What's new

The New Us Airways

700UW said:
No they did not, it was a final offer and YOU and your coworkers are the ones who voted on it, not your general chairmen.
[post="240608"][/post]​

700UW, IT WAS THE LAST AND FINAL OFFER ALRIGHT, BUT YOU MUST REMEMBER

FULL PAY TO THE LAST DAY

THE CONCESSION STAND IS CLOSE.

IF THE IAM HAD NEGOCIATED FROM EARLY FALL WE WOULD PROBABLY HAD LOST AN ADDITIONAL 200 T0 300 MECHS AND ALL UTILITY BUT WE WOULD NOT HAVE LOST
OUR CONTRACT.

IAM :down
 
On 1/5/05 The IAM Gave the company a proposal that met and exceded the "Ask" and it would have preserved most of the jobs, the company was not interested and turned it down.

This showed the Negotiating Committee that the company only wanted it their way and showed no regard to the hard work of the Negotiating Committee, but I would not expect you to know this since not involved in the process.
 
amt4u said:
700UW, IT WAS THE LAST AND FINAL OFFER ALRIGHT, BUT YOU MUST REMEMBER

IF THE IAM HAD NEGOCIATED FROM EARLY FALL WE WOULD PROBABLY HAD LOST AN ADDITIONAL 200 T0 300 MECHS AND ALL UTILITY BUT WE WOULD NOT HAVE LOST OUR CONTRACT.
[post="240737"][/post]​
You cant honestly believe that.
 
unit4clt said:
700,

You and the rest of the IAM should be proud of the contributions made on the transformation of US into a LOW WAGE carrier. So stop your complaining you and the IAM assisted in the process. :down: :down: :down:
[post="240605"][/post]​
quit pissing and moaning here and tell why you didn't have the balls to vote it down(oh i understand...so you can blame your union for your lack of spine).
 
I'm gonna stick around for a while and see what I can make out of whats left. Maybe we can go back to having a good time once in a while
My feelings exactly. B)




700UW...

This is not about you, it is about cost driven changes to the regulation era organizational and operational structure. The most important fact is, that if we can get our costs down to where WN and JB are, we will not just survive but succeed. If we cannot, it is only a matter of time until we cease to exist.

You have to understand , I hold no animosity towards your work group, I only support efforts to rationalize our overhead in comparison to our direct competition.

That competition is no longer the other legacies (they are as wounded, or even more so than U at this point). It is the LCC's that are attacking our core markets,

Unlike past management (that could allow the regulation era structure to remain intact). this one has no choice. We have nowhere left to run, no shelter from the changes around us. We have to stop clinging to what was, and move on.

Your pipe dream of some "Super CEO" that could have come up with some magical business plan that no one could copy, that could overcome the numerous advantages of our competition, and allow all of the work groups to avoid sacrifice is pure fantasy. We cannot compete at a disadvantage, that is plain and simple.

Face it, even if every management mistake (that you are more than wiling to point out) was never made, we would still be fighting for our survival right now (just like every other carrier... including those with the managers that do give away Explorers)

Because it is the one "mistake" that you are not willing to point out, that has kept us at a disadvantage with our low cost competition. That "mistake", was that all the legacies created a "false sense of security", by maintaining labor cost parity with ONLY with one another, not the LCC's. Was that managments fault, or should labor share the blame for an unwillingness to address such a weakness until it was too late...?



Your job is important 700UW, and I respect those that accomplish it in the same way I respect all the people that make this airline work. But the sad truth is that it is not certificated, and it is caught in a situation in which both the company looks to cut costs, and your union is looking to salvage what leverage they have remaining.

With that combination, you cannot maintain the situation that you have tried so hard to keep. That is economic and political reality. Neither the comapny nor the IAM is looking to get rid of utility, but in the grand scheme of things, when cuts have to be made, then choices have to be made as well.

