Here comes the judge!

[fatherabraham]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/21/2003 8:29:57 AM mrplanes wrote:

Kilo:

U will not have to handle a pilot stike. We are not fools. You (and many others) misinterpret what is being said. Solidarity does not mean strike. Striking may be just what Dave would enjoy and get the fleet down to 50 or so jets with the rest of the flying going to RJ's. Striking will not solve the problem Dave is attempting to create.

You underestimate the intelligence of the USAirways pilots. We will get what has been committed to by Dave. Or Dave will get a surprise he has not planned for nor even thought about. We have Harvard educated people on our team too.

Most here are ignoring the salient facts I have presented and pounding on Chip. I assume that makes you all feel better. It does nothing to contribute to this discussion. Dave is attempting to renege on his committment. We understand the probable need to terminate. We also understand that he is able to meet the committment he made in December or he would not have made it. What he is trying to do is dishonest at best and an example of pure greed at its worst. We will not allow it. Period.

Make no mistake. This is a turning point for this airline. And a strike by the pilot group will not be part of either the solution or the end of this airline. Dave has underestimated the resolve, abilities and resourcefulness of the U pilots. I truly hope he comes to his senses. Or whoever is pulling his strings does.

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

Mrplanes,

All your post on this thread are right on!
I commend you for your effort at convincing the non pilot groups of the truth. I myself have given up. I think most will be shocked @ the solidarity among pilots over this issue. I am confident that the overwhelming majority will stand behind the MEC mandates. For those of you who feel that pilots will not sacrifice their jobs, imho you are wrong.
From what i gather....most are so fed up with the deterioration of said profession that the prospect of seeking ANY other employment is carefully weighed to prospect of their diminished expectations at Usair. Remember this group has all done this here 15 years + . Sure the fella on the street will gladly fill the void, but I think that is unrealistic as a ongoing concern for U.

Keep up the good post

 

[LavMan]

And lots of weapons of mass destruction. Yep when Bush attacks Iraq, there wont be passengers to carry to the middle east.

 

[mrplanes]

Kilo:

U will not have to handle a pilot stike. We are not fools. You (and many others) misinterpret what is being said. Solidarity does not mean strike. Striking may be just what Dave would enjoy and get the fleet down to 50 or so jets with the rest of the flying going to RJ's. Striking will not solve the problem Dave is attempting to create.

You underestimate the intelligence of the USAirways pilots. We will get what has been committed to by Dave. Or Dave will get a surprise he has not planned for nor even thought about. We have Harvard educated people on our team too.

Most here are ignoring the salient facts I have presented and pounding on Chip. I assume that makes you all feel better. It does nothing to contribute to this discussion. Dave is attempting to renege on his committment. We understand the probable need to terminate. We also understand that he is able to meet the committment he made in December or he would not have made it. What he is trying to do is dishonest at best and an example of pure greed at its worst. We will not allow it. Period.

Make no mistake. This is a turning point for this airline. And a strike by the pilot group will not be part of either the solution or the end of this airline. Dave has underestimated the resolve, abilities and resourcefulness of the U pilots. I truly hope he comes to his senses. Or whoever is pulling his strings does.

mr

 

[wts54]

If your contract is voided by a 1113 action
ALPA wont be sued and there wont be any restraining
order to violate since you would be an at will
employee.No judge can force at will employees to
work.You must be management.

 

[autofixer]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/21/2003 7:51:02 AM kiloromeo wrote:

U could easily handle a pilot strike...between the scabs and the surplus of pilots out there...not a problem. In fact after about a 6 month recovery process the airline would be in the Jet Blue and SWA cost and productivity playing field.


Chip..are you sure that international flying job offer you have in Aubu Dhabi with no pension is better than the one you have now?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Why do you people not understand that you can't replace pilots like you can, for example, flight attendants(no offence intended to the flight attendant group.). You are required by law to attend a 5 day indoctrination, followed by two weeks of ground school, two weeks of simulator and two weeks of Initial Operating Experience in the Airplane. This process takes about 90 days. As far a Southwest goes, throw the U pilots in that briar patch. Southwest pilots will be the highest in the industry in less than 2 years. Sure they have no defined contribution plan, but they have a 401k with company match and a vigorous stock plan. It is the other groups where the high costs come from.

