For the IAM...

[chipmunn]

Cav:

Every employee group with a new agreement has taken a retroactive pay cut to July 1 because it's required per the ATSB application. That's the problem with this whole mess, the numbers required to get the ATSB loan guarantee and after the Chapter 11 filing, both the DIP and Emergence financing.

The reason I am harping on my questions is that it's not Siegel's hammer, it's the government and the investors hammer.

In regard to the $6 million bonus payments, you get what you pay for. I know I am different than some, but I personally want the best management team possible to get us profitable ASAP. This will provide higher profit sharing checks sooner and/or stock capital gains. I'm tired of bad management and I do not want the good one's to leave because of low pay. That could be fatal.

Chip

 

[chipmunn]

Dear IAM-M Member:

Two days ago I asked the following questions and up to this point nobody has provided their opinion or answer to any of my questions. I would like to re-post the questions to create a thread specifically directed at the questions. Would any IAM-M member offer answers? Thanks.
Reposted:
The TPG MOU and CSFB & BOA DIP financing agreements require target concessions to get the $500 million DIP funding. The same thing holds true for the $1.2 billion ATSB federal loan guarantee and TPG emergence financing.

Without the IAM-M target numbers to meet the contractual requirements above, which require a $154 million annual IAM-M cost reduction, how can the company gain access to these funds to continue to operate and reorganize?

The bankruptcy courts primary responsibility is to the creditors, both secured and unsecured. Without the business plan cost savings identified in the DIP financing plan and the ATSB loan guarantee applications, how can the airline continue to operate without these financial resources?

If you were going to prepare written and oral arguments against your September 10 S.1113 hearing, where the company is seeking relief from your CBA, how would you prepare your defense for a company in default?

By voting no and understanding you will be summoned to appear against this motion, what is your motivation? For one to vote no, I believe the voter must believe they can get a better deal. Would you explain how this would now occur?

What would you do to convince Judge Mitchell you deserve more than the company's final proposal instead of the bankruptcy court imposing deeper cuts, per the company's request?

I ask these questions and seek a mature discussion to understand your thought process and motivation. I ask that the reply be only to the questions, versus other comments.

Thanks.

Chip

 

[cavalier]

Chip,

Go tell Dave to put away his hammer, forget the 6mil bonus, also the retro cuts, and I am telling you and him, it will pass in a heart beat!
Trust me on this.

Cav

PS: I voted to accept, and this is what I hear EVERYONE saying!!!!!!

 

[chipmunn]

Cav:

This whole mess makes me sick too. It is not above Siegel to play hard ball because he has to, whether it's to the lessors, ALPA, the TWU, CWA, the IAM, or anybody else.

I believe it's not coincidental the company announced specific schedule changes and furloughs the day after the restructuring agreement was not ratified.

However, I understand there is some CWA progress and the IAM and company resumed negotiations yesterday (Thursday), immediately after the vote result. Apparently, receipt and dispatch was a big mechanic issue in regard to productivity and the parties are trying to work things out, because neither party wants to go to court on September 10.

I'm hopeful a suitable deal can be obtained for the CWA and IAM.

Chip

 

[cavalier]

Chip, understood clearly, believe me clearly! I am just telling you what I hear. You see I work in all the hangers and know many of the ranks in Pit, and now even the ones from Charlotte that are here. It's crazy, all this mess over silly small items! But I am just stating what I hear over and over. I blame our union for not making it perfectly clear, if it was perfectly clear I really don't think we would be having this conversation! With the jobs cuts announced just this evening, I would bet if it was put up for another vote it would pass just as it was! I really believe that, giving the stricken faces I looked into this evening. What else can I say, I too am frustrated at this entire mess. God Help Us.

Cav

 

[airknocker]

Chip, you get what you pay for, does this only apply to management? We had the best paid mgt in the world! This is what we paid for? We need people who are motivated not just by money, but want to actually build a company, Rickenbackers, Trippes, Davises, Barneses, Kellehers, etc,. By thw way next time you call a plumber or take your car in for service try negotiating a 20% lower charge and see the fine service. The cost of doing business.

 

[simfixer]

"The reason I am harping on my questions is that it's not Siegel's hammer, it's the government and the investors hammer"

Chip,
You should amend your statement to "the new investors hammer", the old investors already got hammered.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

----------------
On 8/31/2002 9:33:03 AM

Chip, you get what you pay for, does this only apply to management? We had the best paid mgt in the world! This is what we paid for? We need people who are motivated not just by money, but want to actually build a company, Rickenbackers, Trippes, Davises, Barneses, Kellehers, etc,. By thw way next time you call a plumber or take your car in for service try negotiating a 20% lower charge and see the fine service. The cost of doing business.
----------------

Give it up! That's OLD news, and it's water under the bridge. Forget the past, it really doesn't matter how we got here, but we've got to fix this sinking ship, and FAST!

