Getting ahead of ourselves

[totobird]

I appreciate all the positive posts recently since all the unions are on board but I think we are getting way ahead of ourselves.
Several unions still must have the rank and file approve the new agreements.
I can tell you that from the reaction in Pittsburgh last night after details starting surfacing that the members here will vote NO.
Everybody I spoke with feels that this new contract is basically giving our jobs away.
The first concession package delt with downsizing the airline and thus created the need to decrease the employee numbers.
This new contract does not indicate anymore downsizing but in fact gives many jobs to Express and outsourcing.
I seriously have my doubts about the IAM membership passing this one.

 

[totobird]

Chip you are NOT 100% correct when you say that all unions are advising the rank and file to vote Yes.
The head of the Flight Attendants union was on Channel 11 in Pittsburgh this morning and she stated that she may not recommend that the members vote Yes due to the fact that the Insurance costs are too high and the problems with the pension fund as it stands will cost too much to fix.

Also in Pittsburgh some of the fleet union reps were telling agents to vote NO.

 

[chipmunn]

Ir the TA's are not ratiifed there will be no company. Why? The unsecured creditors committee has agreed to this plan. Why do you think the leadership of every union, including the IAM, is recommending ratification?

For thosee being furloughed a no vote is a vote for no severance pay, no COBRA, having to fund medical, dental, life, and WC insurance them self, no pass privledges, no J4J (if desired), and no income while looking for another job, if desired.

A no vote for those remaining employed is a direct trip to the unemployment line.

Chip

 

[delldude]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 12/21/2002 10:30:02 AM totobird wrote:
[P]Chip you are NOT 100% correct when you say that all unions are advising the rank and file to vote Yes.[BR]The head of the Flight Attendants union was on Channel 11 in Pittsburgh this morning and she stated that she may not recommend that the members vote Yes due to the fact that the Insurance costs are too high and the problems with the pension fund as it stands will cost too much to fix.[BR][BR]Also in Pittsburgh some of the fleet union reps were telling agents to vote NO.[BR][BR][/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P][/P]we heard IAM had a problem with the insurance,but were told WE were the last ones to deal with it.if we didn't like it,all the other groups took the same basic formula and if we didm't,they all had ME TOO clauses.[BR] something is going to come to a head with pensions.i think the pilots pensions are the biggest problemm...[BR]the mood after we heard about the tenetive and got to look at it in PIT hangar 5 was rather so so.i didn't hear any one getting overly upset.didn't hear any of the 'radicals' calling for mass suicide or anything.t

 

[Biffeman]

Chip they have not voted on it yet![BR][BR][BR][BR]The company said that the capital structure and distributions included in the Plan were negotiated consensually with the company's Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and the Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA) -- the airline's Debtor-in-Possession (DIP) lender and its proposed equity sponsor. Both groups are expected to formally endorse the Plan at or prior to the hearing on the adequacy of the Disclosure Statement that has been scheduled for Jan. 16, 2003, in the Bankruptcy Court.[BR][BR]This filing is essentially the blueprint for the steps we need to complete to emerge from Chapter 11 protection, and how the company will be restructured. The filing begins the formal emergence process from Chapter 11 which will include a hearing on the adequacy of the Disclosure Statement on Jan. 16, 2003, [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00"]solicitation of votes from creditors beginning in late January and continuing until early March, [/FONT]and a confirmation hearing on the Plan in late March followed by emergence from Chapter 11 upon consummation of the Plan.

 

[A320 Driver]

Totobird,
You are probably right. The fate of this company could very well rest with the membership of the IAM. Not exactly what I'd call an enviable position.

A320 Driver

 

[Biffeman]

I can see utility folks voting no, lost first and second shift at 11 stations, lost all three shifts at four stations and lost reciept and dispatch at 22 stations. Guess it makes good business sense to pay a mech $26 an hour vs $16 for utility for R&D work. [BR][BR]As you can see there is not one member of DL 141M's negotiating committee that is from the utility classification.[BR][BR]Looking at about 277 layoffs

 

[Capecod]

"With the concessions already in place, costs are low enough that even a marginal plan for the future has a good chance of working. Either way, a no vote won't change things."
-----------------

Mike, I don't think that you are getting the point. The second round of concessions is not so much about competing with the other major airlines as it is about meeting the conditions for the 1 Billion dollar ATSB loan. Without that loan, US will not get out of BK and will be forced into CH 7. I am not sure this is the time to be calling the bluff. If you can't make a living on your new pay, keep working while you look for a new job. I promise you that you pay, even under the second round of concessions will be more then unemployment (trust me, I know first hand. I was furloughed 6 months ago from a different airline.) That doesn't even take into consideration health insurance. Something I still can't afford. Good luck to you all. Your going to need it. -Bean

 

[michael707767]

[blockquote]
----------------
A no vote for those remaining employed is a direct trip to the unemployment line.

Chip
----------------
[/blockquote]

Baloney. Its a bluff. Either that, or management is admitting that they can't run the company. With the concessions already in place, costs are low enough that even a marginal plan for the future has a good chance of working. Either way, a no vote won't change things. If management can't work with the concessions in place, the additional concessions won't save them from their own incompetence. Don't let them talk you into voting away your jobs.

 

[DLFlyer31]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/21/2002 11:16:51 AM JonC wrote:

At this point, our cost structure is competive with WN and FL, and its time for managment to stop blaming labor for ruining the company and start running an airline.

Jon C.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Actually, it's not. Prior to this 2nd round of cuts, US's projected post-BK CASM was around 10 cents. Now, I figure with the additional cuts you are likely to get down into the 9 cent range. However, WN and AAI both have CASM's in the 7 cent range. Your cuts will make you more competitive with NW,CO,AA and DL (assuming they don't cut costs much which would be a dangerous assumption for U to make).