You know as well as I do, that the position you maintained, at the pay you made, can no longer exist in our new reality. But that does not mean that we have to write off utility altogethr. IMO it is a better idea, and better job security for the role of those positions to focus on aircraft maintenance/upkeep, where you can work alongside mechanics in a cost effective manner to keep the fleet in prime condition... Rather than mere aircraft servicing. (better skills and higher productivity = higher pay and job security)l

Change is inevitable, and smart people adapt to and profit from it, while those that are inflexible are just left behind. I hope that a person as smart as you are 700UW will be able to make the most of what remains, and what opportunities will arise. That is the best that any of us can do right now.

Good Luck, to you and everyone here...
 
700UW said:
On 1/5/05 The IAM Gave the company a proposal that met and exceded the "Ask" and it would have preserved most of the jobs, the company was not interested and turned it down.

This showed the Negotiating Committee that the company only wanted it their way and showed no regard to the hard work of the Negotiating Committee, but I would not expect you to know this since not involved in the process.
[post="240739"][/post]​


700,

I have heard that statement from many sources, and I sure hope you can shed some light on it.

If ther IAM met the ask, $$$-wise, wouldn't the judge have some say-so as to its acceptability?

If the ask was met, and the company refused it, I'd go to the judge and say, straighten the company out, OR WE WALK.

What am I missing?
 
The judge has nothing to do with negotiations, he cannot force the company to accept a proposal from the union, he can only rule on a motion put in front of him.

The company is in the driver's seat, not the union, the judge is only responsible to ensure the creditors get as much money back as possible.
 
What am I missing?
You are missing the point.

It is to obtain permanent cost reductions, not a temporary reprise leading to a return to the uncompetitive cost structure of old.

I have not seen the IAM proposal that 700UW talks about, but I can hazard a guess that in comparison to the company's one..., It has temporary cuts, rather than the company agreement, that the IAM would have to slowly negotiate improvements to in the future...
 
Rico you are incorrect.

The proposal had $282 Million in cuts per year for the duration of the proposal.

Since you are not an IAM member, representative nor on the negotiating committee you should not speculate on something you have no idea about.
 
Rico-

I often find myself disagreeing with you. However, you have made some very strong, well writen points in this thread. Thank you.
 
What's not mentioned here is that very little change has been impacted to the horrid strategic and operational practices that have driven U's costs up for years. Absent those, costs will never approach those of any LCC (why do you think LUV is able to pay it's employees more than U employees and still have costs that are like 40% less?)

What the "campfire kool-aide drinkers" fail to understand is that they could work _for free_ and still not approach the costs of the LCCs--that has everything to do with non-labor costs, which have barely been touched.
 
PineyBob said:
The move to FLL and the rolling hub in PHL are not moves to streamline? BTW, I don't have to drink CCY Kool-Aid, I have a collection of fine Single Barrel and small batch boubons to cloud my judgement.

Why were these not done after the first bankruptcy? Say it with me now: m-a-n-a-g-e-m-e-n-t failure. Neither were even attempted before re-entering bankruptcy.

FLL is not streamlining. It's running. How long do you think it'll take before the LCCs head to the islands or AA pops up capacity out of MIA and DFW to Latin America? PHL's baggage is still broken. There are still 10 or so express carriers. The CASM is still north of 10 cents. There were no fuel hedges before the latest bankruptcy. The website still sucks (and now you can't understand the people taking the calls). The inflight product (not the people who deliver it) is noncompetitive with other legacies upfront, and on or below par with the LCCs in the back. Need I go on?

Oh, and PHL does not get really smoothed until next month. And no matter what you do with it, PHL will remain a runway and ATC contrained airfield that CCY is hell bent upon turning into a connecting hub.

Anybody who knows the least little thing about such basic principals as Six-Sigma, Lean, process analysis and design, etc would puke at the stuff coming out of CCY, and nothing has been done to stop it.

Then again, I'm not drinking the kool-aide.

