Gangwal expected to be Chairman/CEO of Worldspan

[nycbusdriver]

----------------
On 3/26/2003 11:59:40 AM DCAflyer wrote:

I guess $15 mil doesn''t go as far as it used to? Poor guy had to take a job in retirement.



----------------​

Gangwal didn''t retire, per se. I think the term they used was that he was leaving "to pursue other opportunities." But, since the USAirways BOD had voted him 30 years longevity, he did get his retirement money from USAirways (unlike many of us.)

 

[SalesGuyCCY]

Sorry, Dea, I totally disagree!! I think you are upset because Dave came in and slashed wages and other costs. W & G tried it the easy way, through a merger, but that failed. Well, Dave HAD to do he did for us to survive and it was a long time coming. Yes, we all hate the pay cuts and perhaps a 5% pay deferral but as CEO besides saving the company from liquidation, Dave''s first job is to the new shareholders. That''s capitalism and that''s his job. Good companies with a good product or service, properly capitalized and reasonable costs will do well, and employees will share in it. That''s what this is all about!

 

[Dea Certe]

SalesGuyCCy,

I think you meant the comment for Pitbull. I''m willing to give Dave a chance and cut him some slack because he inherited a mess. I think he''s had to do what had to be done. That''s not to say I liked it, but he had little choice. I am hopeful Dave will fix some of US Airways major problems. Rationalize the fares, rationalize the fleet and make a decision on what kind of airline US Airways is. We seem to be a bit of this and a dab of that.

I don''t think Gangwal was an effective manager. He made some bad decisions. The jury is still out on Dave for me.

 

[avek00]

----------------
On 3/27/2003 10:30:04 AM 35 Yrs and Counting wrote:

There are several good viewpoints here. One story circulating years ago was that when Wolf asked Gangwal come to U, Gangwal agreed with the understanding that he would not come here with to old philosophy at UAL of constantly firing cannonballs across the bows of the various groups. If so, that didn’t last long or Gangwal decided he liked using his own cannonballs instead.

As to Wolf and Gangwal being the worst, they were. Never in the history of U was there such disparity in net worth of this Company judging from cash balances, stock value, etc and that was not entirely the result of 9/11. Yes they brought it up very high but squandered every bit of it. Aside from the value of the dedicated employees there was minimal value in this Company at the end of their tenure. Dave didn’t know what bad shape we were in until he jumped into the pool completely but now we finally do have a chance to rebuild.

Like cats though regardless of performance these top executives always land on their feet, hence the job at Wordcom. I hope they keep him busy in ATL though so we know where to find him if we go after him for the money but in reality the chance of that is probably slim to none.


----------------​

People seem to forget that W&G were brought in with a de facto mandate from the BOD to extract the greatest value possible from a sale or merger of US. Their mission was essentially complete on May 24, 2000, when the merger deal with United was announced.

Gangwal stated there was no Plan B for US because there isn''t one - even now, the carrier has two options for the long-term: either become something larger than what it currently is through a merger/sale/asset purchase, or else face extinction later in the decade as costs begin to creep back up to unsustainable levels. The bankruptcy has simply bought the company time to tread water until some sort of corporate transaction can be consummated.

 

[DCAflyer]

Careful there, Avek. People are gonna start calling you Chip.

 

[PITbull]

----------------
On 3/26/2003 6:08:22 PM PineyBob wrote:

Ok help me out on this one. Was Gangwal really a bad guy or did he serve as Wolf''s "Hachet Man". Tell you why I ask, If he was really responsible for some of the crap that went on he''d most likely never get a job in the industry again. Now it seems he has one, which makes me wonder.

----------------​

Bob,

I will help you out on this one. Gangwal was a business man. Had a business plan, and took orders from the Board of Directors, specifically, Wolf. The guy left 5 months before Siegel was on the property and when there was over $900 million cash at U by year''s end in 2001.

One thing that stands out in my mind about this CEO, he was a person of his word, ask any labor leader. He would leave a meeting to take your call, and negotiations were made in "good faith".

At the time of the mid and late 90''s, airlines were booming, and so were we. Our airline went from poor, in the early 90''s to great company by year''s end of 1999. And its still a great company because the employees here at U obviously care about this airline and have proven it.

 

[MrAeroMan]

----------------
On 3/26/2003 6:09:07 PM PineyBob wrote:

Ok help me out on this one. Was Gangwal really a bad guy or did he serve as Wolf''s "Hachet Man". Tell you why I ask, If he was really responsible for some of the crap that went on he''d most likely never get a job in the industry again. Now it seems he has one, which makes me wonder.

