US Airways' hints about cutting fleet worry pilots
- Thread starter Lou
- Start date
From purely an observation stand point, this is what I make out of the news. The airline will stick with the 245/270 fleet size that the pilots agreed to. However, they will simply get the judge to allow them to walk away from the outrageous lease rates and open the door to lease jets currently parked at half the cost -- as some have said. The question now is...how many Airbuses are currently parked to where the company can pick them up fairly fast? Also, is there the possibility U could return the 330-300s for -200s or convert the remaining 330 order to just -200s to replace the 767s and also allow for them to fly longer stages into new cities (potentially to replace UAL on some long haul routes when the code-share goes into effect).
On the comment about the oil prices and if Bush decides to finally get rid of Saddam -- the news programs this weekend covered this very subject. The overall view is that with the new agreement made with the Saudis to allow us to launch attacks from that country -- is that they will also work out to where they will flood the market with excess supply to keep oil prices low. Once Saddam is toppled, the resource rich Iraq would then be opened up to maintain the temporary oil increase from Saudi Arabia. There will be an increase...but it should be helped out with the added oil supply.
On the comment about the oil prices and if Bush decides to finally get rid of Saddam -- the news programs this weekend covered this very subject. The overall view is that with the new agreement made with the Saudis to allow us to launch attacks from that country -- is that they will also work out to where they will flood the market with excess supply to keep oil prices low. Once Saddam is toppled, the resource rich Iraq would then be opened up to maintain the temporary oil increase from Saudi Arabia. There will be an increase...but it should be helped out with the added oil supply.
Chip,
I honestly think your scenario is full of optimistic what if thinking.
A quick war like 1991-1992 to get rid of Saddam? You mean like the quick war in Afghanistan to get rid of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden? That's only been going on close to a year, with no end in sight. Granted, the tasks are not altogether similar, but I don't think a prediction of quick success can be so easily made, especially if it ends up involving urban combat in the streets of Baghdad. So your prediction of a quick drop in oil prices is overly optimistic in my view.
And I still don't view your scenario of a fragmentation of UA's domestic route network and transfer to US as realistic. I just think that far too many pieces would have to fall into place for that type of scenario to happen. I don't doubt that it's being discussed in certain circles. But a lot of things get discussed behind closed doors that never reach the light of day. Of course, you may be right. Only time will tell.
I honestly think your scenario is full of optimistic what if thinking.
A quick war like 1991-1992 to get rid of Saddam? You mean like the quick war in Afghanistan to get rid of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden? That's only been going on close to a year, with no end in sight. Granted, the tasks are not altogether similar, but I don't think a prediction of quick success can be so easily made, especially if it ends up involving urban combat in the streets of Baghdad. So your prediction of a quick drop in oil prices is overly optimistic in my view.
And I still don't view your scenario of a fragmentation of UA's domestic route network and transfer to US as realistic. I just think that far too many pieces would have to fall into place for that type of scenario to happen. I don't doubt that it's being discussed in certain circles. But a lot of things get discussed behind closed doors that never reach the light of day. Of course, you may be right. Only time will tell.
[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/16/2002 10:27:16 AM chipmunn wrote:
By the way, what better way for Northwest to head off the potential fragmentation of UA's domestic system into US, than to buy your competition.
This would have a very negative effect on UA.
Chip
----------------
[/blockquote]
Chip,
It would be really nice to see you not tie UAL to the breeze of USAir. Over the weekend I spoke to a union offical at UAL that said in the event that NW gained control of the CLT and PHL, shuttle ops. Then the DL codeshare with NW would definitely not be allowed and most likely UAL and DL would become codeshare partners. This would have a very negative affect to USAir and most importantly AMR.
Please do not read the tea leaves and see UAL and U linked at all cost because UAL does have more options than only USAir.
----------------
On 9/16/2002 10:27:16 AM chipmunn wrote:
By the way, what better way for Northwest to head off the potential fragmentation of UA's domestic system into US, than to buy your competition.
This would have a very negative effect on UA.
