nostradamus
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,038
- Reaction score
- 0
Virgin America will be part of this current airline industry shuffle. You are correct in that they want pieces but not employees.
Merger Partner - ALL US Merger Talk Here
- Thread starter hack73
- Start date
Virgin America will be part of this current airline industry shuffle. You are correct in that they want pieces but not employees.
Art at ISP
Veteran
700,
With all due respect, my friend, they can be in negotiations until the cows come home, until or unless there's an agreement it means nothing. Just because they are sitting down at the table doesn't mean they want to fix the problem.
Fragmentation language or not, they will find a way around that if it benefits them.
This week's frontal assault on customers just goes to prove that BOTH employees AND customers are the enemy to Tempe.
This is just the beginning folks---it's gonna get REAL interesting around here in the near future.
I don't think they anticipated the firestorm of opposition to what they are trying to do to customers--and it's growing by the hour.
By the way, if Virgin is the surviving carrier and management, perhaps BOTH customers and employees will be better off...
Dave Cush is a very capable leader.
My BEST to you all..
With all due respect, my friend, they can be in negotiations until the cows come home, until or unless there's an agreement it means nothing. Just because they are sitting down at the table doesn't mean they want to fix the problem.
Fragmentation language or not, they will find a way around that if it benefits them.
This week's frontal assault on customers just goes to prove that BOTH employees AND customers are the enemy to Tempe.
This is just the beginning folks---it's gonna get REAL interesting around here in the near future.
I don't think they anticipated the firestorm of opposition to what they are trying to do to customers--and it's growing by the hour.
By the way, if Virgin is the surviving carrier and management, perhaps BOTH customers and employees will be better off...
Dave Cush is a very capable leader.
My BEST to you all..
nostradamus
Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2004
- Messages
- 2,038
- Reaction score
- 0
Employees would not follow assets to Virgin America. Shortly before Doug Parker was chosen by US Airways investors, Sir Richard Branson expressed interest in assets, but made it clear he did not want employees.
galley princess
Senior
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Messages
- 384
- Reaction score
- 263
It is my belief (that and $1.50 will get you a coffee) that US is being avoided primarily because our reputation is in the toilet, that of our management and employees.
Every time I see the manifestation of some lousy policy by Tempe and the person dealing with the fallout, I am reminded of the "you get what you pay for" maxim. As much as many employees try to mitigate the lack of tools, rotten policies and embarassing lack of services, some have fallen back not to rudeness, just a sort of helpless indifference. It's easy to do, you shake your head and think "well, the ball is in the customer's court, if they reallly want service, they will know to fly someone else, there isn't anything I can do." The thing is, the impetus to try to do customer recovery just isn't there when you're not being paid for it.
Hence the "you get what you pay for", this directed at current US management. If they really cared about the customer and the reputation of the airline they would have settled the contracts a year ago. As it goes on, paired with the management taking their payday in a a big way, what incentive is it for the frontline worker?
So there is a general acceptance that US management is poor, but what about the employees? Well, if you're NWA, it's pretty much SNAFU, but if you're another company, arguably the employee relations have to be better and from an executive view suddenly US employees are "difficult, lazy, and intractable."
This can all be laid at the feet of Mr. Parker and his pursuance of the cheapest denominator, from maintenance to employees, but the thing that I don't get is this:
This guy does not get what he wants until he merges us. He wants the multimillion that is only available with a grand aquisition/ merger/ sale. The 8 million or so is not the payday that he wants. Perhaps he is belatedly realizing that our reputation is majorly in the way, who knows, it may be completely irrelevant and come down to infrastructure and routes, but I just can't believe that he is done yet.
Every time I see the manifestation of some lousy policy by Tempe and the person dealing with the fallout, I am reminded of the "you get what you pay for" maxim. As much as many employees try to mitigate the lack of tools, rotten policies and embarassing lack of services, some have fallen back not to rudeness, just a sort of helpless indifference. It's easy to do, you shake your head and think "well, the ball is in the customer's court, if they reallly want service, they will know to fly someone else, there isn't anything I can do." The thing is, the impetus to try to do customer recovery just isn't there when you're not being paid for it.
Hence the "you get what you pay for", this directed at current US management. If they really cared about the customer and the reputation of the airline they would have settled the contracts a year ago. As it goes on, paired with the management taking their payday in a a big way, what incentive is it for the frontline worker?
So there is a general acceptance that US management is poor, but what about the employees? Well, if you're NWA, it's pretty much SNAFU, but if you're another company, arguably the employee relations have to be better and from an executive view suddenly US employees are "difficult, lazy, and intractable."
