Significant Layoffs

[N230UA]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/1/2003 8:35:34 AM Busdrvr wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/1/2003 8:27:35 AM wts54 wrote:

The customers that 141 and 141m scare away?
Not to mention all the ones alpa screwed over.
That is the pot calling the kettle black.
----------------
[/blockquote]

There you go with the locker room banter. Tell you what, lets agree that we both have some culpability. I'll agree to take a 29% paycut to stabilize the company. In the process, I'll also do everything in my power to keep UAL at the top of the performance charts (after all, I helped put us there). WWYD? will you even take HALF the paycut? Looks like the pot got a paintjob, whats the kettle gonna do? as for the revenue drop-off, instead of pontificating about FPTTLD and practicing "breakroom BK law for those with GED's", why don't you actually pull up the annual and quarterly reports and come to some conclusion based on actual numbers and facts that you can defend without having to resort some tired third-grade cliche'
----------------
[/blockquote]

Mechanics worked without a contract for an extremely long period without staging crippling slowdowns. And when they finally got a new one, they hardly benefitted from it. Which is not to say their bargainging for raises in this period and economy was ridiculous... just understandable.

United pilots have been receiving hefty premiums for two years now. You do the math.
I cannot believe it took more than 1 whole year, or *nearly 3 billion dollars of losses* since Sept. 11 for *ANY* set of concessions.

And please don't claim credit for performance on the part of the pilots only... everyone helps out on that. It's not a little "extra" you should be doing for the company... it should always be standard practice.

 

[ual747mech]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/1/2003 11:09:17 AM Busdrvr wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/1/2003 10:18:28 AM wts54 wrote:

"First of all whatever the IAM did to get a contract
pales in comparison to your antics in the summer of 2000."

Like I said, why don't we both admit culpability and move on. I'll take a temp 29% paycut, why do you still insist you can't take half of that?

"As far as a paycut and some workrule changes go I have no problem helping
out in a reasonable way,but I have no interest in giving ual a seven year contract with all the things they want on the current proposal."

THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS A CASH ONLY DEAL FOR ONLY ABOUT 6 MONTHS! IS THAT SHORT ENOUGH FOR YOU? Would you perfer daily contracts? The "deal" is intended to meet the DIP requirements in the short term to give YOU more time to come to a "long term" agreement. Do you think negotiating during the slowest revenue months of the year with a DIP gun to your head is better than comming to an agreement in March? YGTBSM!

"Even the ALPA MEC said in their latest statement that the current proposals for ALPA go to far.Do you want to give UAL everything it wants when it wants?"

No, but the judge WILL. I'm literally buying a little time for our bargaining position to strengthen.


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

I believe the court will decide in favor of the company like what happened in this case:

On the date of filing of the petitions the debtors also filed a Motion for Authority to Impose Interim Modifications to the Collective Bargaining Agreement and Other Relief. This Court considered that Motion on January 10, 1992, and on January 14, 1992, entered an Order based on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law granting the requested relief in part.

I hope I'm wrong but I think ALPA, AFA, and the other two unions have already seen the books and knows that it is necessary. The IAM is challenging it because they say the'y haven't been provided with all of the financial information needed to evaluate United's business plan, particularly as it relates to the IAM members. More importantly, United has failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating that in the absence of the proposed interim modifications to the IAM collective bargaining agreement, United will cease operations and be irreparably harmed and employees will lose their jobs.

Hmmm, I wonder what the IAM was looking at when they were negotiating the previous concession? The drama continues...

 

[Tango-Bravo]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/1/2003 10:40:02 AM Busdrvr wrote:

Gouging? Just a little perspective. We fly you at nearly the speed of sound, safely, with a meal and a movie, across the country or even between continents. even at our highest rates you consider it "gouging"?

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


Since I detect a question about the meaning of "gouging" as it applies to airline pricing... What it means (to me) is the practice of charging some customers (typically your "best" customers) 5-10 times more than than others (typically your "tire kickers" who will fly "no-frills" if it means saving 5 bucks) for the same service on the same flight.