Scabs? Sure there would be some, but how many?

Abu Dhabi is very nice--I have been there countless times. If you work overseas you are not taxed on earnings up to a certain point--it used to be about $70,000. You can save your untaxed portion and have quite a nest egg after 5 years. The weather is great in the U.A.E. and they have some pretty nice golf courses.

 

[kiloromeo]

MR
I don't doubt your resolve or resourcefulness...but there is a good chance that it will all add up to mutually assured distruction. By the way...the market place is pulling the strings, not Dave.

 

[pit76dr]

mr:

Agree with most of what you say. Of course we will not strike. The company would go chap. 7 immediately if the pilots strike -- not an option. That is not the point. It is the THREAT of STRIKE that will finally make management acquiesce -- they don't want to go chap. 7.

We must have a strike vote, if necessary, and it must pass. Then the ball will be in our court. It's called "negotiation" -- heretofore this notion has been "foreign" to our union but now, on the pension issue, I believe we have the "balls" (finally) to become a unified group and force action!

 

[ClueByFour]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/21/2003 11:29:41 AM mrplanes wrote:
You may doubt our ability to destroy this airline. Not with a strike. Not with a slowdown. But make no mistake we have that power. You haven't even comtemplated what we can do.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Did they issue you a double-jointed left arm so you could pat yourself on the back???

Enjoy yourself in the "alpa alumni association," coming to the breakroom of a Home Depot near you.

 

[mrplanes]

kilo:

The marketplace is NOT pulling the strings on Dave reneging on his committment to us. For you to imply that it is is foolish. I do agree that the marketplace is driving the established carriers to new wages and work rules. We have met that challenge. All of us. And now the pilot group is going to meet the challenge of a management who has taken it too far.

You may doubt our ability to shutdown this airline. Not with a strike. Not with a slowdown. But make no mistake we have that power. You haven't even comtemplated what we can do.

As I have said, I think Dave will come to his senses and live up to his committment regardless of what the judge does. I hope I am correct. For all of our sake.

mr

 

[savyinvestor]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/21/2003 11:29:41 AM mrplanes wrote:

kilo:

The marketplace is NOT pulling the strings on Dave reneging on his committment to us. For you to imply that it is is foolish. I do agree that the marketplace is driving the established carriers to new wages and work rules. We have met that challenge. All of us. And now the pilot group is going to meet the challenge of a management who has taken it too far.

You may doubt our ability to destroy this airline. Not with a strike. Not with a slowdown. But make no mistake we have that power. You haven't even comtemplated what we can do.

As I have said, I think Dave will come to his senses and live up to his committment regardless of what the judge does. I hope I am correct. For all of our sake.

mr
----------------
[/blockquote]
Don't think Bronner isn't involved. He will pull the DIP financing and liquidate U and still make money. All you will accomplish is to put 30,000 fellow employees out on the street along with yourselves. Win the battle and lose the war! Happy now? Savy

 

[DLFlyer31]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/21/2003 11:29:41 AM mrplanes wrote:

kilo:

The marketplace is NOT pulling the strings on Dave reneging on his committment to us. For you to imply that it is is foolish. I do agree that the marketplace is driving the established carriers to new wages and work rules. We have met that challenge.

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

Actually, the market place IS pushing Dave to axe the pension plan. Look at your up and coming competitors. Does JBLU have a pension plan? Does FL have a pension plan? These are the carriers you are competing against and they have a huge advantage over you because they don't have to worry about funding a pension plan.

Remember, Dave can't really lose in this situation. If this issue is not resolved and the U pilots force U into liquidation, history will remember the U pilots as the straw that broke the camel's back. Dave will walk away with his money and his reputation intact. Bronner and the RSA will get their money one way or another. The only ones who lose will be the pilots and the other U employees.

I expect the pilots and U management will find a resolution to this problem. It will still require the U pilots to take another hit to the pension plan, but it might not be quite as bad as the current termination plan. The U pilots will grumblingly accept it.

