Management Shuttle Road Shows

[ClueByFour]

----------------
On 6/18/2003 9:52:45 AM Chip Munn wrote:

In my opinion, D:''s move was to hurt US, not to make money. Therefore, it would not surprise me to see the EMB-170 in a single-class configuration with 78-seats operate the Shuttle in the future, permitting A319 redeployment in long-range markets.
----------------​

Not to be to flippant, but _what_ long range markets?

SNA just got chopped, and the frequencies to the west coast markets (I''m specifically famililar with LAX and SFO, but I understand that SEA and SAN have been reduced in the past 18 months as well). Given the SNA pullout, it''s unlikely to see places like PDX or AUS or SLC and the like anytime soon. Where are they going to go?

 

[USFlyer]

----------------
On 6/19/2003 8:48:37 AM ClueByFour wrote:

Not to be to flippant, but _what_ long range markets?

SNA just got chopped, and the frequencies to the west coast markets (I''m specifically famililar with LAX and SFO, but I understand that SEA and SAN have been reduced in the past 18 months as well). Given the SNA pullout, it''s unlikely to see places like PDX or AUS or SLC and the like anytime soon. Where are they going to go?

----------------​

Yes, as a weekly SEA commuter, I can vouch for the flight reductions. However, US increased lift for the summer months when travel to SEA picks up. Also, other long range markets would be the Caribbean. PHL-AUA, PHL-BGI, CLT-MEX, etc. are not short flights! US just announced yesterday increases in service to SJO, MBJ, PUJ and a few others I think, beginning next winter. Remember, US''s presence into Star is partially intended to beef up Star''s presence in the Caribbean.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Clue:

I just flew to SAN on Tuesday and back east on Wednesday. According to station personnel, US has increased SAN ASMs with added flight frequency's and by substituting A321s for A319s on other flight segments. I believe your comment regarding the SAN pulldown was partially due to seasonal reductions, which have now been reinstated.

Best Regards,

Chip

 

[DCAview]

In his post, Chip said US may drop the Shuttle brand? What would be the advantage of that? The shuttle has a strong, well-established brand name in the northeast corridor. The only gain I can see would be a uniformity in aircraft paint jobs, in which case US could just paint all the jets the same and keep the Shuttle brand name on the hourly service among the three airports.

 

[ITRADE]

----------------
On 6/19/2003 9:24:48 AM Chip Munn wrote:



Clue:

I just flew to SAN on Tuesday and back east on Wednesday. According to station personnel, US has increased SAN ASMs with added flight frequency''s and by substituting A321s for A319s on other flight segments. I believe your comment regarding the SAN pulldown was partially due to seasonal reductions, which have now been reinstated.

Best Regards,

Chip


----------------​

SAN is very much a seasonal destination.

During the winter, the flights will usually not exceed 5 daily - mostly A319s with one or so A321s. Traditionally, the service was 3x PIT, 1x CLT, and 1x PHL. With the pulldown at CLT, it changed to 3x PIT and 2x PHL.

During summer 2001, US bulked up to 9x daily - 3 each from the 3 big hubs. Currently, I think its at 6x or 7x daily - 3x PIT, 2x or 3x PHL, and 1x CLT has returned.

 

[High Iron]

----------------
On 6/21/2003 10:52:15 AM MarkMyWords wrote:

----------------
On 6/17/2003 3:54:49 AM AOG-N-IT wrote:


Outsourcing will also idle almost half of the current mechanical talent we have on property at present...then you have the support people behind that , whom would also be idled for good too. Care to venture about another 3000 people being on the street.


----------------​

AOG, I have a question for you, or anyone else in the know. You stated above that if the company outsourced the heavy checks on the AB fleet that we could see nearly half of the mechanics kicked to the curb. How do you figure? Currently we due the heavy work on everything but the AB fleet, and the maintenance tracks are set up for those fleets. We currently do not do any of the heavy checks on the AB fleet, so they are not taken into account for the maintenance tracks. The Boeings will continue to require heavy checks, so the exsisting tracks will remain in place. That should mean no additional furloughs. If the company were to ADD the AB fleet, they would have to create additional maintenance tracks, thus recalling furloughed mechanics and related. If the corporate goal is to minimize expenses, and it is more cost effective to contract out the S check why would they not do it? And yes LavMan, I understand that you have done the work since 1949, but this is 2003 and the industry is in a fight for it's life.

Another question I have is, are there gaps in the Boeing maintenance tracks that would then cause mechanic and related furloughs, or is the work pretty much continuous? If the company made a provision that if/when the Boeing fleets were to be eliminated then the AB work would come in house, would that be acceptable? I think the goal here is to not increase head count and minimize expenses. Can you explain how the contracting out of the S check would eliminate 1/2 the mtc department?

