Tidbits From The Alpa Meeting Today

[PITbull]

mr,


I agree with you 100%. I've seen first hand this management's MO.

Shaka,

In the business plan, there reveals no growth for PIT or stabilization, outside of MAA and management intimates that the 39 planes will come by year's end only if the financing is not pulled (another threat).

When posed the question about PITs fate, Dave states that that draws a BIG quesstion.

I believe management is not showing all their "hand" on any positive side. In their expression..."everything remains questionable and again...all up to labor".

 

[ITRADE]

It is very important to note the wording here. The company correctly states the GE would have "the ability to walk away" from the finanacing. They did NOT state that GE WOULD walk away from the financing. For those of you that do not get this try to remember that U flys where the people live. We have the foundation to truly make serious money. GE is also in the business of making money. They are not going to walk away from that opportunity because our rating falls another step.

That's one take on it.

Another is the fact that two LCCs have invaded US's #1 hub and are going to dillute yields substantially.

Why would a company lend money to an airline that went into bankruptcy once and is trading at about $4.50 a share at this point?

You can move all the passengers you want, but load factors do not equate profits.

 

[G4G5]

When talking about GE's"option to walk away". You need to ask yourself a few questions.

Could GE find a buyer/leaser right away for the ERJ170's?
Could they get a premium for the ERJ170?
What other assets does GE have tied to USAir?
Would the default on those assets out weigh the gain of leasing the ERJ's to someone else?

Any word on the possible sale of assets in order to provide additional cash to keep the bond rating up?

 

[DorkDriver]

They want to obtain scope modifications in the areas of RJ's and they added (at least on the power point) the 90 seater. Of course, noone pinned them down about how many or who, but I gather that would come with negotiations. They realize the 50 seater is a dead end. The larger RJ's are where the mustard is.


This is exactly why PSA cannot agree to more than 50/50 staffing on the CRJ700s or larger. There are pretty much two choices: 1. Both sides agree to 50/50 and put them at a WO where everyone is in the same fight for survial. or 2. The airplanes go to an affiliate at 50/50 anyway, most likely MESA where you will have 8 days off while on reserve.

Most J4Js at Mesa either hate it or have already quit. While PSA is not anything close to mainline, its a far cry from Mesa. Between MDA and PSA there are plenty of jobs to go around for everyone on the J4J list. But it must be 50/50 or the airplanes can't come here and then we will all be working at Mesa for 50/50.

 

[mwereplanes]

It is very important to note the wording here. The company correctly states the GE would have "the ability to walk away" from the finanacing. They did NOT state that GE WOULD walk away from the financing. For those of you that do not get this try to remember that U flys where the people live. We have the foundation to truly make serious money. GE is also in the business of making money. They are not going to walk away from that opportunity because our rating falls another step.

That's one take on it.

Another is the fact that two LCCs have invaded US's #1 hub and are going to dillute yields substantially.

Why would a company lend money to an airline that went into bankruptcy once and is trading at about $4.50 a share at this point?

You can move all the passengers you want, but load factors do not equate profits.

I'll answer that itrade. For the same reason they lent money to an airline that went into BK twice. Continental. And because the government has guaranteed the loans. And because the franchise here is as strong or stronger than any other airline because of where we fly. And because we are apparently going to take on the LCC's finally and beat them at their own game. The MDA negotiations that just concluded would be the final reason GE won't back out. The pilots are going to fly those GE financed jets at the same rates (actually lower based on seniority) as all the other RJ operators in the country. GE would be foolish to back out of that lucrative deal.

I assume you must buy and trade stock. Have you ever bought based on a company's potential? Interestingly, there are some analysts out there now who are seeing U's potential and advising purchase of the stock at the 4.50 you mention. GE also sees the potential. Bronner also saw the potential. Look at the renvenue we generate per ASM compared to the LCC's. Apparently this management finally understands what they must do to take advantage of that.

This employee group will do what is needed. As long as management makes operational changes. But in all reality it is what management must do that will determine our success. I am still of the mind that this management is inept. But at least someone has awakened them to the reality that they must change or fail. GE recognizes that. Maybe GE forced our management to recognize that. Thus, the loan will not be pulled.

mr

 

[ITRADE]

I'll answer that itrade. For the same reason they lent money to an airline that went into BK twice. Continental. And because the government has guaranteed the loans.

But the government is no longer guaranteeing new loans. Different ball game.

And because the franchise here is as strong or stronger than any other airline because of where we fly. And because we are apparently going to take on the LCC's finally and beat them at their own game.

