Doogie "shellacked" during Senate hearings...

[delta777]

US Airways' hostile takeover bid for Delta ran into a hostile audience Wednesday on Capitol Hill, where The Arizona Republic writes that CEO "Doug Parker was shellacked in a Senate hearing on airline mergers that turned into a US Airways/Delta showdown." The paper adds that the "the committee chairman joked at one point about keeping distance between the dueling CEOs on the panel." The Atlanta Journal Constitution went so far as to say the panel was "sympathetic" to Delta's stand-alone cause. "One senator after another expressed serious doubts about industry consolidation, saying they feared a loss of service to smaller markets. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, who chairs the aviation subcommittee, even floated the possibility of imposing more regulations to boost service to small communities," the Journal-Constitution writes.

"The industry is far too changed and far too global for us to return to a completely regulated environment. However, I am becoming increasingly convinced that some regulation may become an option to make sure small communities are not harmed by consolidation," Rockefeller said. The committee's tone was also noted by the Republic, which says the group "fired questions and concerns at [US Airways'] Parker about promises of no layoffs, no problem handling more debt and no fare gouging; the merger's impact on smaller cities; the wisdom of doing a deal when his company is still digesting the America West/US Airways merger; the hostile nature of the deal; the overlapping routes; why, in fact, US Airways needs a merger if it is financially healthy and Delta is on the mend."

The paper also says the hearing "got testy a couple of times." Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., chimed in: "This merger causes me concerns, and I just want to get that on the record." USA TODAY writes that US Airways' Parker was "the only witness to support the deal, [saying] it would strengthen both carriers. He testified that strong network airlines ‘are the best hope for small communities' because discounters such as Southwest Airlines generally don't serve those airports."

Ouch 😱 😱 😱 :down: :down:

 

[FWAAA]

Ya know, that's all well and good, but the Senate isn't given the authority to approve or reject this merger. Nothing but a lot of hot air.

 

[autofixer]

delta 777, You seem to think the average LCC employee wants your pathetic bunch. You are incorrect. Hit the road jack and good luck!

 

[delta777]

delta 777, You seem to think the average LCC employee wants your pathetic bunch. You are incorrect. Hit the road jack and good luck!

Nothing could be further from the truth autofixer. I happen to believe that the vast number of employees from both sides don't want this hostile takeover, Doogie seems to be the only one who wants this "pathetic bunch". Perhaps venting your anger issues at him would help alleviate the stress your clearly feeling over the matter. Just to show you there's no hard feelings from this pathetic bunch, here's a smiley face for you.🙂

 

[PHLfa88]

Nothing could be further from the truth autofixer. I happen to believe that the vast number of employees from both sides don't want this hostile takeover, Doogie seems to be the only one who wants this "pathetic bunch". Perhaps venting your anger issues at him would help alleviate the stress your clearly feeling over the matter. Just to show you there's no hard feelings from this pathetic bunch, here's a smiley face for you.🙂

I WANT IT!!! :bleh: :bleh: :bleh:

 

[Jonnyd]

I WANT IT!!! :bleh: :bleh: :bleh:

Someone should tell whoever decided of the mobile billboards idea around CHQ should stop wasting their money because no one is paying attention anymore. Everyone just feels bad for the drivers because they have to go in circles all day. Plus, they're acting like we as employees have any say in the matter. It's like they think we're going to go "you know what...just because I read that billboard that's been circling the building 50 million times I'm going to go upstairs and tell Doug that he's stealing from us! :down:

 

[JMM]

I'm no fan of DL, as I have NEVER had a positive experience in the 5 to 8 segments I've flown them.

That said, I do not think it in the interest of VFF's, FF's, DL & US employees and the flying publice in general for this merger to move forward.