Chip
----------------
[/blockquote]
Chip,
It would be really nice to see you not tie UAL to the breeze of USAir. Over the weekend I spoke to a union offical at UAL that said in the event that NW gained control of the CLT and PHL, shuttle ops. Then the DL codeshare with NW would definitely not be allowed and most likely UAL and DL would become codeshare partners. This would have a very negative affect to USAir and most importantly AMR.
Please do not read the tea leaves and see UAL and U linked at all cost because UAL does have more options than only USAir.
Hi Magsau:
Magsau said: It would be really nice to see you not tie UAL to the breeze of USAir. Over the weekend I spoke to a union offical at UAL that said in the event that NW gained control of the CLT and PHL, shuttle ops. Then the DL codeshare with NW would definitely not be allowed and most likely UAL and DL would become codeshare partners. This would have a very negative affect to USAir and most importantly AMR. Please do not read the tea leaves and see UAL and U linked at all cost because UAL does have more options than only USAir.
Chip comments: The Bush Administration is looking at ways to help the industry and Andrew Card’s staff has been discussing this issue with the ATSB. Should the ATSB decide in favor of a consolidation as the best way to protect taxpayer investment, there will be little for other departments to do.
The board has extraordinary authority, but in the case of UA the biggest issue is governance, whether it’s the US code share, DL code share, or a “unique corporate transactionâ€. There have been reports from sources close to the discussions that the ATSB might require UA to enter bankruptcy to eliminate the ESOP, reconstitute the BOD, and change the corporate governance structure.
Interestingly, if NW and US would merge, the current market share of the two airlines would increase to 17.84 percent making NW the second largest airline in the world. When combined with the CO alliance, would increased the combined network to 27.28 percent.
At DL & UA alliance would take their combined network to 31.76 percent, but both airlines would still have big cost problems post US emergence. AMR, which is trying to cut $3 billion in costs and will park 83 jets, would be the third largest network with 19.07 percent.
Proposed market share scorecard:
UA & DL - 31.76 percent
NW, CO, & US – 27.28 percent
AA – 19.07 percent
WN – 7.16 percent
Will consolidation occur, will UA enter bankruptcy, and would any of these changes happen? I do not know, but one thing I do know is that all of these events have been discussed and the DOT’s decision on the UA-US code share is due on September 23.
Chip
Magsau said: It would be really nice to see you not tie UAL to the breeze of USAir. Over the weekend I spoke to a union offical at UAL that said in the event that NW gained control of the CLT and PHL, shuttle ops. Then the DL codeshare with NW would definitely not be allowed and most likely UAL and DL would become codeshare partners. This would have a very negative affect to USAir and most importantly AMR. Please do not read the tea leaves and see UAL and U linked at all cost because UAL does have more options than only USAir.
Chip comments: The Bush Administration is looking at ways to help the industry and Andrew Card’s staff has been discussing this issue with the ATSB. Should the ATSB decide in favor of a consolidation as the best way to protect taxpayer investment, there will be little for other departments to do.
The board has extraordinary authority, but in the case of UA the biggest issue is governance, whether it’s the US code share, DL code share, or a “unique corporate transactionâ€. There have been reports from sources close to the discussions that the ATSB might require UA to enter bankruptcy to eliminate the ESOP, reconstitute the BOD, and change the corporate governance structure.
Interestingly, if NW and US would merge, the current market share of the two airlines would increase to 17.84 percent making NW the second largest airline in the world. When combined with the CO alliance, would increased the combined network to 27.28 percent.
At DL & UA alliance would take their combined network to 31.76 percent, but both airlines would still have big cost problems post US emergence. AMR, which is trying to cut $3 billion in costs and will park 83 jets, would be the third largest network with 19.07 percent.
Proposed market share scorecard:
UA & DL - 31.76 percent
NW, CO, & US – 27.28 percent
AA – 19.07 percent
WN – 7.16 percent
Will consolidation occur, will UA enter bankruptcy, and would any of these changes happen? I do not know, but one thing I do know is that all of these events have been discussed and the DOT’s decision on the UA-US code share is due on September 23.