Or so you say. Thats a calculated risk that you or somebody is going to or is not going to take. The stock market is currently saying "no way."

The MDA negotiations that just concluded would be the final reason GE won't back out. The pilots are going to fly those GE financed jets at the same rates (actually lower based on seniority) as all the other RJ operators in the country. GE would be foolish to back out of that lucrative deal.

This is an opportunity cost issue with GE. GE can let US have the planes, or could let somebody like JetBlue or other Star Alliance partners have them.

I assume you must buy and trade stock. Have you ever bought based on a company's potential? Interestingly, there are some analysts out there now who are seeing U's potential and advising purchase of the stock at the 4.50 you mention.

Name me a well-known analyst that has a buy rating on US Airways right now.

I do buy on potential. But when you have at least two work groups that are claiming that the "concession stand is closed," when you have two LCCs firing a shot right at your heart, when you have fuel costs crossing the $1.00 a gallon threshold, and when you have a route network that has done nothing but contract since about 1999, you're not going to convince many folks that the upside potential is that great.

Bronner also saw the potential. Look at the renvenue we generate per ASM compared to the LCC's. Apparently this management finally understands what they must do to take advantage of that.

Bronner is also a secured creditor and #1 debt holder. GE is not.

This employee group will do what is needed.

Sure, but talk to Scotty Ford and tell me what response you get from him.

 

[Peeky]

Thank you kindly for the information about the meeting. Not that I would believe anything the dream team from CCY said. They want everyone "on board" before unveiling all the details??? Right...........

:down: :down: :down: :down:

 

[crazyincanton]

Why not release the details of the plan IN ORDER to get everyone on board? No one is going to trust them enough to say " we're with you, tell us what you've got."
Lead by example and show us what you have been working on, what we all need to do. We've seen what happens with ambiguity with this management. Give us details first and let us make our decision. Seems to me instead of clearing out the fog, more smoke is being blown all around again.

crazyincanton

 

[colorado_cowboy]

Sure, but talk to Scotty Ford and tell me what response you get from him.

From what I understand its out of the Districts hands. Robert Roach JR now has the keys to the concession stand and it doesnt appear that he's willing to open it anytime soon ... if at all

 

[CaptianBoomer]

DorkDriver-

PSA should give the U furloughees 100% of the 70 seaters, with one caveat. PSA gets 100% of the flying for 30 jets. This would allow everyone at PSA to keep their jobs when the turboprops go away. I hear PSA is going to start hiring off the street. The rest of the jets should be 100% if they are 70 seats and larger.

There is a solution to this. Saying NO will just get you into the unemployment line. U is in a fight for its very existence. If they need 70 seaters and they offer them to you, my advise it to take them ASAFP and whatever the percentage is, it is not a problem. Get the jets. Worry about the percentage later. Several years from now, you will be sitting in the 70 seater and all the U guys will be gone. You will have an airline 3 times the size of the one you are at now.

Of course, PSA might be part of Mesa anyway.

Boomer

 

[700UW]

That is correct General Vice President of Transportation is calling the shots for both DL 141M (Mechanic and Related) and DL 141 (Fleet Service).

IAM was summoned to CCY next Thursday, Mr Roach called back and said no thanks, we won't be there.

Reasonings was we gave them solutions on the Airbus and gave them solutions for the problems in PHL and a myriad of other issues, it all went on deaf ears so there is nothing for the IAM to talk to Dave and his dishonest executives.

 

[PoorPropDriver]

DorkDriver-

PSA should give the U furloughees 100% of the 70 seaters, with one caveat. PSA gets 100% of the flying for 30 jets. This would allow everyone at PSA to keep their jobs when the turboprops go away. I hear PSA is going to start hiring off the street. The rest of the jets should be 100% if they are 70 seats and larger.

There is a solution to this. Saying NO will just get you into the unemployment line. U is in a fight for its very existence. If they need 70 seaters and they offer them to you, my advise it to take them ASAFP and whatever the percentage is, it is not a problem. Get the jets. Worry about the percentage later. Several years from now, you will be sitting in the 70 seater and all the U guys will be gone. You will have an airline 3 times the size of the one you are at now.

Of course, PSA might be part of Mesa anyway.

Boomer

By what mechanism would we be able to staff 30 acft.? The company has refused to offer any no furlough clause for us, so if U stops taking delivery of 50 seat acft. before we take delivery of 30 acft. and the remainder of the order consists only 70 seat acft. we are screwed.

