Siegel Should "step Aside"

NYPD

Member
Sep 7, 2002
91
0
March 30, 2004

US Airways Update

To All IAM Members Employed by US Airways:

Dear Sisters and Brothers,

On March 24, 2004 US Airways CEO David Siegel addressed his employees, shareholders and passengers through an Internet video web cast. Siegel tried using fear, rewriting history and criticizing your union’s leadership to gain employee support for additional pay, benefit, and work rule concessions. He failed miserably, and looked like a CEO making a very public plea to save his job in the face of his own miserable failure.

Siegel claimed that the airline has been avoiding the issue of high employee costs. He apparently has forgotten that District 141 and 141-M members are already providing the carrier with $278 million in annual cost reductions as a result of the company’s bankruptcy.

Thousands of employees have been furloughed, and active employees are working harder, earning less and paying more for healthcare to ensure the future of US Airways.

Further demonstrating the IAM’s commitment to US Airways, District 141 and 141-M Representatives have been meeting separately with members of Siegel’s management team to ensure the airline operates in the most efficient manner possible. The $80-100 million the company could save by enacting the IAM’s recommendations would be achieved without necessitating changes to collective bargaining agreements.

Similarly, IAM officials have held constructive meetings with US Airways Chairman Dr. Bronner to develop a positive working relationship. The IAM’s commitment to a viable and competitive US Airways is without question.

Siegel’s tunnel vision, however, prevents him from acknowledging the substantial participation of IAM members in the airline’s recovery. He clearly appears to be out of touch with what is occurring within his own company.

Incredibly, Siegel also used the web cast as a platform to renegotiate his employment contract, offering to reduce his compensation to a level comparable to the CEO’s of low cost carriers. But those CEO’s and their company’s are successful, and similar compensation for David Siegel would still be too much and cannot be justified.

As graphs appearing in the March 1, 2004 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology demonstrate, US Airways has lowered personnel costs by 12 percent since 2002. However, the company’s non-personnel costs actually increased by more than 4 percent. By comparison, ALL of US Airways' competitors were successful in REDUCING non-personnel costs during that same period.

It is painfully evident that David Siegel’s bankruptcy restructuring did nothing but reduce labor costs while failing to similarly reduce non-labor costs.

Siegel’s business plan seems to be centered on scaring employees. Unfortunately, he is 20 years too late to scare airline employees into believing that repeated concessions could save an airline. Airline after airline has demonstrated that no amount of employee concessions could save a company from its own incompetent management.

Siegel likes to blame the unions for US Airways’ problems, but it was he who a year ago claimed to the business community, the Air Transportation Stabilization Board, and his employees that he a had a business plan to make US Airways successful.

It was the employees that gave David Siegel the tools he said he needed to make the plan work. However, he has failed us all and it is now time for him to do the right thing. David Siegel must begin working with, not against, his most important asset, his employees. Otherwise, he should step aside and give the job to someone capable of handling it.

Sincerely and fraternally,


Scotty Ford
President
IAM District 141-M
 
Amazing, they say if they want us to be at LCC wages, then Seigel has to be. Then he offers, and it is still too much. I haven't seen any of the IAM higher ups offer to take a paycut when they negotiated paycuts and furloughs for so many US Airways IAM members.

Do they not realize that Bronner and Seigel are playing "Good Cop/Bad Cop" with them? Calling for Seigel to step aside is useless at this point. He seems to be Bronner's guy and Bronner has made several comments about this being the case. It will be interesting to see which side, management or labor, takes the high road and stops negotiating through the press. The IAM is being forced to play hardball to cover their own sixes in light of UAL going AMFA after the concession negotiations there, and seems more interested in not losing to AMFA again rather then fairly representing the IAM membership at US Airways.
 
Scotty Ford writes an interesting opinion. It is, however, just that: an opinion. He is using the same tactics and same language as Dave did in his presentation. I love this posturing. It really should be made into a soap opera for daytime TV. Which btw, a lot of US employees will be watching while unemployed if the current scenario continues to play out. :(
 
I think Ford should step aside. This is why when people ask whydo i care what the iam does... Its nothing but cya politics and its covering his butt. He knows the end is coming for iam if he doesnt make a drastic move. Hes damned either way here. Grasping at straws i think..... This is worthless. Give us your plan mr ford. We here about the plan you gave dave and company, why dont you share it with us since it was so earth shattering. I for one and know many others want Dave to stay . They call for him to take a cut and he offers not only that but to forego 40 mill in order to stay . Mr Ford, I suggest you do something more contructive than tearing down the very house you claim is mis managed. Your tacky letter did nothing but insight the few members calling for your stepping aside, to briefly pause and wonder,,,, HMMMMM !Either get on the side of fighting for this company or you can leave.
 
:huh:

Okay, a week ago I created a thread in which I asked "who should replace Siegel"?

I agree, he's not the answer. He didn't do what needed to be done in bankruptcy in order to prepare US for this brave new world.