Chip
ITRADE
Veteran
[P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 9/16/2002 12:03:56 PM motnot wrote:
[P]Chip wrote: Finally, Northwest CEO Richard Anderson is said to be obsessed with obtaining the PHL & CLT hubs, as well as the Shuttle.[BR][BR]motnot's comments: Where do you get this, Chip. I've never seen anyone say that NWAC is interested in CLT, let alone obsessed. I don't think the PHL rumor is anything but old, and NWAC's use of DTW as its WorldGateway negates the need for an East Coast hub.[BR][BR]Sure, PHL could be profitable for some of the others, but it doesn't really fit in with any of their networks (other than AWA). NWAC is the only one of the big carriers that PHL doesn't totally clash with geographically, and I think that has combined with wishful thinking to create these rumors.[BR][BR]As for the Shuttle, just about everyone would want that.[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]I have to disagree with your thoughts on NW. The carrier has essentially NO east coast presence. DTW or MEM cannot realistically handle north/south traffic and NW is currently not in the game. Moreover, PHL is a 3 million person metropolis with almost no discount carrier coverage. [/P]
[BLOCKQUOTE][BR]----------------[BR]On 9/16/2002 12:03:56 PM motnot wrote:
[P]Chip wrote: Finally, Northwest CEO Richard Anderson is said to be obsessed with obtaining the PHL & CLT hubs, as well as the Shuttle.[BR][BR]motnot's comments: Where do you get this, Chip. I've never seen anyone say that NWAC is interested in CLT, let alone obsessed. I don't think the PHL rumor is anything but old, and NWAC's use of DTW as its WorldGateway negates the need for an East Coast hub.[BR][BR]Sure, PHL could be profitable for some of the others, but it doesn't really fit in with any of their networks (other than AWA). NWAC is the only one of the big carriers that PHL doesn't totally clash with geographically, and I think that has combined with wishful thinking to create these rumors.[BR][BR]As for the Shuttle, just about everyone would want that.[/P]----------------[/BLOCKQUOTE]
[P]I have to disagree with your thoughts on NW. The carrier has essentially NO east coast presence. DTW or MEM cannot realistically handle north/south traffic and NW is currently not in the game. Moreover, PHL is a 3 million person metropolis with almost no discount carrier coverage. [/P]
I am in it for myself and the other almost 7,000 mechanic and related employees and their families. Bob, no one including myself likes what is going on, but you have to face reality. The laws and the courts are stacked against labor, that is fact. But if this package gets voted down, Siegel will simply gut 53 years of a damn good contract. You become an employee at will with no rights, you basically become a slave to your boss. I on the other hand would like to enjoy a union contract and not be a servant to anyone.
This is a grim situation, but to vote a job as a mechanic away still making $28 an hour, a stock clerk still making $19 an hour or a utility person making $17 an hour doing compartable work. I will tell you there is none out there. And the industry does not expect to turn around for another six years. Things are bad, but they could be worse.
Aircraft maintenance can be farmed out at the drop of a hat, Southwest is approaching 400 airplanes with only 1,200 mechanics, US Airways has 280 airplanes with 4,200 mechanics, if US adopted Southwest's maintenance program they would only need 865 mechanics, no more Utility because the ramp will be doing that work and only a few stock clerks would be needed. This is about preserving jobs and people's families and living to fight another die and not cutting your nose off to spite your face
This is a grim situation, but to vote a job as a mechanic away still making $28 an hour, a stock clerk still making $19 an hour or a utility person making $17 an hour doing compartable work. I will tell you there is none out there. And the industry does not expect to turn around for another six years. Things are bad, but they could be worse.
Aircraft maintenance can be farmed out at the drop of a hat, Southwest is approaching 400 airplanes with only 1,200 mechanics, US Airways has 280 airplanes with 4,200 mechanics, if US adopted Southwest's maintenance program they would only need 865 mechanics, no more Utility because the ramp will be doing that work and only a few stock clerks would be needed. This is about preserving jobs and people's families and living to fight another die and not cutting your nose off to spite your face
Chip wrote: Finally, Northwest CEO Richard Anderson is said to be obsessed with obtaining the PHL & CLT hubs, as well as the Shuttle.
motnot's comments: Where do you get this, Chip. I've never seen anyone say that NWAC is interested in CLT, let alone obsessed. I don't think the PHL rumor is anything but old, and NWAC's use of DTW as its WorldGateway negates the need for an East Coast hub.