 

[Stuka Luva]

DorkDriver-

PSA should give the U furloughees 100% of the 70 seaters

My one question is WHY?

Why is it an entitlement for mainline pilots to fly 70-seaters @ 100%?

I'm all for 50/50 as per the J4J agreement. 99.5% of J4J pilots now here are great guys/gals and I would love to fly with them any day. Every one I've talked to at least (naturally not every one of them on property) support a 50/50 staffing of 70s. It's only fair. It is about jobs and pay of course, but especially with the startup of MDA, and one pay rate @ PSA for both aircraft, what's the difference who flies what as long as as many of us as possible have jobs?

Because it's the principle...


BTW: PSA MEC will NEVER agree to 100% staffing, so face facts. Whether you think it's right or wrong, that is the current situation.

 

[Bud8EE]

DorkDriver-

PSA should give the U furloughees 100% of the 70 seaters

My one question is WHY?

Why is it an entitlement for mainline pilots to fly 70-seaters @ 100%?

I'm all for 50/50 as per the J4J agreement. 99.5% of J4J pilots now here are great guys/gals and I would love to fly with them any day. Every one I've talked to at least (naturally not every one of them on property) support a 50/50 staffing of 70s. It's only fair. It is about jobs and pay of course, but especially with the startup of MDA, and one pay rate @ PSA for both aircraft, what's the difference who flies what as long as as many of us as possible have jobs?

Because it's the principle...


BTW: PSA MEC will NEVER agree to 100% staffing, so face facts. Whether you think it's right or wrong, that is the current situation.

Mainline ALPA has 1800 furloughed pilots. UAIR management wants to restore the capacity that was cut post 9/11 with CRJ 700 or EMB 170 type aircraft. These aicraft have similar capacity and range(some with more) than mainline planes that have been parked. What UAIR management has done and is replaced mainline flying with cheaper labor agreements, with aircraft that not "regional" by any definition. Mainline ALPA has already allowed them to lower the pay and benifits for such jobs to the chagrin of the 1800+ and it would be another slap to not secure the very same jobs that the scope relief they alllowed are replacing.

 

[cavalier]

That is correct General Vice President of Transportation is calling the shots for both DL 141M (Mechanic and Related) and DL 141 (Fleet Service).

IAM was summoned to CCY next Thursday, Mr Roach called back and said no thanks, we won't be there.

Reasonings was we gave them solutions on the Airbus and gave them solutions for the problems in PHL and a myriad of other issues, it all went on deaf ears so there is nothing for the IAM to talk to Dave and his dishonest executives.

Good for Mr. Roach!!

Like the recent crew meetings we had in maintenance.
They informed us that the tracks are behind, especially in CLT. In fact they said the airbus 330 service to Glasgow starting May 10th might need to be cancelled due to maintenance not being accomplished. We were told Pit is a little better but still behind and it's only a matter of time before they have to park more planes because of delays in Pit too. They have in a chart showing we are reaching a breaking point saying: we lack capacity to handle current cycle times.

But, don’t allow one-second overtime or call back one furloughed soul.

They presented to us the cost per a maintenance seat mile of U to the LCC carries, 89 cents for the LCC and $1.39 for U.

Explained how the Absentee Codes draws a sad picture costing the company $999,00. Basically they used charts and graphs to draw a picture of how we as a maintenance are costing the company tons of money and we must all work real hard to keep everything on schedule. They want us to bust our behinds while at the same time we are working shifts we don't want, days off we don't want, with 7 day rotations, working with two rounds of concessions under our belt and very high insurance premiums wondering when we will hit the streets.

They just about came out and said if they didn't have a maintenance department and everything was outsourced, then they would have a winning formula for success.

They expect men to give it 200% when they can't get a day off, are working shifts and days if they hate, it other words there is zero incentive to even give a rats ###.

Funny how the A team of bean counters forgets to mention how many managers they have to over see the maintenance department. Like the tracks for example: Years ago one manager took care of several tracks, now for every maintenance track there is a manager and a foreman and a lead who is really the only who does anything, the foremen and managers just walk the cat walk with their shot guns playing task masters. Way too many managers, very top heavy. In some support shops on the weekends we have two men and one foreman to over see them. I guess the men are considered so sorry that a foreman must oversee two mechanics on the weekends.

Digesting what was said all points to costs and how we as maintenance are bringing down the company and how we must break our collective behinds to save the day, and if we are real lucky, then just maybe we will still be employed next month.


Tis life at the once great U with this new and very strange management team we have in place. I say bravo to Mr. Roach of the IAM for telling them how it really is.