Here's how a Delta million-mile frequent flier said it in a letter to the airline: "Most notable has been your insistence on clogging our air-travel infrastructure with cheap tickets for infrequent vacationers while attempting to recover your revenue shortfall by gouging business travelers." (from article "One business flier has had enough of unfair airfares" by Joe Sharkey, New York Times, appearing in Star Tribune, March 11, 2002)

Attempt to justify such pricing shenanigans any way you choose, but the ones being gouged aren't buying any of it. It's just plain wrong. Business travelers (more specifically the ones who pay their travel expenses) have no problem with paying more for value-added services like easily changeable/refundable tickets and the basic frills offered by "full-service" airlines; they have revolted with telling effect against paying $2,000 for a rountrip for which the person seated next to them is paying $200 on a packed flight on which the airline is losing money. Business pax would probably be willing to pay up to twice as much as the lowest fare for a given city-pair for a flexible coach ticket, but gouging them for an average of 4.91 times more (as it was in 2000) is sure to bring about the type of revolt that has devastated the Big Six.

A real life example of the sheer nonsense pax are revolting against happened this week. I re-issued a ticket for a customer (his third re-issue) whose original ticket was $421. Through the subsequent re-issues, "incremental fare differences" totalling $451 plus three change fees totalling $150 were collected, meaning the total cost of the customer's flights had reached a running total of $1,022. One might understandably assume he would have been $$$ ahead to have spent more for a non-penalty fare. Wrong!!! Had he purchased our lowest non-penalty fare for the same routing (3-day advance purchase required) he would have paid $1,642 -- so 3 large "addcollects" and 3 change fees later, he was a "mere" $600 (six-hundred dollars) ahead of where he would have been had he opted for our lowest "flexible" fare.

Busdrvr, we seem to be finding more common ground with each post we volley back and forth. I fully agree with your inference that most pax are not paying enough for the service offered by full-service airlines.

Where the likes of UA and US made a gross (and potentially fatal) miscalculation is in their insane assumption that their "best" customers will continue to pay 5-10 times more than the "tire kickers" for the same service to make up for their own pricing follies. Even when you throw in all the "goodies" for your "elites," they are sure to "defect" in untold numbers -- which they have -- rather than pay a premium of such magnitude. The drop in business travel reported by the Big Six is overstated since much of it is due to "defecting" business travelers being counted as "leisure travelers" because they have "joined the crowd" traveling on loss-leader fares -- hey, one can typically pay several change fees and even a few addcollects and still spend hundreds less in total cost than they would by purchasing a flexible fare; and if they "guess right" in booking their flights, the savings might top 4-figures. To me it sounds like good business on their part. And like yield (mis)management staff who have taken total leave of their senses.

Another point on which I reluctantly but realistically agree: Seems to be no way around pricing reform coming at painful cost to labor. The "full-service" airlines are running out of options for gouging some of their pax to subsidize their loss-leader fares. It is, IMO, a case of airlines who thought they could live by playing games with their customers are now dying by being beaten at their own games. All of which means CASM must be reduced to levels that can be supported by realistic RASM expectations or the party's over.

 

[UnitedChicago]

G4G5:

"While I admit that things are bad at AA they aren't nearly as bad as UAL's difficulties."

Duh. I never said they were as bad...I said that AA is not in great shape. People don't realize that because all of the attention is on UA.

When UA emerges with a cost structure far below AA's...what are AA's options? Do you truly think that they can match UA's cost dollar for dollar without CH11? I don't think so. There's no incentive for the unions to match dollar for dollar.

AA will either be a higher cost carrier - UA will kick their ass - or they will go CH11 to match dollar for dollar.

Have a nice day.

 

[ual06]

Sorry. I deleted post. Tried to put a .jpeg. Did not work right. Working on it.

ual06

 

[kcabpilot]

A couple of points:

First of all, the IAM is not in control of their situation. They are taking the stance they are because they know the Mechanics will not ratify. They've already been #### slapped once.

Secondly, the company has not been "ASKING the Mechanics for help". They are basically saying that they are going to do everything they can possibly do to eliminate every one of our jobs but in the meantime, until they can arrange that, they'd like us to give away our severance and work for peanuts.

Many people just don't understand that for the average Mechanic this isn't the dream job of a lifetime - it's just a job. I really feel for those of you who are about to lose that dream job but that isn't my fault. I can't really help you. Management has an attitude with the Mechanics - like we are soldiers or something. I'm not, I've got a DD-214 to prove it.

Finally, point all the fingers you want. The day after Goodwin announced the merger with US Air the stock price halfed and it's been a downslide ever since. Management was literally throwing money away. They've still got 25 subsidiary corporations - all funded by guess who? They funded Timco in Greensboro even though they had just finished building the IMC because they wanted to prove that they could do without maintenance. Well guess what? Timco lost $400 million last year, they can't get the personell to do the work and it has never panned out the way management envisioned it but they still are focused on making it work somehow (on paper at least). Just like the US Air merger, when this management gets fixated on something they are blind to the facts. Like a pit bull's locked jaws, you could beat them over the head with a length of pipe and they won't let go.

