[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/4/2003 11:32:28 AM US Airways, Inc wrote:
Diogenes raises a concern that we are holding something back that I want to address.
Under the CWA and Fleet Service agreements, there are no specific plans to furlough additional people as a result of the changes in their respective agreements. In fact, in the Fleet service agreement, the outsourcing of mail/cargo will be by attrition only, not through the furloughing of additional people. That is why there are no comparable numbers for CWA or IAM fleet -- because we don't anticipate furloughs as a result of our new deals.
Let's not kid ourselves though. Some smaller cities that have traditionally been mainline stations could still be converted to Express, based on market conditions. Our slowness in addressing our high cost structure in these kind of markets opened up opportunities for low-cost carriers and regional airlines to come in and clean our clocks.
Should a station be coverted, agents with seniority rights can move to another station or stay on at Express rates. Is that a perfect solution? No. But we are operating in a tough competitive business and there isn't much room for error, so we are responding by implementing a business plan that will allow us to survive and succeed.
So as it relates to a specific number, target or plan to furlough additional CWA members, there is none.
Chris Chiames
----------------
[/blockquote]
------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Chiames,
Thank you for responding to my post. Your reply clears up some of the misunderstandings. Perhaps I am the only one too dense to have a clear understanding of these matters, so I ask your indulgence.
As I read the Fleet Service Agreement, and the concessionary documents amending it, I agree there is nothing in the new language explicitly compelling station conversions or furlough. There is also nothing in the new language prohibiting it, either. The right to convert a mainline station to express service has been retained by the Company prior to, as well as under, the Fleet Service Agreement. Many stations have been converted to express under the Agreement.
So, why have I deduced that a significant amount of furloughs and/or conversion from mainline to express service await fleet and customer services? Two reasons.
1. The MDA/express language has been added for a reason.
2. $14,000,000 and 11,000,000 dollars, annually.
Where is the $14 million annual contribution fleet service, and the $11 million customer service must make in this latest round of concessions coming from? There are no adjustments to wages, pensions, or language other than increased medical contributions. As the increase in medical contributions does not make a sizeable dent in the bogey numbers, I can only deduct the savings come from some combination of furloughs and downgrades from mainline to express.
If I have missed something or miscalculated, I humbly apologize to everyone on this board, and especially you, for wasting your time. I certainly would appreciate having what I am overlooking spelled out to where even I can understand it.
Again, thank you for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
Diogenes
----------------
On 1/4/2003 11:32:28 AM US Airways, Inc wrote:
Diogenes raises a concern that we are holding something back that I want to address.
Under the CWA and Fleet Service agreements, there are no specific plans to furlough additional people as a result of the changes in their respective agreements. In fact, in the Fleet service agreement, the outsourcing of mail/cargo will be by attrition only, not through the furloughing of additional people. That is why there are no comparable numbers for CWA or IAM fleet -- because we don't anticipate furloughs as a result of our new deals.
Let's not kid ourselves though. Some smaller cities that have traditionally been mainline stations could still be converted to Express, based on market conditions. Our slowness in addressing our high cost structure in these kind of markets opened up opportunities for low-cost carriers and regional airlines to come in and clean our clocks.
Should a station be coverted, agents with seniority rights can move to another station or stay on at Express rates. Is that a perfect solution? No. But we are operating in a tough competitive business and there isn't much room for error, so we are responding by implementing a business plan that will allow us to survive and succeed.
So as it relates to a specific number, target or plan to furlough additional CWA members, there is none.
Chris Chiames
----------------
[/blockquote]
------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Chiames,
Thank you for responding to my post. Your reply clears up some of the misunderstandings. Perhaps I am the only one too dense to have a clear understanding of these matters, so I ask your indulgence.
As I read the Fleet Service Agreement, and the concessionary documents amending it, I agree there is nothing in the new language explicitly compelling station conversions or furlough. There is also nothing in the new language prohibiting it, either. The right to convert a mainline station to express service has been retained by the Company prior to, as well as under, the Fleet Service Agreement. Many stations have been converted to express under the Agreement.
So, why have I deduced that a significant amount of furloughs and/or conversion from mainline to express service await fleet and customer services? Two reasons.
1. The MDA/express language has been added for a reason.
2. $14,000,000 and 11,000,000 dollars, annually.
Where is the $14 million annual contribution fleet service, and the $11 million customer service must make in this latest round of concessions coming from? There are no adjustments to wages, pensions, or language other than increased medical contributions. As the increase in medical contributions does not make a sizeable dent in the bogey numbers, I can only deduct the savings come from some combination of furloughs and downgrades from mainline to express.
If I have missed something or miscalculated, I humbly apologize to everyone on this board, and especially you, for wasting your time. I certainly would appreciate having what I am overlooking spelled out to where even I can understand it.
Again, thank you for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
Diogenes
