The Big Picture

[USA320Pilot]

Dea:

One major purpose of the UCT is to avoid seniority integration, principally because of how some parties have viewed "pre-nuptial" seniority clauses in the past. Obviously, this issue is a lightning rod and could cause a fragmentation. Sort of ironic how the move to circumnavigate national seniority integration policy could contribute to a fragmentation, if it occurs.

In regard to US Airways shrinking or transferring routes, let's remember the only time an airline receives code share revenue is when a passenger flies on-board a specific company's aircraft. In addition, labor contracts require a minimum of 279 mainline hulls and ALPA's contract requires the current block hours as a minimum.

The Caribbean is the company's "crown jewel" and Siegel said he expects Europe to have 20 destinations from Philadelphia.

Regardless, the reason I keep harping on the UCT is I know it's being discussed within the WHQ and CCY Executive Suites.

Finally, I agree US Airways will eventually be involved in a corporate transaction in the future, but there are other possibilities besides United, although the Chicago-based carrier is the most likely candidate with Bronner one of the few people with M&A funds.

Respectfully,

Chip

 

[Smartest Loser]

In regard to AA, UA, or NW acquiring US, AA nearly missed bankruptcy..

Therefore, how can any of these companies acquire US?

However, let's not forget US chairman of the board David Bronner has speculated three times UA has a 50-50 chance of surviving. He said that if UA were to sell assets, he would consider backing the purchase of some "if it would be beneficial to US."

I agree US in itself, with about $2 billion in liquidity, probably would not acquire UA or its assets, however, Bronner's $25 billion could.

Separately, US Airways is spending significant capital to re-paint its entire fleet, the company is buying the pilot/flight attendant “Pref Bidâ€￾ program, and has received financing for 150 RJs. If the airline was going to be sold, why would the company make these moves and weaken the balance sheet?

There's a lot here so lets start throwing out somethings..

1. These other airlines nearly missed BK...!!! I would say the worst in over for MOST of the majors. UA is still in deep trouble but could pull it out, Dave's banking on that. <_<

2. Balance sheets will improve later in the years so that will give everybody time to store some cash. :blink: ...U's won't...!!!

3. If UAL has a fire sale Bronner will be there. Wonder what assets he would buy..?? Gate's in cities where we pulled out. Great Deal...!!

4. The RJ financing is close to 95% by the maker...U has little invested here.

Has anyone noticed that U mgt is trying to mirror image UAL contracts...?? The HM issue with the Airbus is a great example. U has it...UAL doesn't...!!

In my opinion, Team Dave will just plug a long hacking and cutting up the workers contracts and trying to reduce his cost even more. Then, when the time is right he'll go to the goverment and say: " We just cannot make it without someones's help, if you guys want your money back you better lets us merge with somebody"

The marriage is consummated... Team Dave walks with $$$$$$ and I'm working at Taco Bell on the drink machine. :angry: :angry:

 

[LGA Fleet Service]

In regard to US Airways shrinking or transferring routes, let's remember the only time an airline receives code share revenue is when a passenger flies on-board a specific company's aircraft.

Doesn't that fly in the face of your numerous assertions that it would be better to "Keep the revenue under the alliance umbrella" with regard to UAL shedding assets to U?

 

[PITbull]

Smartest Loser,

If "Bronnerhead" increases his investment in U and increases his stake thus his controling interest from 37% to 50% while buying assets of United (whatever assest they could possibly have in BK) this would "trigger" a provision still left in our contracts AFA and TWU, (which mangement HAD forgotten to capture from us in the winter concessions and vigoursly attempted to get it from us in March of 2003 or we could not emerge from BK, blah, blah, blah) OUR WAGES SNAP BACK TO JUNE 30, 2002.

When it comes to U, Chip has "delusions of grandeur". If anything, the buyers WILL BE UNITED, not the other way around. U mangagement is not in this business for the "long haul" to operate an airline. That writing has been flourescently written on the wall.

They are here to maximise their self serving interests by positioning the co. to maximise their return, and to become instant millionaires at whatever means they are able to accomplish that goal.

We, as employees, are just "collateral demage" in this process. There is no future here at U. I stay on here, as the mission of management becomes more blatant, to expose these guys and be an obsticle in their mission for as long as I am able and to protect all our jobs for as long as we are able.

 

[PITbull]

Bob,

Bronner has said publically that he is not here for the long term, but rather one or two years. Are you saying this guy has changed his mind? Airline business is very cyclical and risky. To calculate in a reasonable timeline a return on investment in airlines, you have to be basically, in then out.

Unless Bronner can get a good return for RSA in a relatively short time line, he will take his chairs on the tytanic and leave. There are much less risky ventures out there for RSA to maximise a return on investment, then to sit here and put even more money in the airline industry that has to contend with "labor unrest", future contracts and court battles, cyclical trends in the enconomy, fluctuations in interest rates, fuel price swings that effect "bottom line", and possible airline crashes and terrorist threats that directly effect travel.