No Busdrvr, they haven't been "asking" us for anything. They've been demanding and they have done everything in their power to make our job more difficult. When we spend countless man hours fixing messed up third party maintenance which column do you think the beancounters line the beans up into?

 

[UnitedChicago]

"Where exactly did UAL777 go? We seem to have new 'analysts' posting here now. How many real users are in the number base?"

Flythewing: I have been wondering the same thing. He hasn't posted since just before the CH11 filing.

I wonder is someone at WHQ put a stop to his posts. Or...he may be posting under a new handle...

 

[Tango-Bravo]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/1/2003 242 PM UnitedChicago wrote:

"Where exactly did UAL777 go? We seem to have new 'analysts' posting here now. How many real users are in the number base?"


Flythewing: I have been wondering the same thing. He hasn't posted since just before the CH11 filing.


I wonder is someone at WHQ put a stop to his posts. Or...he may be posting under a new handle...
----------------
[/blockquote]


FWIW on the subject of "Where's UAL777flyer"

Don't think he's posting under a different handle. Whether or not you agreed with his posts (I frequently did not), his logic and the quality of his writing skills stood out in a way that one would notice. There are a few whose posts are of comparable quality though the opinions expressed do not seem to mesh with UAL777's point-of-view. So, if he's still "hanging around" he is doing so in silence; or if posting under a different handle he has deliberately dumbed down the quality of his posts to disguise the source, or his point-of-view has taken a dramatic turn in a different direction. Can't see any realistic liklihood of the latter two possibilities.

 

[Diversion]

[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 1/1/2003 2:13:08 PM UnitedChicago wrote:
[P][BR]AA will either be a higher cost carrier - UA will kick their ass - or they will go CH11 to match dollar for dollar.[BR][BR]----------------[/P][/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]You're assuming that UAL emerges from bankruptcy in this statement. The jury is still out on that one.[BR][BR]If UAL does pull through and emerges with a lower cost structure, then there will be a ripple effect throughout the industry, the likes of which have never been seen. [BR][BR]However, my gut feeling is that UAL (along with US Airways) will be forced to liquidate. While the resulting capacity reduction will give positive pressure on yeilds and revenues, the other carriers will still be pressured to lower their costs in an aggressive manner--a plan they [STRONG]should [/STRONG]have been pursuing for the last few years anyway.[BR][BR]I sure miss the days when everyone was worried about the airlines taxing the capacity of the national airspace system. How things change.[BR][/P]

 

[ual747mech]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/1/2003 2:13:40 PM kcabpilot wrote:

A couple of points:

First of all, the IAM is not in control of their situation. They are taking the stance they are because they know the Mechanics will not ratify. They've already been #### slapped once.

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

This crossed my mind too. The IAM got nothing to lose by taking it to the Judge, let him do the dirty work while at the same time make a believer out of those AMFA fanatics to think that the IAM have finally grown a set of you know what.

 

[grndproxwarning]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 12/31/2002 12:51:01 AM UnitedChicago wrote:

Of course anything is possible...but I would doubt that they would close any of their hubs. The strength of United is their route structure. Closing any of them would be a big mistake. Especially IAD as United is already weak on the east coast.
----------------
[/blockquote]
But they have U now on the East Coast!Makes sense to close
IAD

 

[flaptrack]

Airlines are now the new "Bus" ---- Deal with it!

 

[flaptrack]

Well Happy New Year all of you United employees! My brother who got in the Dot.com's and did very well came to visit me for Christmas. He flew Southwest. He used to fly United on his own corporate card, and had to stop through Denver. He now flies non-stop and does not have to put up with what he said "The arrogance of United employees".

Happy New Year, Good Luck and Keep Bitching!

Go SWA!

 

[UnitedChicago]

WHEN United emerges (glass half-full here), obviously AA and DAL would face the most pressure to reduce costs. DAL will be less in the hot seat because of their largely non-union work force.

BUT...my point remains...I don't think AA can match UA dollar for dollar without CH11. They may come close...but their unions will say they're a healthier company, blah blah blah.

 

[UnitedChicago]

Disagree.

U is too shakey right now. Half full here...so I'm hopeful they make it...but risky to hang ua's hat on U handling IAD.

Again...there are many other assets to consider first.