Sure, PHL could be profitable for some of the others, but it doesn't really fit in with any of their networks (other than AWA). NWAC is the only one of the big carriers that PHL doesn't totally clash with geographically, and I think that has combined with wishful thinking to create these rumors.
As for the Shuttle, just about everyone would want that.
motnot's comments: Where do you get this, Chip. I've never seen anyone say that NWAC is interested in CLT, let alone obsessed. I don't think the PHL rumor is anything but old, and NWAC's use of DTW as its WorldGateway negates the need for an East Coast hub.
Sure, PHL could be profitable for some of the others, but it doesn't really fit in with any of their networks (other than AWA). NWAC is the only one of the big carriers that PHL doesn't totally clash with geographically, and I think that has combined with wishful thinking to create these rumors.
As for the Shuttle, just about everyone would want that.
Chip, I dont think that they will buy the company, only the little peices and parts that it wants as will some of the other big 4. Additionally, you wont see any employees from U being picked up in that buy up. They will use there own people first. I can sure state one thing that is in fact very true. This situation for your company really sucks. Good Luck to all of you.
UAL777flyer:
UAL777flyer said: And I still don't view your scenario of a fragmentation of UA's domestic route network and transfer to US as realistic. I just think that far too many pieces would have to fall into place for that type of scenario to happen. I don't doubt that it's being discussed in certain circles. But a lot of things get discussed behind closed doors that never reach the light of day. Of course, you may be right. Only time will tell.
Chip comments: UAL777, you are a bright and informed person who I have a lot of respect for your thoughts. I have said that the UA fragmentation into US would be difficult to complete and there are many obstacles. My only point is that is has been discussed at senior government levels, in the investment community, at WHQ, and CCY.
Will it occur? I do not know and there are many issues to be resolved for both companies, but the odds of it happening are much higher than most people realize where the financing arm could be the ATSB and TPG.
Chip
UAL777flyer said: And I still don't view your scenario of a fragmentation of UA's domestic route network and transfer to US as realistic. I just think that far too many pieces would have to fall into place for that type of scenario to happen. I don't doubt that it's being discussed in certain circles. But a lot of things get discussed behind closed doors that never reach the light of day. Of course, you may be right. Only time will tell.
Chip comments: UAL777, you are a bright and informed person who I have a lot of respect for your thoughts. I have said that the UA fragmentation into US would be difficult to complete and there are many obstacles. My only point is that is has been discussed at senior government levels, in the investment community, at WHQ, and CCY.
Will it occur? I do not know and there are many issues to be resolved for both companies, but the odds of it happening are much higher than most people realize where the financing arm could be the ATSB and TPG.
Chip
Labor Friendly is the term Chip and others have been using to describe Dave and the reason we are getting a second chance to vote for the proposed contract.
See new thread
To all employees-Special Bulletin-USA Today article ) for more info on this subject.
To all employees-Special Bulletin-USA Today article ) for more info on this subject.[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/16/2002 11
29 AM us10 wrote:
G4G5;
Suggest you devote your energies on the AA board trying to explain to the TWA pilots why your union stapled them to the bottom of the list.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Maybe I should since you seem to have all the answers.
The airline I work for doesn't matter. Let me ask you this, Do you have an A&P? Have you ever worked as a mech/tech? If the answer is No, then maybe you should devote your time to understanding the issues from the view point of the A&P. It may help in the future when the No vote comes down and you are asking youeself, how did this happen.
As far as TWA, you see U's condition, where do you think that they would be today?
Get real,(to quote yourself).
----------------
On 9/16/2002 11
29 AM us10 wrote: G4G5;
Suggest you devote your energies on the AA board trying to explain to the TWA pilots why your union stapled them to the bottom of the list.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Maybe I should since you seem to have all the answers.
The airline I work for doesn't matter. Let me ask you this, Do you have an A&P? Have you ever worked as a mech/tech? If the answer is No, then maybe you should devote your time to understanding the issues from the view point of the A&P. It may help in the future when the No vote comes down and you are asking youeself, how did this happen.
As far as TWA, you see U's condition, where do you think that they would be today?
Get real,(to quote yourself).
I am in the process of trying to clarify something but that article that was posted creates some assumptions which apparently are in no way correct.
