UAL ALPA Confirms Interesting Corporate Transaction

[chipmunn]

Two Unions Say United Plans to Create Low-Cost Airline
NEW YORK (New York Times) - The pilots'' and flight attendants'' unions at United Airlines lashed out yesterday against the company''s plan to create a low-cost carrier, accusing executives of dismantling United.
The unions said they were vehemently opposed to the proposal, under which the new carrier would operate with separate pay scales, work rules and seniority lists.
In a letter to the union membership, Paul Whiteford, chairman of the United chapter of the Air Line Pilots Association, said that even though United had not made any announcements about its new carrier, it had told the union of its plans. The letter said executives had proposed giving away some of our most modern narrow-bodies to another company and allowing that company to operate a large part of the United network with non-United employees.
Complete Story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/30/business...artner=MOREOVER

 

[UnitedChicago]

=POST DELETED BY MODERATOR=

 

[fatburger]

funny thing UnitedChicago............this "interesting corporate transaction" is coming from UAL Management and UAL ALPA.

kool aid, huh...................hmmmm.

-fatburger-

 

[UnitedChicago]

I agree that a seperate operation is being proposed...but where have you read "interesting corporate transaction"? Or where have you read that U is participating?

 

[luv2fly]

Ok Chip,

Please confirm or deny that you are trying to imply that these aircraft might be slated for U.

Anyone, anyone... Bueller, Bueller?

 

[fatburger]

well hells bells.........no one said anything about U. Chip said U has been discussing an "interesting corporate transaction" for months now.

Also, Cpt. Whiteford (UAL) has stated that managements plans are to sell off newer narrow body aircraft and routes to create a low cost airline with seperate employees, management and labor contracts.

Don't you find that "interesting" UnitedChicago?

 

[airlineorphan]

Perhaps it's a coincidence, U management has apparently been requesting relief from unions from Change of Control language.

Some sort of game is afoot. If it is an "interesting" corporate transaction, I think that's "insteresting" in the manner of the Chinese curse: "May you live in interesting times."

I suspect U and UAL management are up to something, and whether it's with each other or separate games, I'm pretty sure it won't be any good for the vast majority of U and UAL employees. Given the codeshare relationship, and all the swirling smoke though, I suspect there is a fire here somewhere. I wouldn't be surprised if something resembling Chip's speculated "interesting corporate transaction" is on management's gameboard.

Watch each other's backs at U and UAL!

-Airlineorphan

 

[cltvff]

UnitedChidago...... you might want to check the link. As stated above, this did come from UAL ALPA.

 

[tug_slug]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/30/2003 6:43:13 AM chipmunn wrote:

Two Unions Say United Plans to Create Low-Cost Airline

NEW YORK (New York Times) - The pilots' and flight attendants' unions at United Airlines lashed out yesterday against the company's plan to create a low-cost carrier, accusing executives of dismantling United.

The unions said they were vehemently opposed to the proposal, under which the new carrier would operate with separate pay scales, work rules and seniority lists.

In a letter to the union membership, Paul Whiteford, chairman of the United chapter of the Air Line Pilots Association, said that even though United had not made any announcements about its new carrier, it had told the union of its plans. The letter said executives had proposed "giving away some of our most modern narrow-bodies to another company and allowing that company to operate a large part of the United network with non-United employees."

Complete Story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/30/business...artner=MOREOVER

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

Why should this concern us? U still has a major obstacle to over come.

 

[Oliver Stone''s Apprentice]

Chip, you never give up, do you...

It may be an interesting corporate transaction, but I very much doubt it will involve US Airways, Inc.

Instead it will probably be an INTERNAL corporate transaction, with UAL setting up a "Freedom Air" type subsidiary within UAL.

 

[767jetz]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/30/2003 8:46:20 AM eolesen wrote:

Chip, you never give up, do you...

It may be an interesting corporate transaction, but I very much doubt it will involve US Airways, Inc.

Instead it will probably be an INTERNAL corporate transaction, with UAL setting up a "Freedom Air" type subsidiary within UAL.
----------------
[/blockquote]

Thanks! you took the words right out of my mouth. UAL wants to create another airline, ala "Jazz" or "Song" and use UA aircraft and routes. NONE of what's been said confirms any crazy corporate transaction with U.

ALPA and AFA will fight this to the end. If there is going to be a Shuttle by United II, it will end up being crewed by people on the UA seniority list, NOT USAir. Period.

 

[fatburger]

767jetz-

ALPA and the AFA can kick and scream all they want. There is nothing you can do about it unless the employees decide to shut it down. We both know that that won't happen.

-fatburger-

 

[Steiner]

Beware the Zombie Alliance, rising up to go after the Evil Alliance and the Low Cost Carriers.

 

[UnitedChicago]

eolesen...thanks...agree with you. that was basically my point.

i've always wanted U and UA together and it still makes a ton of sense. I just don't think either one - especially UAL - has a spare second to event think about a combination.

Sure Bronner does...but UA is under intense pressure - i think any talk of a deal would have to wait.

 

[wings396]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/30/2003 8:46:20 AM eolesen wrote:

Chip, you never give up, do you...

It may be an interesting corporate transaction, but I very much doubt it will involve US Airways, Inc.

Instead it will probably be an INTERNAL corporate transaction, with UAL setting up a "Freedom Air" type subsidiary within UAL.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Internal for now, until they get everyting separated then wait to see where it goes from that point. Once they pry it away from the main operation, you will have even less say in what happens from there...just wait and see. I have not seen eye to eye with Chip for a long time, but he has some insight as to what is unfolding here as I do too. UA & US have had plans for years and will see that they get done one way or another.