But nobody could answer my question. All the union posturing in the letter posted above about just how bad Siegel has been for the company, but no offer to lead, or to find a new leader for the company. Is the IAM unwilling to take the risk? Or are they out of ideas as well?

honestly, I don't know who can pull US out of the spiral. But I'm not there every day. I would think that all these groups who purport to being leaders would have an idea of someone who they think can stop the madness. Quite honestly, if they don't, then they are not leading, they are dividing. If they can't name a successor, they should get behind Dave, even if it's just to ride the darn thing into the ground.

Anyone willing to suggest a replacement for Dave over there?
 
N628AU said:
Amazing, they say if they want us to be at LCC wages, then Seigel has to be. Then he offers, and it is still too much. I haven't seen any of the IAM higher ups offer to take a paycut when they negotiated paycuts and furloughs for so many US Airways IAM members.

.
628AU, let me clarify some things for you.

All the US Airways' IAM AGCs took the same pay and benefit cuts that the rank and file did.

Also the US Airways AGC's took paycuts similar to the UAL Employee ESOP and lost all their investment when UAL went bankrupt.

So 628, all the AGCs did take cuts like we did and took further cuts then we did as we did not take the cuts that UAL took when the EFLOP took place.
 
usfliboi said:
I think Ford should step aside. This is why when people ask whydo i care what the iam does... Its nothing but cya politics and its covering his butt. He knows the end is coming for iam if he doesnt make a drastic move. Hes damned either way here. Grasping at straws i think..... This is worthless. Give us your plan mr ford. We here about the plan you gave dave and company, why dont you share it with us since it was so earth shattering. I for one and know many others want Dave to stay . They call for him to take a cut and he offers not only that but to forego 40 mill in order to stay . Mr Ford, I suggest you do something more contructive than tearing down the very house you claim is mis managed. Your tacky letter did nothing but insight the few members calling for your stepping aside, to briefly pause and wonder,,,, HMMMMM !Either get on the side of fighting for this company or you can leave.
Who do you think you are calling for another union's leader? We as IAM members don't get in the AFA politics, so stay out of the IAMs.

Your AFA leadership has taken a very similar stance as the IAM, yet I don't see you calling for Perry Hayes or Pat Friend's resignation.

You know you are one piece of work, and you wonder why the posters on this board lump you in the same catergory as a certain pilot.
 
No leadership.....

Find ANOTHER COMPANY..

He's proven HE CANNOT BRING THIS AIRLINE TO PROFITABL|ILITY>>>

LEAVE NOW...DO US A HUGE FAVOR>>>

BRING ON GORDON B>>>ENd of the year he's retiring..
 
Just curious. With all the talk about wanting Dave to step down, who do you think would be willing to take on the position. First, I am certain the BOD would have to do an executive search. After the list is compiled, the selection process begins. After our new victim is in place, he/she has to get up to speed and figure out what to do. I would guess, the cure would be the same as we are confronted with now. Plus, all this takes time. Do you honestly believe we have that much time left? I don't.
 
CaptBud330,

"Plus, all this takes time. Do you honestly believe we have that much time left? I don't."

As far as I'm concerned, that says it all. If a Gordo or someone like him stepped in tomorrow, I believe the best we could hope for would be some intense short-term pain. To reform the structure would take months, at best. The quickest way to buy breathing room to accomplish the structural changes is thru W-2 cuts.

If someone came in and said that they needed a 6-12 month paycut - 50% for those making over $200,000 down to 10% for those making at least $20,000 - starting next month, with a snap-back at the end of the time period unless negotiations resulted in something different, what would the response be?

Jim
 
Jim,
Maybe if the request you stated came from anyone other than Siegel,you might be surprised. The problem is if it came from Siegel, he'd be looking for a way to get around it before the ink was dry on the paper. I don't understand the mindset that he cannot be replaced at this time. Last year when American was on the verge of Chapter 11 they found a replacement for Carty. Someone had to go for Gordon Bethune to take over Continental. What has Dave Siegel done to deserve the trust of this employee group.He has one song and that is employee concessions,that's it. He has no credibility with this employee group and I don't see a majority of the employees agreeing to any kind of givebacks as long as Siegel and Jerry Glass remain.
 
Mike,

I agree. I think if someone else came in and laid out a reasonable plan with more meat on it than the webcast, they might get a positive response. Especially if they said that they would accept no more than the lesser of 50% more than the highest paid union worker or 10x the lowest paid worker for the same time period. I know I'd probably say "yes".

Jim
 
700, i will and i do have every right to comment and will continue. Perry and Pat have not crossed the line. This is politics at his best . 700 im not sure if you think you offend me when you "lump" me in with that certain captain, however id rather be in that lump to be honest, than on your side of the fence. Youre free to make all the comments you want to about afa i could care less..... The combination of all these unions make up "my" company, so please save your breath between cigs , because i have no intention of hushin! :)
 

Latest posts