 

[cavalier]

Chip,

If you would send me your personal email address I would like to send you some information I feel is important. send it to: [email protected]

thanks...cav

 

[airknocker]

Old news, true, but those who ignore it are doomed to repeat it. TPG, Marv Davis, Orinstein, etc, see value in U, but that value can only be maintained if reliable service is given. Chip constantly defends well compensated mgt talent, while preaching the sacrifices to be demanded of labor, which in this case are the mechs who keep his Airbus servicable. Bottomline, these aircraft are worthless in a very short time without constant maintenance, ergo no value, to Dave, the creditors or his investor friends. It doesn't matter 767 or RJ, no mechs, no fly. So Dave, can we talk?

 

[A320 Driver]

Is the elimination of dispatch and receipt a dead issue for most IAM members? Just curious.

A320 Driver

 

[jetmechline]

Cav:

This whole mess makes me sick too. It is not above Siegel to play hard ball because he has to, whether it's to the lessors, ALPA, the TWU, CWA, the IAM, or anybody else.

I believe it's not coincidental the company announced specific schedule changes and furloughs the day after the restructuring agreement was not ratified.

However, I understand there is some CWA progress and the IAM and company resumed negotiations yesterday (Thursday), immediately after the vote result. Apparently, receipt and dispatch was a big mechanic issue in regard to productivity and the parties are trying to work things out, because neither party wants to go to court on September 10.

I'm hopeful a suitable deal can be obtained for the CWA and IAM.

Chip
__________________________________________________________
Chip, thanks for the information about the company and IAM resuming negotiations immediately after the vote. We were told by our IAM local here in Pit , the exact opposite!

1.We were told that the union contacted Dave Siegel about negotiations and he supposedly said,"SEE YOU IN COURT."

2.We were told that there were no negotiations scheduled and that it was in the hands of the BK judge.

3.We were also told----- AH hell forget it. As long as we can come to you for the truth that's good enough![]

 

[Lakeguy67]

Chip is wrong, there are no negotiations that have resumed.

Machinists, US Airways Discuss Mechanic’s
Rejection of Restructuring Proposal

Washington D.C., August 30, 2002 – At the request of US Airways’ CEO David Siegel, IAM General Vice President Robert Roach, Jr. and Airline Coordinator Jim Varsel met briefly with Siegel and the carrier’s Vice President of Labor Relations Doug McKeen yesterday at the company’s headquarters in Arlington, VA.

The company representatives stressed that an integral element of its restructuring plan is equal participation among all employees. Siegel claimed that it would be impossible for a successful restructuring to take place unless the Mechanic and Related and CWA represented employees participate at the same levels as other employee groups.

By 57 percent, US Airways’ 6,800 Mechanic and Related employees, represented by IAM District 141-M, rejected a company proposal calling for $160 million in cost reductions from the group on August 28, 2002. Voting on a separate company proposal, the carrier’s 5,400 Fleet Service employees, represented by IAM District 141, ratified the company plan by a 62 percent margin.

"We informed US Airways that the Machinists Union is well aware of our obligation to discuss these issues under Section 1113 of the U.S. Bankruptcy laws," said Roach. "However, our members have clearly spoken and our actions will be guided by their decision."

A September 10, 2002 hearing is scheduled in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Alexandria, VA to consider US Airways’ application for relief from the Mechanic and Related collective bargaining agreement. "The IAM will aggressively oppose the application to abrogate and/or modify the collective bargaining agreement," said Roach.

No further discussion between the Machinists Union and US Airways are currently scheduled.

The IAM is the largest transportation union in North America representing 150,000 airline and railroad employees in the United States and Canada, including 12,200 at US Airways. Please visit www.goiam.org for more information about the Machinists Union.

 

[N628AU]

I know, but most don't. It was a last minute change that most did not know about, and the IAM tried to play it off, but it was obvious they had no clue how upset some would be. Did you notice the agreement gave a choice between a return of stocks or profit sharing? The IAM did not include a choice on the ballots. I guess they figure they could decide that in our best interests, too.

 

[Lakeguy67]

Question for Chip

Since when do you negotiate for the IAM or are you a memeber of the labor relations deptartment for US Airways?