Siegel still hasn't addressed how US intends to be more effective against the low-fare carriers. Either he's too busy just trying to keep U alive or he's sticking his head in the sand, but whatever the reason he can't ignore them forever.

 

[JonC]

We also need to remember that with the closing of TPA, bumping and displacements are continuing. I'm not exactly sure how many people took the layoff out of TPA and how many people elected to excersize seniority, but the fact remains that US Airways went out of their way to p1ss off a signifigant amount of people just before the holidays.

Employees are also willing to take layoffs when they know that they have a reasonable chance of being recalled. With the recall period (for IAM mech and related) being reduced to three years and the cuts going so deep, now add in the outsourcing - many of those on the bottom seniority rungs have nothing to gain by voting yes. They will quite likely never get brought back from recall, so they might as well get "full pay to the last day."

I think that the employee cost problem was resolved in the last round of cuts and that many of our efficiencies are in management and pricing.

Plus, the company and the unions STILL refuse to look at compressed work weeks and other provisions that increase productivity and boost morale. I doubt the company's real desire to work with labor as long as they continue to see a life outside of work as a management perk.

As our company shrinks, we STILL have just as many vice-presidents as pre 9-11, this needs to change. We could get by with four or five, with most of that work being handled by director level employees.

Also, as many of you have said, we still have a crazy, non-sensical fare structure that entirely revolves around pillaging the business traveller. Why are we flying empty airplanes, when we could fill them? Perhaps we still wouldn't "break even", but we'd be close than we are now! It isn't rocket science that you can make money in volume (read Wal-Mart) or in a target, select high end market (read Nordstroms or Lord and Taylor). However, since US Airways product is NOT a high end product (ie. coach is coach), we are essentially a Wal-Mart charging $90 for shirts. No wonder we don't have many customers. I really wish that our leadership would get the hint and lower the business fares to a realistic level and stimulate traffic. The only airline that survives is one that grows and we certainly aren't doing that.

At this point, our cost structure is competive with WN and FL, and its time for managment to stop blaming labor for ruining the company and start running an airline.

I wish you all the best and hopefully I'll find another job soon after the holidays. I'm waiting to put in for recall until I see a year or so of profitable quarters, since I want clear evidence that things have changed at US Airways. But, perhaps by then, I've found something better.

Jon C.

 

[rumorboy]

I think SWAs CASM was 7.65 last quarter and AAI was 8.26 last quarter. The interesting thing BOTH companys said that CASM may rise the next couple quarters.

 

[michael707767]

[blockquote]
----------------

Mike, I don't think that you are getting the point. The second round of concessions is not so much about competing with the other major airlines as it is about meeting the conditions for the 1 Billion dollar ATSB loan.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Actually, I think it was the the DIP financing that was in jeapardy, not he ATSB loan. But I could be wrong. Either way, it highlights a point. This is no longer about structuring the company to be able to compete. We have given enough for them to compete. This is about a concerted effort between the ATSB and airline managements to once and for all break the back of labor. Frankly, if you cut my pay much more, I can make more money in any number of jobs. Either way, I am outta here as soon as I get hired somewhere else. Working for an airline was no longer what it used to be even before all this. Now it just plain sucks.

 

[REACC1]

What to do if WN and AAI decide to start lowering their CASM's further? They seem to have deeper pockets than the pocketless U.

 

[dfw79]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/21/2002 1:40:43 PM michael707767 wrote:

Actually, I think it was the the DIP financing that was in jeapardy, not he ATSB loan. But I could be wrong. Either way, it highlights a point. This is no longer about structuring the company to be able to compete. We have given enough for them to compete. This is about a concerted effort between the ATSB and airline managements to once and for all break the back of labor. Frankly, if you cut my pay much more, I can make more money in any number of jobs. Either way, I am outta here as soon as I get hired somewhere else. Working for an airline was no longer what it used to be even before all this. Now it just plain sucks.

----------------
[/blockquote]

They are one in the same in this case. If US Airways cannot meet the stipulations to secure the ATSB loan - the DIP financing will get pulled. The whole conspiracy theory on that U is just a pawn to break the unions is something that appears when you become clouded with hate and distrust. Chapter 11 is not fun...but companies can make it out if things fall into line. Look at it this way - at least U doesn't have the restrictions that UAL does on profitability in order to avoid triggering a Chapter 7 liquidation. U is also doing this reorganization in 6 months (give or take a couple)...UAL is doing 18 - yes they are much bigger, but in all reality this is a very fast tracked reorganization proving Seigel wants this company to survive. Bronner is another case...he just wants to make money, his reputation in the industry isn't at stake.

The airline industry isn't the same as it use to be; the only bright spot that I have found are with the non union regionals that are making money for their parents (C8, Eagle, etc.). For those that are leaving should look at how they are going to vote - or not vote. If you are leaving anyway...should you really have a choice in how the contract is voted one way or another? That is like saying a city will 50,001 citizens living in it are voting on a new tax proposal. It would raise the cost of property taxes by $300 a year or something. Those 50,000 people are going to be living in that town for the forseeable future. The one person is going to be moving out in a couple weeks. You see where I am going here...should the vote split 50/50 (which is rare I know; work with me here)...why should that one person - whom is leaving - decide how those 50,000 lives will be lived for next few years? Those new taxes (contract) will not effect their life, but yet they still have the ability to decide how things play out.

So if you are leaving...I'm not going to say you should vote yes or no, my suggestion is - maybe just take your vote and abstain from casting it. Let the people who will be left behind decide how their lives will be lived.