UAL ALPA will not agree to put an airline within an airline...

ISN

Member
Jan 11, 2003
24
0
United pilots said they recognize that a low-cost unit within United is important for the airline''s recovery strategy. But they said any attempt to sell off routes, aircraft and other assets to a low-cost carrier with separate management and labor contracts would not be tolerated.
We want United to get out of Chapter 11. But ALPA will not agree to put an airline within an airline that would have a separate seniority list, a separate employee list and a separate collective bargaining agreement and then have that possibly be spun off. That''s a recipe for disaster, Captain Paul Whiteford, Chairman of United''s branch of the Air Line Pilots Association, told Reuters.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/30/2003 6:33:02 AM ISN wrote:

United pilots said they recognize that a low-cost unit within United is important for the airline's recovery strategy. But they said any attempt to sell off routes, aircraft and other assets to a low-cost carrier with separate management and labor contracts would not be tolerated.

"We want United to get out of Chapter 11. But ALPA will not agree to put an airline within an airline that would have a separate seniority list, a separate employee list and a separate collective bargaining agreement and then have that possibly be spun off. That's a recipe for disaster," Captain Paul Whiteford, Chairman of United's branch of the Air Line Pilots Association, told Reuters.


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

AMEN TO THAT!

Sorry Chip, but your claim that UAL has just confirmed your secret corporate transaction with U is wrong and misleading. Yes UAL wants a low cost subsidiary just like "Jazz" or "Song." But don't assume or imply that this means UA is going to fragment or sell off A/C and other assets to USAir.

If anything it will be kept under the UAL umbrella and any flying shifted from mainline to Shuttle by United II will be crewed by employees on the UA seniority list. Certainly not by US crews or anyone else for that matter.
 
From the sound of some of the posts by Chip and friends, it seems like there are those at U hoping that a loss of flying and jobs at UA, will mean more jobs and flying at U.

Don't count on it. The real work of hammering this thing out is just beginning.

Stay tuned...
 
767jetz sniped:

Sorry Chip, but your claim that UAL has just confirmed your secret corporate transaction with U is wrong and misleading. Yes UAL wants a low cost subsidiary just like "Jazz" or "Song." But don't assume or imply that this means UA is going to fragment or sell off A/C and other assets to USAir.

If anything it will be kept under the UAL umbrella and any flying shifted from mainline to Shuttle by United II will be crewed by employees on the UA seniority list. Certainly not by US crews or anyone else for that matter.

DCAflyer replies:

Errr, jetz... UAL didn't confirm it, ALPA did. In your continued fervor to blast Chip, you should go back and read what was said. Nobody said that U will staff UAL "Shuttle II" but now that your bring it up, who will see to it that the flying is done by UAL employees on the seniority list, as you claim? The judge? The DIP financeers? ALPA? You need to realize that the days of the tail wagging the dog at UAL are over. In the end, labor was the weakest link.

Personally, I don't think the low cost thingy will get off the ground, but that's just my opinion. But I don't think Chip even implied that the UAL Sh*ttle will be staffed by U folks or that this transaction has anything to do with U, outside perhaps some codeshare feed.
 
Captain Paul Whiteford, Chairman of United's branch of the Air Line Pilots Association, told Reuters, "But ALPA will not agree to put an airline within an airline that would have a separate seniority list, a separate employee list and a separate collective bargaining agreement and then have that possibly be spun off."

Chip
 
Even though, I am not a big fan of the UAL pilot group due their actions a couple years ago. This AAA pilot will not scab. Chip is an army of one. Do not take him to seriously, we dont. Good luck to all during this time of change.
 
LGA fleet service wrote:

A thread titled "UAL ALPA confirms interesting corporate transaction" doesn't?


DCAflyer replies:

Chip posed a link to an media article. How does that imply any editorializing or opinion on his part? People are so quick quick to jump down his throught they aren't even waiting until he opens his mouth.
 
Magsau said: "According to Chris Bowers, Sr. VP of North America the LCC would be a separate certificate operation. The employees would be UAL furloughees and they would have to resign mainline seniority to accept positions at new company."



This sounds as if UA is simply creating their own version of MDA. Nothing to do with U.

INVOL
 
DCA,

How on earth can you not look at the title, "ual alpa confirms ITC" and not see Chips handiwork. Perhaps you have never posted a topic but the subject is input by the poster. They have "artistic interpatation" into what they call the post.

Mr. Munn uses this to his benefit way too much. As I and many other have said over the years, Chippy is the USA version of a serial poster. He only post when the (sorry for the pun) Chips are down at U or UAL. He is either preaching to the U employees on what they should give up to keep him employed or he is ranting about how U is going to swallow up UAL and rule the world.

According to Chris Bowers, Sr. VP of North America the LCC would be a separate certificate operation. The employees would be UAL furloughees and they would have to resign mainline seniority to accept positions at new company.
That is the rub and ALPA does not like it. I do not like and feel that the majority of our employees do not like it. It is our fight and we will do it any way we can. For anyone to stand and salivate over the possibility of rewarding themselves by flying someone elses routes for a lower cost is in effect by all definitions committing an act that has a four letter word that starts with S and ends with B.

Chip you were part of the 570 and they were profiled to S--B, you may get your wish to finaly do the job you were hired to do in '85. Fly struck work. Enjoy!
 
invol,

Exactly, the virtual airline will not be represented by any of the current carriers. The hope is to have millions of express type units cutting the throats of each other to minimize the strength of a large workforce. The traditional divide and conquer on a large scale. The only hope is to get a judge to do something along the lines of what happened at AA eagle a few years ago and declare all the virtual carriers as one and allow for a single bargaining unit, otherwise it is lights out on the airline industry as we know it. Or as a career for that matter.
 
Not to stray from the discussion...isn't Air Canada Jazz the commuter carrier? While Zip and Tango are the LCCs. I'm guessing fares aren't too high on Jazz...but not sure how low they can go flying Dash 8s, Beeches, CRJs, and 146s. :)
 
I'm sure US and UA discussed a transaction, but discussing it and taking it seriously are two different things.

Bill Compton discussed a TWA merger with every other major airline CEO before finally striking a deal with Don Carty and AA. And no, that's not jumpseat mythology...
 
Magsau said: "According to Chris Bowers, Sr. VP of North America the LCC would be a separate certificate operation. The employees would be UAL furloughees and they would have to resign mainline seniority to accept positions at new company."

Chip comments: Wow, this is industry leading and a sad event. However, let's not forget that UAL ALPA MEC Chairman Paul Whiteford said in a letter to the pilot group 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."

Moreover, Whiteford told Reuters, "But ALPA will not agree to put an airline within an airline that would have a separate seniority list, a separate employee list and a separate collective bargaining agreement and then have that possibly be spun off."

Another interesting comment was "any attempt to sell off routes, aircraft and other assets to a low-cost carrier with separate management and labor contracts would not be tolerated", Whiteford said.

Again, I do not wish any ill will on the UA employees and US and its employees sure have our share of problems.

However, the "unique corporate transaction" has been discussed by the two companies, Siegel and senior management has discussed potential UA-US corporate transaction scenarios with colleagues of mine and the comments above were made by UAL MEC Chairman Paul Whiteford.

Whiteford was the one who publicly told the news media the proposed low fare unit could then be "spun off", not me.

Will it occur? I do not know, but has it been discussed throughout 2002 between management of US and UA? Absolutely.

Chip