I may have been born at night but not last night. A few things that give me pause are:

Who stands to gain the most are those with the lowest vested interest in either carrier (Hedge Funds etc)

Who stands to lose the most? There is now way on earth you can convince me of no layoffs. Now I guess Buying out excess middle management could allow you to spin that as a non layoff. Not to mention the MDA people thrown under the bus with the assinine job offer they got with no paid training in PHX knowing those F/A's resources were limited, they weren't layoffs either????

When you eliminate your biggest competitor how can prices not go up for the customer. I might be slow but I ain't stupid.

And how does the new company plan to support that debt load without higher fares? And if we're to belive DP that the merger will have no fare increases then where is the ability to support that debt load? Or will the sale of assets be used to lower the debt. Where will the people go that supported those assets if there are no layoffs?

The US Senate is a court of public opinion and US lost a round yesterday.

Piney, I could not agree with you more. You are 110% right on!

 

[Doc]

US Airways' hostile takeover bid for Delta ran into a hostile audience Wednesday on Capitol Hill,


You only give one side there was a positive side as well. You also seem to forget that if US Airways was asked to give up a few more BILLION I think it would be a done deal. There are two more investors waiting to get in on the deal.

So put your seat belt on.

I WANT IT!!! :bleh: :bleh: :bleh:

same here

 

[brokenwrench]

More debt, yeah thats the answer.

 

[delta777]

same here

These 2 mystery investors had better hurry up or else they'll miss Doogie's self-imposed Feb. 1 deadline.

 

[luvn737s]

I'm no fan of DL, as I have NEVER had a positive experience in the 5 to 8 segments I've flown them.

That said, I do not think it in the interest of VFF's, FF's, DL & US employees and the flying publice in general for this merger to move forward.

I may have been born at night but not last night. A few things that give me pause are:

Who stands to gain the most are those with the lowest vested interest in either carrier (Hedge Funds etc)

Who stands to lose the most? There is now way on earth you can convince me of no layoffs. Now I guess Buying out excess middle management could allow you to spin that as a non layoff. Not to mention the MDA people thrown under the bus with the assinine job offer they got with no paid training in PHX knowing those F/A's resources were limited, they weren't layoffs either????

When you eliminate your biggest competitor how can prices not go up for the customer. I might be slow but I ain't stupid.

And how does the new company plan to support that debt load without higher fares? And if we're to belive DP that the merger will have no fare increases then where is the ability to support that debt load? Or will the sale of assets be used to lower the debt. Where will the people go that supported those assets if there are no layoffs?

The US Senate is a court of public opinion and US lost a round yesterday.

Wasn't MDA staffed entirely by furloughees? How can you say that a furloughed employee that gets a temporary job and is returned to their previously furloughed status is an additional furlough? The whole W.O. Express system could be spun off to Mesa tomarrow with a stroke of a pen, yet Tempe sees their value, but they are not the top priority.

The rest of your doubts are answered by looking at US. Have they raised prices in all their exclusive markets? Have people really been furloughed? Has the new US ordered airplanes? Has it increased destinations? Has it instituted profit sharing when it didn't have to? Did it cut the pay of AWA employees after 9/11?

When AWA lowered fares and restrictions everyone thought it was the beginning of the end. Actually it was the beginning of profitability. Everyone said you'll never see aircraft smaller then a 737 on the mainline. Enter the E-190. US has the right (it thinks) to force the US East contract on the West pilots and could do so and tell ALPA to see them in court, but they aren't doing that. In fact, they have offered the US West contract in total to the east.

Parker isn't giving away the store, but he has kept his word as far as I can tell, even if those words aren't what everyone wants to hear.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Wasn't MDA staffed entirely by furloughees?

No, they were not all furloughees.

How can you say that a furloughed employee that gets a temporary job and is returned to their previously furloughed status is an additional furlough?

The same way you can say a new hire who loses their job 1-2 years later is furloughed even though they "only returned to their previous non-employee status."

Have they raised prices in all their exclusive markets?

Presumably, every time there was a general industry fare increase. But since those would be the EAS markets operated under a revenue sharing agreement, I'm not even sure it's completely up to US.