----------------​

Gangwal was a "Hatchet Man" for Wolfie but he was also a terrible CEO. This guy was so full of himself that they wouldn''t even fly on the airline they were running. They used private jets to do all their travelling. What''s that say to the rank and file? Gangwal felt that if he was walking amoungst a group of employees they should fear him. He was unapproachable, flew off the handle at a moments notice, was verbally abusive, and not to mention had one thing on his mind and that was selling the airline. Wolfie and Gangwal came to U with one thing on their mind. Sell, sell, sell. They prettied up the place, bought some new airplanes, shoved some contracts down the employees throats that they knew wouldn''t be able to sustain the airline for the long haul, bought some political influence and set out on a course sell the joint to United and let them deal with the problems from the parity contracts.

 

[PITbull]

----------------
On 3/28/2003 11:06:17 PM MrAeroMan wrote:

----------------
On 3/26/2003 6:09:07 PM PineyBob wrote:

Ok help me out on this one. Was Gangwal really a bad guy or did he serve as Wolf's "Hachet Man". Tell you why I ask, If he was really responsible for some of the crap that went on he'd most likely never get a job in the industry again. Now it seems he has one, which makes me wonder.

----------------​

Gangwal was a "Hatchet Man" for Wolfie but he was also a terrible CEO. This guy was so full of himself that they wouldn't even fly on the airline they were running. They used private jets to do all their travelling. What's that say to the rank and file? Gangwal felt that if he was walking amoungst a group of employees they should fear him. He was unapproachable, flew off the handle at a moments notice, was verbally abusive, and not to mention had one thing on his mind and that was selling the airline. Wolfie and Gangwal came to U with one thing on their mind. Sell, sell, sell. They prettied up the place, bought some new airplanes, shoved some contracts down the employees throats that they knew wouldn't be able to sustain the airline for the long haul, bought some political influence and set out on a course sell the joint to United and let them deal with the problems from the parity contracts.

----------------​

Aeroman,

Pariety was not to be a "wind fall" for the pilots. The past leadership had a "plan" to sell the airline all along, just as this present leaderhip has a "restructuring plan" in place to facilitate another "corporate transaction" IMO. Management forced the pilots to give them relief for RJ flying and for 450 small jets for jobs this past summer. This "LCC" Mid-Atlantic purpose is to be the feeder of a huge airline, which is obvious by the sheer numbers. Only problem is that U "restructuring plan" has little to no growth in mainline for the next 6 years. If you think otherwise, your only deluding yourself. There is nothing the employees can do but hope whatever deal there maybe out there, we will be included. RSA has said he will stay one - two years in this airline. That's significant and IMO the "change of control language" will be triggered sooner than later. I think the execs will be going to challenge the market and set their price for employment. When a mangement team can secure billions off of labor, in corporate America, your "KING".

We can only hope that whatever hands exchange, we will be included and not be "collateral damage".

 

[PITbull]

----------------
On 3/28/2003 10:15:16 AM avek00 wrote:

----------------
On 3/27/2003 10:30:04 AM 35 Yrs and Counting wrote:

There are several good viewpoints here. One story circulating years ago was that when Wolf asked Gangwal come to U, Gangwal agreed with the understanding that he would not come here with to old philosophy at UAL of constantly firing cannonballs across the bows of the various groups. If so, that didn’t last long or Gangwal decided he liked using his own cannonballs instead.

As to Wolf and Gangwal being the worst, they were. Never in the history of U was there such disparity in net worth of this Company judging from cash balances, stock value, etc and that was not entirely the result of 9/11. Yes they brought it up very high but squandered every bit of it. Aside from the value of the dedicated employees there was minimal value in this Company at the end of their tenure. Dave didn’t know what bad shape we were in until he jumped into the pool completely but now we finally do have a chance to rebuild.

Like cats though regardless of performance these top executives always land on their feet, hence the job at Wordcom. I hope they keep him busy in ATL though so we know where to find him if we go after him for the money but in reality the chance of that is probably slim to none.


----------------​

People seem to forget that W&G were brought in with a de facto mandate from the BOD to extract the greatest value possible from a sale or merger of US. Their mission was essentially complete on May 24, 2000, when the merger deal with United was announced.

Gangwal stated there was no Plan B for US because there isn''t one - even now, the carrier has two options for the long-term: either become something larger than what it currently is through a merger/sale/asset purchase, or else face extinction later in the decade as costs begin to creep back up to unsustainable levels. The bankruptcy has simply bought the company time to tread water until some sort of corporate transaction can be consummated.

----------------​

avek,

Wages will start to snap back for pilots and all in the later years of our contracts. The reason why we all won''t see any payout from the 2007 and 2008 lump sums of 7% pretax with $100 million cap, is because the co. profit projections fall short of this for those very reasons you sight above.