 

[kiloromeo]

mr

It is not really that complicated...U will struggle to pay the 1 billion dollar loan in 7 years. They are gambling on a 7% margin in their business plan which is very optimistic. How will they cover the costs of about a 1.7 billion in pension in addition 1 billion gov backed loan in 7 years?...perhaps you can put your Harvard education to work and invent a new math
....whether you strike or employ some work safe program, who knows....it will produce no worthwhile results. Besides, relax the 20% ownership of the new company you have will eventually make everything all better...

 

[oldiebutgoody]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/21/2003 1235 PM kiloromeo wrote:

mr

It is not really that complicated...U will struggle to pay the 1 billion dollar loan in 7 years. They are gambling on a 7% margin in their business plan which is very optimistic. How will they cover the costs of about a 1.7 billion in pension in addition 1 billion gov backed loan in 7 years?...perhaps you can put your Harvard education to work and invent a new math
....whether you strike or employ some work safe program, who knows....it will produce no worthwhile results. Besides, relax the 20% ownership of the new company you have will eventually make everything all better...

----------------
[/blockquote]
It's not nearly as simple OR grim as you make out. The pension underfunding situation is likely to correct itself somewhat when/if the economy recovers. U is also counting on this to justify their business plan, so it wouldn't be inconsistent for them to include this in the pension issue. What management APPEARS to want is a huge windfall by not having this obligation, which admittedly is huge, by reducing the company's liability to less than half. ALPA's complaint is that the pension was part of their collective bargaining agreement, and management just wants to unilaterally change (end) it, without even attempting to negotiate a more agreeable one.

 

[PITbull]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/21/2003 1:07:17 PM oldiebutgoody wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/21/2003 1235 PM kiloromeo wrote:

mr

It is not really that complicated...U will struggle to pay the 1 billion dollar loan in 7 years. They are gambling on a 7% margin in their business plan which is very optimistic. How will they cover the costs of about a 1.7 billion in pension in addition 1 billion gov backed loan in 7 years?...perhaps you can put your Harvard education to work and invent a new math
....whether you strike or employ some work safe program, who knows....it will produce no worthwhile results. Besides, relax the 20% ownership of the new company you have will eventually make everything all better...

----------------
[/blockquote]
It's not nearly as simple OR grim as you make out. The pension underfunding situation is likely to correct itself somewhat when/if the economy recovers. U is also counting on this to justify their business plan, so it wouldn't be inconsistent for them to include this in the pension issue. What management APPEARS to want is a huge windfall by not having this obligation, which admittedly is huge, by reducing the company's liability to less than half. ALPA's complaint is that the pension was part of their collective bargaining agreement, and management just wants to unilaterally change (end) it, without even attempting to negotiate a more agreeable one.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Oldie,

I agree with you. The slightest "upswing" in our economy could change everything. In "good faith", the company should wait until the liability is due in 2004. If there is no improvement, then at worst, "freeze the pension".

Kiloromeo makes a good point, as well, ALPA does have a 20% stake in the company, and the more profits that are attained the better for ALPA. However, the problem with that is that many of our pilots will be retiring in the next 7 years, and may not be able to take the full advantage of that stake.

I maintain the belief that the pilots should collectively voice strong protest and opposition to the termination of their pensions, as I am sure, we would all do if we were in that predicament.

 

[chipmunn]

PitBull:

You make a good point. If the shoe was on the other foot, all of the other unions would fight for their pension. Why is it wrong for the pilot group to do the same thing?

What I find offensive is that there is so much banter for what is wrong with other labor group contracts, but we cannot find fault with our own contracts.

Each employee group has taken a proportionate cut for pay, productivity, and benefits and I have no heart- burn with those cuts, for myself or anybody else for that matter. I supported pilot cuts in the first two round plus the third ALPA cut, but this round of cuts is to much.

What I do find fault in is the pilots being singled out for a fourth cut that effects retirement, where every other employee has taken only one cut to help their pension shortfall.

Again, I do not want to see anybody lose their pension, but what is happening to ALPA is wrong.

Chip