US partner UA obtains first labor ERP TA

[iflyjetz]

Chip, you've really got a hardon for UAL. Is it because you quit your job at UAL to go to U? So you chose poorly; get over it. We all make mistakes in life.
While I have found some of your conspiracies amusing, it also rankled me how you called for UAL to file chap 11 on at least two Sundays in Oct (I can dig up some of the threads if you desire). Would it warm the cockles of your grinch-sized heart to see UAL declare chap 11?
I am amazed at how you villianize UAL, yet DAL, SWA, and JBLU are immediate threats to U's survival. Wake up and smell the java, Chip. Those boys are going to put you in the right seat of a 50 seat jungle jet faster than you can say, 'I hate United Airlines.'
Like it or not, UAL is U's partner, as you titled this thread. Wanting to see harm come to your partner (in this case UAL) is simply cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

[Pacemaker]

iflyjetz,

A month ago US Airways supposedly had the world by the tail, just waiting for UAL to start fragmenting. I never bought it for one second. UAL is a valuable franchise with a world-class route structure. And some serious problems, to be sure. The difference with US Airways is that the airline is a loser (the airline, not the fine employees who are doing a kick-butt job under dire conditions) and has been for over a decade. US Airways has not had a viable route-structure or business plan since the moment in 1991 they began their headlong retreat from the west coast that continues to this day. US Airways' only intrinsic value is to the extent that portions of it can be dovetailed into a larger carriers' system, or used as a regional jet feeder in a similar manner.

I don't believe for a second we'll get the DCA-SFO route.

There will be no unique transaction.

UAL will not enter bankruptcy.

US Airways near-term fate will be fragmentation with a minimal number of employees transfereing to the acquiring carrier.

These are just my opinions; wish I was wrong but I think the handwriting's clearly on the wall.

 

[Eris]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/3/2002 10:44:49 PM chipmunn wrote:


[FONT face=Times New Roman size=3]Chip comments: I understand the UA pilots received limited S.1113 protection, unlike the US unions who received full protection.[/FONT]
---------------
[/blockquote]

Chip,

If you had been gloating about full protection a few weeks ago (before the new demands for 70 seat RJs for more outsourcing—notwithstanding the full protection agreement, and before the announced delay of MDA, and the announcement of 750+ furloughs) then perhaps a UA pilot would be disappointed about the agreement they have, as compared to the US ?old?-agreement.


“Decades ago, we would on occasion have food fights. The projectile of choice was a raw egg, unless of course the person we were aiming at was high above us.â€￾
USAFA '89

 

[iflyjetz]

Pacemaker, thanks for the level headed post. I wish you the best at U.
I am fully aware that UAL is hemmoraghing cash faster than a Democrat/Republican (you choose) lawyer can yell 'recount' today. Yeah, we've got serious problems over here at UAL. I don't know how close to stopping the bleeding an 18% pilot pay cut will come, but as long as it's followed by others pitching in to help cover the losses (labor groups, creditors, suppliers), UAL MAY be able to avert chap 11. As long as things don't continue to deteriorate, I think that UAL will walk away from this one. But it'll be close, and at a price. ERP II includes the right for UAL management to cut another 600 pilots from the payrolls, making the total number of UAL pilot furloughs 1444.
I want to see U show signs of recovery; strong partners will help both of us. UAL needs feed from U, and U needs feed from UAL. It's a two way street here. Whether we like it or not, U and UAL are leaning on each other to get through these tough times.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/5/2002 1:49:50 AM iflyjetz wrote:

I don't know how close to stopping the bleeding an 18% pilot pay cut will come, but as long as it's followed by others pitching in to help cover the losses (labor groups, creditors, suppliers), UAL MAY be able to avert chap 11.
----------------
[/blockquote]

The actual paycut, when future pay increases are figured in, peaks at 27%

 

[delldude]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/3/2002 5:58:48 PM AOG-N-IT wrote:

Chip , That's all very interesting to say the very least.

I tend to believe that both U and UAL are going to continue to spiral for awhile. U's going to continue to gut itself of it's younger talent..and in the end , wind up with nothing but a bunch of old bitter high timers with more vacation and sick leave to be covered by other high timers at time and a half and double time rates. Where's the benefit in that?

UA is likely to continue on a downward spiral due to continued "Union Domination"...and no real sense of urgency to resolve any of thier core issues.

UA folks love to try to seperate themselves from the comparison to U's problems...they can kid themselves till Gabriel blows his horn. Thier problems are just like ours..Only on a much larger scale.

We did what the company wanted from us..but it still didn't change the need for Formal Re-Organization (Chapter 11)...UA is going to need "Devine Intervention" to avoid the same fate..if they continue to drag thier feet?..and that still doesn't create any assurances of avoiding BK...it certainly didn't change diddly for us.

The dynamics of this industry have been shaken everyway but loose...The full-service carriers will either adapt or die!! ..and that is the long and short of that!!


