Financial Analysis

[usfliboi]

YAWN! I agree alpa will agree and that should be enough once dave contributes his share. I dont see the rest of the employee groups caring too much about their pension since most of us dont have much of one and or is offset by social security! So kudos to alpa!

 

[Biffeman]

Chip they can terminate your pension and they still are obligated by your contract to replace it,[BR]now ask yourself this, the PBGC only gaurantees this amount per month:[BR][BR]
[P][FONT face=Helvetica color=#000080]Q. [/FONT][FONT face=Helvetica]What is the maximum amount that PBGC can guarantee? [/FONT][/P]
[P][FONT face=Helvetica color=#000080]A.[/FONT][FONT color=#000080] [/FONT]PBGC's maximum benefit guarantee is set each year under provisions of ERISA. For pension plans ending in 2002, for example, the maximum guaranteed amount is $3,579.55 per month ($42,954.60 per year) for a worker who retires at age 65. This guarantee is lower if you begin receiving payments before age 65 or if your pension includes benefits for a survivor or other beneficiary. The table at the end of this booklet shows PBGC's maximum guarantee for retirement at various ages. [BR][BR]Now ask this, this benefit level amount will protect must US employees, but no a pilots pension nor million dollar lump sum payment.[BR][BR]So it seems ALPA has the most to lose, every other group will be ok.[BR][BR][A href="http://www.pbgc.gov/benefits.htm"]http://www.pbgc.gov/benefits.htm[/A][/P]

 

[pitguy]

MarkMyWords,

The IAM union itself wanted yes votes on our contract and on United's. That is why they are voting/voted on them more than once. Allot of the mechanic population represented on those contracts are the ones that feel 'sold out' and they are offsetting others that are represented on those contracts. Currently on both properties drives are ongoing to change the unions for the mechanics due to reasons like this.

 

[chipmunn]

Biffeman:

US Airways is at a "crossroads" and there was dramatic new information presented to the unions yesterday.

I believe ALPA will protect itself and either the other unions join in the process or management will be forced to terminate non-pilot pensions and seek deeper cuts through the court.

Here's why: The ALPA MEC resolution says, "the participation of the US Airways pilots shall be contingent on participation of all labor groups and management in the comprehensive program of cost reductions.

Therefore, if all labor groups do not participate one way or another, either with the termination of their pension plans (which would save the airline $135 million per year), the compamy petitioning the court for further cuts regardless of the S.1113 letter, or more layoffs, the airline will like fragment/liquidate through the Chapter 7 process.

Management and ALPA will work to prevent this from happening and the pilots will do their part, but about 50 percent of the cuts must come one way or another from other than pilots.

Separately, in regard to the other labor groups:

1. AFA is caught between a rock and a hard place and will see cuts. 810 positions are being eliminated by the company staffing the aircraft at FAA minimum. In addition, the AFA has "me too" clauses in their contracts that dependent on the pilot changes will automatically occur without AFA negotiation.

2. In regard to the IAM-M, the closure of the TPA maintenance facility and maintenance consolidation in PIT & CLT, will have a ripple effect with more senior mechanics bumping others and with additional economies of scale created, we will likely see a further reduction in the mechanic ranks.

3. The IAM-FSA and CWA airport personnel are being outsourced to RJ operations, which will occur faster when ALPA reaches a Freedom Air and Mainline EMB-170/175 RJ, which is expected to be announced by mid-month.

4. CWA Rez personnel will see the same affect as the IAM-M with the MCO reservation facility closed.

Yesterday the ALPA code-a-phone said the company, which is grappling with slow revenue growth while trying to emerge from bankruptcy, is not meeting terms of its debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing. In addition, Rueters reported "I would think that there are some problems right now to be addressed," David Bronner, chief executive officer of the Retirement Systems of Alabama, which provided the financing, said in an interview. "Let's just say we're meeting with them tomorrow. We'll see what happens," Bronner said. He added he was "not sure" whether the issues putting US Airways' financing in jeopardy would be addressed.

Biff, the cuts are coming one way or another and management has the tools in their possession to do what is necessary. In fact, the ALPA MEC resolution requires management action or the airline will be forced to fragment/liquidate.

Nobody likes this situation, but the information above is fact. In fact, one MEC member told me, "There are forces at work, that our not our friends. As much as I would like to blame the company for the new time line, I can’t, we have a real time line imposed by others that must be addressed.