Doesn't Randy over at FlyerTalk need his arse kissed?? I think you missed a spot.
[post="240809"][/post]​

I love it when grown men and women resort to "neener, neener, neener" as a tactic of discussion and debate. That, and coming from a guy who has continued to defend (and dare I say, arse kiss) the management team who drove joint into the ground twice despite the employees that have kept the place alive for years, it really illustrates the disconnect one can achieve from intellectual honesty with the consumption of just a few bourbons...

Cheers.
 
Clue by Four:

I agree...

But I think you are missing other big points. Yes, some streamlining has been done, like the rolling hub at PHL... but here is what has not been done:

Aircraft Utilization
But where is US Airways aircraft utilization compared to the LCC's? Southwest flies its planes more every day by scheduling every aircraft turn at 30minutes or less. America West runs a night time hub at LAS to increase its utilization. jetBlue runs transcons from JFK/IAD/BOS to California and other west-coast cities including night time operations to increase utilization. Where are these efforts at US Airways?

USA320Pilot says they cannot increase utilization until contracts change. That is BS. The TRUTH is that they cannot increase utilization without contract changes or without recalling F/A's and pilots. The company chose not to increase utilization until contracts were changed. Which is fine, but its a lost opportunity. And, thus far, I have seen no indication of future utilization increases. For example, adding FLL-Caribbean flights does not strike me as a more efficient flight pattern than operating a larger PIT hub.

Turn Times
One way to increase utilization is to reduce turn times like Southwest. The rolling PHL hub combined with new point-to-point service is supposed to accomplish this. However, we have seen very little in terms of new, mainline point-to-point service. The point-to-point service we have seen was primarily at DCA and primarily a defense mechanism against Independence Air.

Fleet Rationalization
I have been on this topic for a while. US Airways has two equipment types for almost every single flight mission:

A330/B767 - Transatlantic
A321/B757 - Long-haul + high density (B757 has better range capabilities)
B320/A319/B737 - (Airbus has better range than "classic" 737's)
ERJ-170/CRJ-700 - mid density
ERJ/CRJ - low density
DH8/SF3 - ultra low density

Now, I understand that the ERJ/CRJ and DH8/SF3 categories fall into "those are contract carriers". But the point stands. Still, when the company has an opportunity to fix this mess, they don't. Example: They ordered both 70-seat RJ's from Embraer and Bombardier. Example: They are returning (according to USA320Pilot) both A319's and 737's. There has been exactly no effort placed on rationalization of the fleet.

These items are BIG and yet the company has done very little to fix them. These are structural issues that lowering wages, eliminating pensions, and reducing headcount won't fix. These are items that can simultaneously unit costs while increasing overall revenue.
 
700UW said:
Cal had a visionary leader who respected his employees, unlike the management that is at US Airways.

How many Ford Explorers has US Airways given away?
[post="240691"][/post]​
700, You have "personally" spoken to Mr. Lakefield....Why don't you "buddy-up" with him a little and see if you can get some of your members an Explorer.....What the hell...might be worth a shot! From what I've seen on previous posts, you and "Mr. Lakefield" are on pretty good terms!!! Turn on that charm of yours and REALLY do something for the membership! Hell, may even get you recognized by your "union" leadership", and you could go live in Maryland for a lifetime job!!!!Damn!!!!!....Sounds like a plan!! :up:
 
funguy2 said:
Clue by Four:

ITS ALL ABOUT COST, USAIR CAN FLY REDEYES FULL AND STILL LOSE MONEY WITH TODAY IS COST, HOWEVER ONCE THE CONTRACTS ARE IMPLEMENTED( FEB 5 2005) COST SHOULD COME DOWN AND USAIR CAN MAKE A PROFIT EVEN IN SWA OR JBLUE TERRITORY. IT IS ALL ABOUT COST...... ( THAT IS WHY WE ARE WHERE WE ARE)

JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top