[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/16/2003 10:08:41 PM ONTHESTREET wrote:
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/16/2003 8:00:40 PM savyinvestor wrote:
I don't understand the pilot"inferno". From the letter it sounds like the pension will be there one way or the other. Whats the beef?
----------------
[/blockquote]
Mgmts. track record does not bode well for "Taking them at their word".
To be frank, CWA does not trust him, IAM does not trust him, AFA does not trust him, and ALPA does not trust him.
So far everytime was "The last concession". Pilots are up to what 3 rounds now...or is it four? U managment is kind of like the junkie doing his "last" hit.......no really this is the last.....no really really this is the last!!
I doubt they are done with the CWA and IAM yet either.
Meanwhile U is still throwing money away all over the place. Pee-Poor scheduling, double crews, I think thay have monkeys making the route structures.
U basically has the labor costs of Southwest now, not quite but getting close. It seems to me that if you want to save an airline you would look to the one that is actually making money. Instead U seems stuck on the RJ savior track.....Not working for UA, Nor American, or Delta.... All losing money by the truckload.
On the otherhand, Jetblue...Point to point, no rj's doing decent. Southwest...not one RJ, now much bigger than U and MAKING MONEY!!!!
I keep hearing about labor costs....I know a SouthWest 737 Capt. that is pulling in 175,000 a year. they are a little light in the pension dept. but it is coming. U pilots are about on par with Luv now. (Actually U is paid a little less for the narrowbody stuff now I think)
It seems to me that we should look to the moneymaker for inspiration....not the rest of the also rans!
Come on Dave.....show us what ya got!!!!!! I will take Southwest pay and work rules...just quit blowing sunshine up my rear!!!!!
----------------
You are correct! AFA does not trust this management at their word. Remember in October, management said they wold NOT go to labor for the $200 million they needed because of a "revenue decline that was under forcasted".