I MO, I am sharing yours....that''s what I''ve been thinking since after the summer concessions. One thing about Chip...he tried to tell us, once he had his epiphany.
Your last sentence, is the "new reality".

 

[PITbull]

----------------
On 3/27/2003 8:48:27 PM SalesGuyCCY wrote:

Sorry, Dea, I totally disagree!! I think you are upset because Dave came in and slashed wages and other costs. W & G tried it the easy way, through a merger, but that failed. Well, Dave HAD to do he did for us to survive and it was a long time coming. Yes, we all hate the pay cuts and perhaps a 5% pay deferral but as CEO besides saving the company from liquidation, Dave's first job is to the new shareholders. That's capitalism and that's his job. Good companies with a good product or service, properly capitalized and reasonable costs will do well, and employees will share in it. That's what this is all about!

----------------
SalesGuy from CCY,

So sitting up there in the Crystal palace, gving us your analysis of "job well done", WHERE DO THE EMPLOYEES FIT IN, IN YOUR CAPATILISM SCHEMA?

Your "employees will share- in philosphy", is like saying ..."for every $1,000,000 dollars I make in profits; you get $1.

Hey, that's profit sharing. Did you even bother to read our agreements?
​

Management is just all over these boards.

 

[avek00]

In its current form, US Airways is doomed to have perpetually high operating costs, for two reasons:

1. A short-haul network airline has high CASMs because it needs just as much (and oftentimes more) labor as a long-haul network, but is spreading the costs over a shorter distance. This is OK so long as the short-haul RASMs are higher, but this has proven to not be the case in the post-9/11 operating environment.

2. US is largely concentrated in the Northeastern/Mid-Atlantic USA, which has the highest labor costs in the country.

The bankruptcy allowed US to restructure its operating costs to give the company several years of breathing room. However, things will go back to the dreaded "normal" over time if the company does not expand its route network. In short, US has only two options to pursue by decade''s end: grow, or die.

 

[PITbull]

----------------
On 3/30/2003 9:01:56 AM avek00 wrote:

The bankruptcy allowed US to restructure its operating costs to give the company several years of breathing room. However, things will go back to the dreaded "normal" over time if the company does not expand its route network. In short, US has only two options to pursue by decade''s end: grow, or die.

----------------​

.....or merge.

 

[MrAeroMan]

----------------
On 3/29/2003 12:09:15 AM PITbull wrote:

----------------
On 3/28/2003 11:06:17 PM MrAeroMan wrote:




Gangwal was a "Hatchet Man" for Wolfie but he was also a terrible CEO. This guy was so full of himself that they wouldn''t even fly on the airline they were running. They used private jets to do all their travelling. What''s that say to the rank and file? Gangwal felt that if he was walking amoungst a group of employees they should fear him. He was unapproachable, flew off the handle at a moments notice, was verbally abusive, and not to mention had one thing on his mind and that was selling the airline. Wolfie and Gangwal came to U with one thing on their mind. Sell, sell, sell. They prettied up the place, bought some new airplanes, shoved some contracts down the employees throats that they knew wouldn''t be able to sustain the airline for the long haul, bought some political influence and set out on a course sell the joint to United and let them deal with the problems from the parity contracts.

----------------​

Aeroman,

Pariety was not to be a "wind fall" for the pilots. The past leadership had a "plan" to sell the airline all along, just as this present leaderhip has a "restructuring plan" in place to facilitate another "corporate transaction" IMO. Management forced the pilots to give them relief for RJ flying and for 450 small jets for jobs this past summer. This "LCC" Mid-Atlantic purpose is to be the feeder of a huge airline, which is obvious by the sheer numbers. Only problem is that U "restructuring plan" has little to no growth in mainline for the next 6 years. If you think otherwise, your only deluding yourself. There is nothing the employees can do but hope whatever deal there maybe out there, we will be included. RSA has said he will stay one - two years in this airline. That''s significant and IMO the "change of control language" will be triggered sooner than later. I think the execs will be going to challenge the market and set their price for employment. When a mangement team can secure billions off of labor, in corporate America, your "KING".

We can only hope that whatever hands exchange, we will be included and not be "collateral demage".

----------------
​

Pitbull,

I agree with you about parity. We''re on the same page and I believe I said that. While I''m not sure about the other points you make I''m sure time will tell if they are on the mark or not. I too don''t see much room for mainline flying increases but the only thing that could change that would be a huge turn in the economy. Apart from that I think the airline is still in trouble. They''re still charging almost $1000.00 to fly from DCA to CHS on a walkup fare on a turboprop. Who in there right mind would pay that? That''s where the true problem is.