I appreciate your insight.....Thanks.


----------------​

Because the general concensus is that the existing Boeing fleet will eventually be reduced and phased out. The present direction of this carrier seems to be a marked propensity toward the mainline fleet getting smaller...therefore the concern for just who is going to maintain what is/will be the backbone of the fleet.

As for the 1949/2003 "that was then, this is now" thing; I don't know that that's a valid reason for change, in and of itself: Too many inconsistancies, and just _what_ needs to change or remain the same depends on one's own interests and/or levels of influence. There's plenty of arcane, status-quo methods in the business world that those in power have no problem with retaining...or...as 'Randal' in the movie 'Clerks' puts it: I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class-- Especially since I rule".

 

[MarkMyWords]

----------------
On 6/17/2003 3:54:49 AM AOG-N-IT wrote:


Outsourcing will also idle almost half of the current mechanical talent we have on property at present...then you have the support people behind that , whom would also be idled for good too. Care to venture about another 3000 people being on the street.


----------------​

AOG, I have a question for you, or anyone else in the know. You stated above that if the company outsourced the heavy checks on the AB fleet that we could see nearly half of the mechanics kicked to the curb. How do you figure? Currently we due the heavy work on everything but the AB fleet, and the maintenance tracks are set up for those fleets. We currently do not do any of the heavy checks on the AB fleet, so they are not taken into account for the maintenance tracks. The Boeings will continue to require heavy checks, so the exsisting tracks will remain in place. That should mean no additional furloughs. If the company were to ADD the AB fleet, they would have to create additional maintenance tracks, thus recalling furloughed mechanics and related. If the corporate goal is to minimize expenses, and it is more cost effective to contract out the S check why would they not do it? And yes LavMan, I understand that you have done the work since 1949, but this is 2003 and the industry is in a fight for it''s life.

Another question I have is, are there gaps in the Boeing maintenance tracks that would then cause mechanic and related furloughs, or is the work pretty much continuous? If the company made a provision that if/when the Boeing fleets were to be eliminated then the AB work would come in house, would that be acceptable? I think the goal here is to not increase head count and minimize expenses. Can you explain how the contracting out of the S check would eliminate 1/2 the mtc department?

I appreciate your insight.....Thanks.

 

[LavMan]

It is our work, the company came to us twice with concessions, never did they ask for relief in the scope langauge. It is our work, and if they want to destroy what is left of this company let them go vendor out the work, there is only so much you can take and enough is enough.


May 30, 2003

TO: US AIRWAYS MEMBERSHIP AFFILIATED WITH DISTRICT 141-M
Dear Sisters and Brothers:

District Lodge 141-M has informed US Airways CEO, David Siegel, that there will be NO outsourcing of heavy maintenance.

Our US Airways Scope Clause does not provide the latitude for any such work to be sent to any outside vendor.

Indeed, during months of discussions leading to the concessionary agreement with District 141-M members, not once did US Airways negotiators discuss any changes to our contract that would allow any such outsourcing.

If any attempt is made to OSV heavy maintenance work US Airways will find themselves in the fight of their lives.

US Airways should not believe their labor unions and our memberships’ cooperation and loyalty during the bankruptcy and recovery was a sign of weakness.

What that cooperation and loyalty showed is that our membership is much better at making decisions than many of those residing in “Ivory Towersâ€￾.

Sincerely and fraternally,

Scotty Ford
President & Directing General Chairman

 

[MarkMyWords]

HighIron-

I understand the concern about the aging Boeing fleet and the expectations of it being retired or removed from service. With the current 279 mainline aircraft fleet, theortically they would have to replace each Boeing with another mainline airplane (not an RJ/SJ). (I know, I know, I know.....managements word isn''t worth the paper it is written on...blah blah blah.) That is why I asked about the provision to return the AB fleet to in house work, as we do retire Boeings. As long as we do not have to increase head count, wouldn''t that work?

Just a thought.

 

[PITbull]

----------------
On 6/19/2003 8:42:07 AM cat 111 wrote:

The outsourcing of the Airbus heavy checks "S" should be a

STRIKE ISSUE .

----------------​

I believe it would be considered a "major dispute".

 

[High Iron]

----------------
On 6/21/2003 11:41:14 AM MarkMyWords wrote:

HighIron-

I understand the concern about the aging Boeing fleet and the expectations of it being retired or removed from service. With the current 279 mainline aircraft fleet, theortically they would have to replace each Boeing with another mainline airplane (not an RJ/SJ). (I know, I know, I know.....managements word isn't worth the paper it is written on...blah blah blah.) That is why I asked about the provision to return the AB fleet to in house work, as we do retire Boeings. As long as we do not have to increase head count, wouldn't that work?

