline and many other LCCs.

3. My criticism is not about UA people – it is about corporate strategy and management-labor relations. A large public company that is asking for help from the government on a pretty regular basis will get criticism. If you don’t like the criticism, may I suggest running a small business. Better yet, tell your company to stand on its own two feet and to quit asking for bailouts from everyone else. The vast majority of UA people are hard working people who simply want to earn a paycheck and do their job and who neither try to defend or criticize their employer if it is to their detriment. I know because I talk to them.

4. While you would like to wish ill will on Delta, the reality is THAT IT HASNâ€T HAPPENED. I have repeatedly said that the very clear demarcation line in this industry is bankruptcy. If Delta succumbs to it, its face is as clouded as UA’s. But they haven’t. They are attempting an out of court restructuring more ambitious than even what AMR attempted and no one can deny the huge turnaround AA accomplished. As has been said, CO is by far the exception in this industry in going through bankruptcy and coming out as a healthy, viable enterprise. It was extraordinarily costly for CO employees (I talk to them also) but they also have a very different perspective on their airline than do most other legacy carrier employees. The pace of change in the airline industry is much different than it was 10 years ago.

5. Finally, there is a big difference between the corporate strategy at US and between employees at US and UA who post on this board. US recognizes the problems it faces and are doing what it needs to fix its problems – even if it means they are pursuing an adversarial relationship with their employees. US employees also recognize their problems and are willing to either accept their fate or leave the company. UA employees appear far more interested in trying to defend the indefensible than take some of the suggestions that many people on this board have proposed for how UA could become a viable carrier and run with them.

Yes, I genuinely do feel sad for the thousands of United employees who have and are watching their futures vanish before their eyes – much faster and more dramatic than anyone would have imagined. Because United is so large, what happens there will influence not only other airlines but also corporate America and the taxpayers. If solely on the basis of being an American, I do have a stake in United’s future.

Perhaps my diatribes really do nothing more than galvanize you. The real intent is to help you see the potential you have and for you to do what is necessary to harness and make something of it. It is clearly up to you to do with it what you wish and also to pay the consequences if it doesn’t work.

Best of luck. Really.

 

[SkyLiner]

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>

[post="171741"][/post]​

I always love reading your posts Flygirl, you effin crack me up!

 

[The Ronin]

Delta workers barred from investing in airline stock


By Trebor Banstetter
Knight Ridder Newspapers
August 23, 2004


FORT WORTH, Texas -- The risk of bankruptcy at Delta Air Lines has grown so high that its employees have been barred from making investments in the airline's stock through their retirement plan.

The decision was made earlier this month by U.S. Trust Corp., an independent financial adviser that was recently appointed to manage the Delta Stock Fund, a fund available in Delta's 401(k) retirement plan that invests only in shares of the airline.

U.S. Trust was also tapped to oversee Delta's Employee Stock Ownership Plan, which the airline uses to match a portion of employees' retirement contribution with Delta stock.

Previously, those funds had been overseen by a committee of directors from Delta's board.

Delta has lost $3.6 billion since 2000, and most analysts believe it will be in bankruptcy by the end of the year if it cannot cut costs substantially.

Airline officials did not return calls Friday for this story. Neither did U.S. Trust officials.

In an Aug. 9 letter to employees, U.S. Trust said that "because of the very serious financial difficulties that Delta is currently facing," it was freezing the Delta Stock Fund. That means employees cannot put any more contributions into that fund, or transfer money into it from other funds in their 401(k) plans.

U.S. Trust cited "the widely recognized possibility of bankruptcy if Delta were to fail in its restructuring efforts."

When a company files for bankruptcy, its stock generally loses all its value.

Delta's stock closed at $4.27 per share Friday. The stock's price has dropped 65 percent in the last year.

Officials with Delta's pilots' union, which is negotiating a request for $1 billion in concessions with airline management, declined to comment.

The firm said it will consider terminating the Delta stock fund entirely. In that case, the shares would be sold and the proceeds distributed elsewhere in employee 401(k) plans.

U.S. Trust also is pondering freezing, and possibly terminating, the ESOP, which is managed as part of the 401(k).

Here's one for you FLY....maybe you can read it to your "friend"....since I think his reading skills might be just a little weak......

 

[Segue]

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]​

Defined benefit programs are rapidly becoming a thing of the past - many companies have dumped them long ago in exchange for defined contribution plans. Its portable, you don't have to tie your life to the fate of one company and one industry, and best of all you take the responsibility for managing the investment yourselves.

 

[Heavy_Iron_Pilot]

Yes; I think UAL will survive.....& here's why.......

The management we now have is nothing like that which we have had... Jimbo, The Wolfman, Greenwald(ZZZZZZ!) & Tricky Dicky. Glenn & company are doing precisely what has to be done to streamline the company(Cut Labor costs; Renegotiate Leases; Increase productivity and cut benefits). Iv'e seen the strike; the ESOP (which really was a fable by the way..) and now reorganization. Believe me, I am getting hurt as much as the next guy.

What everybody is ignoring is our change in market focus and the change in the market as well. UA catered to the high $$ Business traveler with a small attention to the Leisure market (about 80% vs 20%) prior to 2001. Compare AA with roughly 50%/50% & DAL 40%/60%. After the resession in Jan. 2001, business travel dried up but Leisure travel picked up because the market never dissappeared........ it was only on hiatus after 9-11. Vacation travel was so heavy because all airlines dropped ticket prices to the basement to attract people back to the airlines.

The reason AA is not in Chapt. #11 is because last year they found Equity financing from a Financial Group in Boston who now have a 14.9% ownership in AMR (didn't know that..huh?)...... They are not out of the woods yet because they have not reorganized to the extent that we have. Delta (The Professionals) has been the last hit because of their market focus BUT they have been in denial for 3 years. (Why do you think Leo Mullen Retired early???).

Students!.... Recall the period 1978 to 1987...... People Express (..are we there yet Harry!?), NewYork Air, Air #1, Brannif #2, Midway and my alma matta... Presidential Airways. Of all of these (and I'm sure there are others), only 1 survived...SWA......why.....because their market was Greyhound, Amtrack & the family Oldsmobile at a time when we were recovering from the LAST deep ression. Some legacy carriers will fall but how many low cost startups will fall too?

I long for the 'Old Days' too..... but they're gone. Those who can adapt will survive and I hope 🙂 I will too.