If he stays here, he is just plain stupid.

 

[oldiebutgoody]

Bob,

Bronner has said publically that he is not here for the long term, but rather one or two years. Are you saying this guy has changed his mind? Airline business is very cyclical and risky. To calculate in a reasonable timeline a return on investment in airlines, you have to be basically, in then out.

Unless Bronner can get a good return for RSA in a relatively short time line, he will take his chairs on the tytanic and leave. There are much less risky ventures out there for RSA to maximise a return on investment, then to sit here and put money in the airline industry that has to contend with "labor unrest", future contracts and court battles, cyclical trends in the enconomy, fluctuations in interest rates, fuel price swings that effect "bottom line", and possible airline crashes and terrorist threats that directly effect travel.

If he stays here, he is just plain stupid.

Where did you hear this? I heard Dr. Bronner himself, on CNBC, say that he rarely sold his investments, and that he intended to hold U for a long time. While I agree that he is solely motivated by the investment potential, I would not expect to see him sell any of his stock in U until that potential is proven not to exist, and not a day sooner. He deals in "paper", that is, the worth of his fund is based on the value of the investments, NOT the amount of cash he has.

 

[PITbull]

He was interviewed in Reuters before our emergence from BK and made those exact statements. Someone on this board has also cited it a couple weeks back.

I will look through my old file and see if I can extract the interview he had as a Q&A and post it here.

U has repeatedly stated that they "have no money". Those words came from Seigel himself during the PIT hub talks last month, and that the future revenue picture looked "dim". Is he lying? Do you know of something that would contridict these sentiments? Look at the Casms...no improvements with all these concessions given.

Again, for a $24 Billion dollar investment co. to stick more money in a risky venture that has to do with secured retirement funds, just doesn't make sense for the long term.

 

[Teflon]

Bob right to work states mean nothing, our collective bargaining agreement is governed by federal law, not state and under our contract it has a union security clause which in order to work for US Airways you must join the union.

Only if there was a federal rtw work law would that apply.

 

[Diesel8]

Chip said: "In addition, labor contracts require a minimum of 279 mainline hulls and ALPA's contract requires the current block hours as a minimum."

But what would you do, if this number became less. What if Dave told you, that it was unsustainable and he needed you to agree to 250, 230 or 200? The mechanics were also promised a few things, but now, things are changing.

I really feel bad for the mechs this time around and I think, there should be a little more outrage. The pilots may well be next. The similarity would be Mesa flying a few of the 737. Safety would not be compromised, but there goes a few more jobs.

Contracts and promises be danmed, whatever Dave needs, he will try and extract. At what point will it end?

 

[Teflon]

In court yesterday the company attorney said they wanted only 240 planes but they were nice and kept it at 279, so watch Dave try to park 39 planes in the near future and break more contracts.

 

[birdseyeview]

Once again everyone needs to cut through all the clutter. Concentrate on what is most probable. I know I will get a lot of flack for this statement but here goes...."United is too big and entrenched to go Chapter 7". UA will survive. UA and US will be combined at some point to achieve the SIGNIFICANT cost savings in the next two years. Employees from both companies will be furloughed in the process but it will be done appropriately. The combined UA/US will gradually walk away from the PIT hub and use DUL. The DOT will approve a combined UA/US with an east coast operation that has DUL,PHL and CLT as its' east coast hubs along with current operations in DCA (some small divestitures) and BOS. Every movie has a "director" and ours just happens to be Lufthansa during this uncertain time. The "movie" has been cast and the actors are UA,US,Lufthansa and Mesa being the major players.

 

[Teflon]

There is no such city as DUL, you mean IAD which is Washington Dulles and you all seem to forget that The DOJ would not let US/UA merge because of DCA and IAD, that is why US spun off DCA into DC Air with Robert Johnson.

 

[Teflon]

Bob right to work states mean nothing, our collective bargaining agreement is governed by federal law, not state and under our contract it has a union security clause which in order to work for US Airways you must join the union.

Only if there was a federal rtw work law would that apply.

Well that may be true, but it makes organizing difficult for other groups. Add I might be wrong but in most RTW states even if I am required to join in the union I can usually avoid paying dues.

Bob wrong once again, under the RLA and Beck vs the CWA(decision from the Supreme Court) you have to pay dues, you can become an objector but you still have to pay dues for what is germane to the collective bargaining agreement, but by becoming an objector you become a non-member and cannot vote in elections or contracts nor participate in union meetings or fucntions. You become an agency fee payer.

 

[RowUnderDCA]

There is no such city as DUL, you mean IAD which is Washington Dulles and you all seem to forget that The DOJ would not let US/UA merge because of DCA and IAD, that is why US spun off DCA into DC Air with Robert Johnson.

Teflon-

That was a couple of years ago. The industry has changed since then, and Bird, mentioned some divestiture.

 

[T-bone]

...."United is too big and entrenched to go Chapter 7". UA will survive. .

Does anyone remember, Eastern, Branif, Pan Am, TWA etc.