Just a thought.

----------------​

It might "work", but only in a specious and theoretical sense.

Haven't heard word #1 of them even entertaining the thought of such a provision. In any case, that would be a BIG camel's nose in the door and we'd be on a free-fall down the slippery slope; The precedent having been set. Provision notwithstanding, could you imagine the debate that would take place to bring heavy maintenence BACK in-house? The company's statements, the airline analyst shills doing the company's bidding, the gloomy pie-charts etc? Don't forget, we will ( as a mainline company, assuming we weren't fractured, RJ'd, or code-shared out of existance ) have already marginalized our maintenance force through further fleet reduction forloughs...bringing work BACK in-house would undoubtably require re-calls of furloughees...the reason you allude to for not doing the 'bus work in the first place.

We do the work now. We have the knowledge and the qualified people...and it's not just some charity-case jobs program- The work needs to be done...and soon.

 

[LavMan]

Listen to Dave's latest propaganda, he is claiming force majuere is still in effect, this guy is crazy, the war is over, there is no terrorist attacks, what is he thinking?

And the Airbus work is in house all ready, CLT and DCA do the overnight C-check and CLT base mtc does the three day C-11 check. There should be no arguement over whose work it is, the contract is quite clear and Dave and his gang of thieves never asked for scope relief in regards to heavy maintenance, maybe they should learn to honor their word and the contracts they signed off on.

 

[MarkMyWords]

High Iron -


I realize it is a long shot but I can dream can''t I? I was thinking that if/when they start retiring the Boeings, then the AB work comes back on a percentage basis. Say 10% of the Boeing Fleet retires in the 3rd quarter of 2008, then 10% of the S checks have to be returned to in house work.
Again, if we have 12 mtc tracks and with a 10% reduction it would leave only 11, then we bring the work back in to keep 12 mtc tracks going, thus maintaining head count at today''s levels and not costing additional jobs.

What about another angle? PineyBob had mentioned. He talked about giving the IAM the opportunity to meet the same cost levels as a contractor. Let''s say it costs US 50.00 per man hour to do the S check in house, but a contractor can do the same work for 40.00. What if the company offered to recall Mechanics to work at that level? I know it wouldn''t seem right to pay someone 50.00 to work on a Boeing, 40.00 to work on an AB, and probably 25 to work for Mid-Atlantic, but it is something and would keep the work in house.

Again LavMan, I am trying to look at things from a different prospective realising what the company goals are and what the union/employee''s goals are. I know that there has been huge sacrifices made already, but perhaps there is a mutually acceptable solution here. It is called compromise. (and I know you have compromised a lot already) Using the option of contracting the work out initially and then having contract language to return the work as other fleets retire offers the ability to maintain the current staffing levles. Using the option of keeping the AB work in house but at the contract rates brings more of our fellow employees back. It is the same concept as Mid Atlantic.


Again, this is all just theoretical......just trying to think outside the box for a change.

 

[LavMan]

Mark, Dave and his merry gang of thieves had two opportunities to request relief of the scope language, last September then 10 weeks later in December when they came back for more. They did not seek it either time.

As of last September the S-checks were going to be done at the TPA hangar, until Dave and his merry gang of thieves used Gestapo tactics and closed the TPA hangar in the middle of the night.

And any worker at this company knows once you relinquish work, you will never ever see it back in-house.

This groups of so-called "leaders" cant lead a mouse thru a maze, the mechanic and related at US Airways provided over $263 million a year in concessions and several thousand jobs and enough is enough. They were well aware of the Airbus maintenance requirements.

There should be no discussion, it is IAM covered work, it will be classified as a major dispute which could lead to a strike. The IAM fleet service, the AFA and ALPA all have language in their respective contracts stating they do not have to cross a picket line. And with the employees feeling as beaten down as we are, I would not put it past the employees to finally draw that line in the sand and tell Dave and his merry gang of thieves to go pound sand!

 

[LavMan]

Mark, once again you fail to address anything I wrote, Dave and his gang of thieves had ample opportunity to seek relief and they chose not too. They knew the airbus maintenance requirements and how labor friendly is it to storm a hangar at 3AM and tell everyone they no longer have a job?

The employees have given enough, if Dave and is labor unfriendly management can't make it work then shut it down.

Mark, I can show you hundreds of grievances won by the IAM where the company thought they were right, you go to be kidding if you think everything Dave says is gospel.