This can all be laid at the feet of Mr. Parker and his pursuance of the cheapest denominator, from maintenance to employees, but the thing that I don't get is this:
This guy does not get what he wants until he merges us. He wants the multimillion that is only available with a grand aquisition/ merger/ sale. The 8 million or so is not the payday that he wants. Perhaps he is belatedly realizing that our reputation is majorly in the way, who knows, it may be completely irrelevant and come down to infrastructure and routes, but I just can't believe that he is done yet.
US1YFARE
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 3,932
- Reaction score
- 54
I agree. The new US is the example of what no other carrier wants to become--a low class, customer/employee unfriendly, unreliable carrier that is an operational mess. Swoosh Airlines may be very soon reaching its shelf life.
He doesnt have a choice, there are CBAs and laws that must be followed, this was all changed after Pan Am sold assets to Delta.
They cant just avoid the laws and the CBAs, there are ramifications.
Here is an example from the AFA/East CBA:
3
They cant just avoid the laws and the CBAs, there are ramifications.
Here is an example from the AFA/East CBA:
3
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
Ah - but what is an asset? Conveniently undefined.
From an accounting standpoint, it's entries on a balance sheet - and the entire fleet is only about 30% of the assets listed. They could sell off the entire narrow-body Airbus fleet (or wide-body or Boeing) and it wouldn't be 20% of the assets. Not 20%, no fragmentation protection......
Then there's that pesky "within any 12 month period". They could sell half the fleet today (less than 20% of assets), and sell the other half 366 days from now (dry leasing it to the eventual buyer in the meantime) - no fragmentation protection......
Jim
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2003
- Messages
- 16,512
- Reaction score
- 5,865
"In addition to all other protections under this Agreement, if,
17 within any twelve (12) month period while the Agreement remains in effect,
18 US Airways Group or the Company sells, transfers or disposes of assets
19 which, net of asset purchases or acquisitions during the same twelve (12)
20 month period, constitute twenty percent (20%) or more of the value of the
21 assets of the Company or US Airways Group (the closing of any such
22 transaction(s) which alone or in the aggregate satisfy the aforesaid
23 percentage being referred to as a “Triggering Eventâ€), then:"
Is that agreement still in effect? This mention of "12 month period" doesn't mention BK. However, the next does:
"If the Company is under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection
6 during the duration of this Agreement, the Association agrees that the
7 provisions of Section 1.D.3., as amended, will not apply until one (1) year
8 after the implementation of a confirmed plan of reorganization in such
9 Chapter 11 case."
That says that fragmentation protection doesn't (didn't) exist during BK and until 1 year (equal to 12 months) after a POR was confirmed. That period has passes, so the fragmentation language is back in effect - sales, transfers, or disposal of at least 20% of the assets within a 12 month period triggers fragmentation protection.
Jim
17 within any twelve (12) month period while the Agreement remains in effect,
18 US Airways Group or the Company sells, transfers or disposes of assets
19 which, net of asset purchases or acquisitions during the same twelve (12)
20 month period, constitute twenty percent (20%) or more of the value of the
21 assets of the Company or US Airways Group (the closing of any such
22 transaction(s) which alone or in the aggregate satisfy the aforesaid
23 percentage being referred to as a “Triggering Eventâ€), then:"
Is that agreement still in effect? This mention of "12 month period" doesn't mention BK. However, the next does:
"If the Company is under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection
6 during the duration of this Agreement, the Association agrees that the
7 provisions of Section 1.D.3., as amended, will not apply until one (1) year
8 after the implementation of a confirmed plan of reorganization in such
9 Chapter 11 case."
That says that fragmentation protection doesn't (didn't) exist during BK and until 1 year (equal to 12 months) after a POR was confirmed. That period has passes, so the fragmentation language is back in effect - sales, transfers, or disposal of at least 20% of the assets within a 12 month period triggers fragmentation protection.
Jim
With most of its assets spun-off, ACE has decided to unwind itself as a holding company. Its options include selling its remaining Air Canada holdings into an unsettled financial market, buying back the shares it sold barely a year ago or, apparently, selling all of Air Canada to an industry or financial buyer.
"This may seem like it's come out of left field, but I think they'll pay serious attention to it," said Robert Kokonis, the president of airline consulting group AirTrav Inc. "The reality is that the airline business is becoming more global and when you're global, size is everything.
"They need to be more closely affiliated with a U.S. carrier."
Kokonis said he believed US Airways would be a particularly good fit for Air Canada because the two airlines have complementary operations. As well, the two airlines have a history of common ownership after ACE purchased a 7 per cent stake in US Airways two years ago.
Others said foreign airlines would be interested in cozying up to Air Canada because of its extensive international route network.
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/301943
galley princess
Senior
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Messages
- 384
- Reaction score
- 263
Ahh, to be a cautionary tale.
someone said "if you can't be a good example, be a really good warning"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi...1&track=rss
someone said "if you can't be a good example, be a really good warning"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi...1&track=rss
Similar threads