Have people really been furloughed?

Yes, see above.

Has the new US ordered airplanes?

Ordered? What was it - 7-8 A321's added to an existing "old" US order for 200+ A319/20/21's. Plus the "is it still valid or not" order for the A350 in return for the Airbus loan.

Has it increased destinations?

Yes.

Has it instituted profit sharing when it didn't have to?

No, the profit sharing is required by the East contracts.

Did it cut the pay of AWA employees after 9/11?

I've read here that it did not.

How is the Parker Punch out there?

Jim

 

[PITbull]

Did it cut the pay of AWA employees after 9/11?

Since Jim answered most of your retort...I'll take a jab at this one...

AWA labor groups had contracts that had to be honored and were not amendable. AWA was not in BK post 9/11. In fact, AWA was the first to qualify for an ATSB loan post 9/11 as part of the "Industry Bail Out Money". The ATSB board stated that AWA wages were low that there was no requirement to lower wages further for qualifying for the ATSB.

USAirways was the second and last airline to qualify for the ATSB gov. backed bail out loan.

As I've stated before, between the ATSB, PBGC, two bankruptcies, Christmas Meldown of 2004, exec retainer/severance bonus motions in court, labor unrest... Congress I'm sure remembers U's history post 9/11 all too well. I will further go on and state that they are well aware that U's position of profitability came directly from the cost savings forced out of their employees, and that labor unrest still exists simply because there is only one group who have seen their compensation quadrople, and in some instances to obscene levels from this past year of profitability....that's right, the Execs.

 

[luvn737s]

From Boeing Boy

No, they were not all furloughees.

Do you have an idea of how many pilots were new hires?

The same way you can say a new hire who loses their job 1-2 years later is furloughed even though they "only returned to their previous non-employee status."

I think I said additioanl furloughs. Why double-count previously furloughed people?

Presumably, every time there was a general industry fare increase. But since those would be the EAS markets operated under a revenue sharing agreement, I'm not even sure it's completely up to US.

By exclusive markets I mean non-stop service. Have PHX-CLT, PHX-DCA fares risen dramatically and solely as a result of the HP/US merger?

Ordered? What was it - 7-8 A321's added to an existing "old" US order for 200+ A319/20/21's. Plus the "is it still valid or not" order for the A350 in return for the Airbus loan.

The E-170 options were not converted to E-175 and sold to Republic, but rather converted to E-190's and brought to the mainline.

No, the profit sharing is required by the East contracts.

During BK, those provisions could have been eliminated, but weren't.

I've read here that it did not.

Following the ATSB loans, many vendors were forced to lower prices, but the labor vendors did not. With industry wages in freefall, Congress had no way of knowing whether or not AWA's labor costs were low enough or not, and they did not come back and force labor cost cuts later.

How is the Parker Punch out there?

I suppose if it was necessary to distort a falsehood to make it appear true, then a punch of some sort might be in order. However, history speaks for itself and the truth is alot more boring than Delta's speculative hyperventilating.

 

[Fly4Free]

This Just In:

The news wires and writers hummed after Wednesday’s hearing and, among US Airways’ supporters were Delta’s bondholders, who talked with the Wall Street Journal. A spokeswoman for the group said, “It is our view that the concerns voiced by Delta management about antitrust, labor and consumer issues related to a US Airways deal are
exaggerated, and we believe a transaction is possible." She continued, "We urged the Official Creditors' Committee today to engage in discussions with US Airways.â€￾

Also speaking against Delta - specifically, the airline’s standalone reorganization plan - was both the City of Denver (owner of Denver International Airport) and the City of Los
Angeles, owner of LAX and Ontario International Airport, where Delta holds leases. Both formally objected to the plan, with the City of Los Angeles saying it is "not confirmable as a matter of law and, thus, should not be approved because proceeding with a solicitation of the plan in its present form would waste valuable judicial and estate resources.â€￾