Biff, it's not management's fault, it's the demands being placed on the company by RSA, the PBGC, the creditors committee, and the bankruptcy court.

Chip

 

[USAirBoyA330]

Chip:

Care to go through the "time line" with us? What are we facing in terms of length of negotiations with ALPA....AFA CWA and IAM? I guess the court won't get the POR on DEC 9th like we said?
Anything from the BOD?

 

[USAirBoyA330]

Chip:

Care to go through the "time line" with us? What are we facing in terms of length of negotiations with ALPA....AFA CWA and IAM? I guess the court won't get the POR on DEC 9th like we said?
Anything from the BOD?

 

[MarkMyWords]

Pitguy,

I realize that there are issues with the mechanics and the IAM, but by not agreeing to negotiate with the company, at this extremely critical juncture, who are you proving your point to? And what kind of results will this type of stance have? Will the creditors petition the court to abrogate your contracts? Will the company terminate your pension? Will the company file for Chapter 7 and liquidate?

Are any of these a viable options just to prove a point to your union? There has to be a more constructive (or less destructive) way to prove your dissatisfaction with your union. How about picketing the IAM's union office......isn't that what the union would have you do if you were fed up with contract negotiations with the company?

 

[atlmd80]

Chip wrote--
Biff, it's not management's fault, it's the demands being placed on the company by RSA, the PBGC, the creditors committee, and the bankruptcy court.


That, in a nut shell, is bankruptcy. The management does not control how the company is run. All of those people who say BK is the way to go should read that sentence.

 

[atlmd80]

Chip wrote--
Biff, it's not management's fault, it's the demands being placed on the company by RSA, the PBGC, the creditors committee, and the bankruptcy court.


That, in a nut shell, is bankruptcy. The management does not control how the company is run. All of those people who say BK is the way to go should read that sentence.

 

[N628AU]

I do blame management for not taking a more aggressive stance to address the revenue situation and more specifically, the fare structure. In Dave's letter to employees dated November 26, he stated the days of the $2000 transcon airfare are gone. My question is, then why are those fares still published if no one is buying them. If a retailer is asking $250 for a coat, and they don't sell any, they don't sell it for that price anymore, they just don't sit on a stock of coats, and airline seats are much more "perishable", as once the flight leaves, it is useless (per Ben B. himself). If this company is on death's door as many have us believe, what do we have to lose from trying a radical approach to the problem?

 

[N628AU]

I do blame management for not taking a more aggressive stance to address the revenue situation and more specifically, the fare structure. In Dave's letter to employees dated November 26, he stated the days of the $2000 transcon airfare are gone. My question is, then why are those fares still published if no one is buying them. If a retailer is asking $250 for a coat, and they don't sell any, they don't sell it for that price anymore, they just don't sit on a stock of coats, and airline seats are much more "perishable", as once the flight leaves, it is useless (per Ben B. himself). If this company is on death's door as many have us believe, what do we have to lose from trying a radical approach to the problem?

 

[ilg30/7]

Here's another little 'fact' that may be of some interest:

During the month of October, when revenue supposedly 'fell off a cliff', USAirways had an operating profit of $19 million.

It matters not to me since I am gone in January anyway, but for those of you left I submit that you examine the numbers yourselves before agreeing to anything. Because here's the thing:

SOMEBODY IS LYING TO YOU.

 

[ilg30/7]

Here's another little 'fact' that may be of some interest:

During the month of October, when revenue supposedly 'fell off a cliff', USAirways had an operating profit of $19 million.

It matters not to me since I am gone in January anyway, but for those of you left I submit that you examine the numbers yourselves before agreeing to anything. Because here's the thing:

SOMEBODY IS LYING TO YOU.

 

[N628AU]

MarkMyWords:

MSP employees did not take 100% of the targeted original concessions. From "TheHub", on July 31:

The original non-union and management portion of the $985 million overall labor target savings was $35 million. That amount was reduced to 85 percent of $35 million, to just under $30 million, as a result of the unions meeting 85 percent of their target numbers.

Only officers took 100% per the statement

 

[N628AU]

MarkMyWords:

MSP employees did not take 100% of the targeted original concessions. From "TheHub", on July 31:

The original non-union and management portion of the $985 million overall labor target savings was $35 million. That amount was reduced to 85 percent of $35 million, to just under $30 million, as a result of the unions meeting 85 percent of their target numbers.

Only officers took 100% per the statement