----------------
[/blockquote]
i don't know about UA,but at U our old bitter high timers have been leaving in droves. expect 300 -400 to exit jan.1st to get out of paying health care under window in pre-vote changes to iam agreement.if they stay after jan 1st-health care premiums will escalate yearly.if its an incentive,beleive me its working.average seniority in PIT should be in the neighborhood of 16-23 years.ages in the 38-55 range.

 

[delldude]

i don't know about UA,but at U our old bitter high timers have been leaving in droves. expect 300 -400 to exit jan.1st to get out of paying health care under window in pre-vote changes to iam agreement.if they stay after jan 1st-health care premiums will escalate yearly.if its an incentive,beleive me its working.average seniority in PIT should be in the neighborhood of 16-23 years.ages in the 38-55 range.

 

[UAL777flyer]

To say that UA's problems are just like US Airways is about as laughable as it gets. US Airways is the most highly exposed carrier to low cost competition. Your route network is overwhelmingly short-haul, which drives up your costs. Your route network is almost non-existant west of the Mississippi. You also lack for membership in a major alliance, thereby missing out on lots of lucrative feed. Tell me how United suffers from any of those problems?

Please don't get me wrong. I don't for a minute discount the significant problems UA has at the moment. But to say they are the same as US Airways problems is crazy. UA has many more strengths with which to leverage than US Airways does. UA is going to survive, even if we file for Ch.11. We may be much smaller, but we'll survive. And our size will grow as the industry and economy recover. US Airways is literally fighting for its' very survival. There is still a strong possibility of liquidation. As long as the industry revenue picture and the Middle East situation deteriorate, US Airways continued existence is in doubt. I hope for the sake of all US employees that you succeed in turning your company around. Our codeshare will be valuable to both of us. But make no mistake about it, the problems of UA and US are vastly different. The biggest problem UA has had for the last several years has already been solved: getting a true leader. Tilton is the person who will turn this company around. I firmly believe it. He's a no nonsense, take no BS type of leader who is tired of the atmosphere at UA. All we need now is to get over the financial roadblock ahead of us in terms of being able to secure an ATSB loan guarantee and pay off the debt that is coming due. That will happen. It'll be a bumpy ride, but I firmly believe we'll get there.

Again, please don't misunderstand me. I would like nothing more than to see the employees of US Airways turn their company around and succeed. You've all been through a tough time the last several years. I've been through 2 airline bankruptcies so I know how it feels. I have nothing but the utmost respect for all of you with what you're going through. But my point is merely to take issue with people who claim that UA suffers from the same problems that US Airways suffers from. It is just not the case.

 

[chipmunn]

[P]United workers' dream fades [/P]
[P][A href=http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2002-11-04-ual-workers_x.htm]http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2002-11-04-ual-workers_x.htm[/A][/P]

 

[chipmunn]

[P]I believe UA & US are different airlines with different problems. Management at both companies are attempting to address their issues and its understandable there is employee frustration.[BR][BR]I do not want to see any employee at either airline hurt by the current economics; however, the information I report comes from informed people. Will it all occur?[BR][BR]Absolutely not, but some will. That's the nature of the business. I agree with UAL777flyer that UA will survive, although I believe it will occur with an in-court restructuring and the airline will emerge with a different look.[/P]
[P]For example, the New York Times reported as part of the cutbacks, analysts said they expected United to retire up to 50 more planes, including about 20 Boeing 747-400 jumbo jets, at least a dozen Boeing 767-200's and its remaining Boeing 737-200 aircraft. Mr. Whiteford (UA ALPA MEC Chairman) of the pilots' union acknowledged that there would be some reductions in fleet size, saying, We've got to get leaner and meaner, but declined to be more specific.[BR][BR]Chip[/P]

 

[767jetz]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/5/2002 11:59:16 AM chipmunn wrote:


however, the information I report comes from informed people.


Chip[/P]
----------------
[/blockquote]
Yeah, right! Like who? AirInc.? USA Today? Maybe some super-duper-secret-insider, who you can't reveal?

Give us a break, Chip. Many of the regulars on this board have seen how you selectively cut and paste news, often out of context, to support your view on how the world should be. Your accuracy and credibility has been steadily slipping.

Perhaps USaviation.com should create a page called The World According To Chip. We could all go there for some entertainment when we want a break from reality.

We all know you are predicting the down-fall of UAL and expect us to follow you through bankrupcy court. We also know that it is pure speculation and backed by no substancial facts.

By the way, many of us predicting the healthy return of United Airlines as the worldwide airline of choice, also have informed sources. It's called ownership and a seat on the board of directors.

Now please come down off that pedestal. [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/3.gif']

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/5/2002 11:59:16 AM chipmunn wrote:

For example, the New York Times reported as part of the cutbacks, analysts said they expected United to retire up to 50 more planes, including about 20 Boeing 747-400 jumbo jets, at least a dozen Boeing 767-200's and its remaining Boeing 737-200 aircraft. Mr. Whiteford (UA ALPA MEC Chairman) of the pilots' union acknowledged that there would be some reductions in fleet size, saying, "We've got to get leaner and meaner," but declined to be more specific."

Chip[/P]
----------------
[/blockquote]


Did your informed sources tell you UAL still flies -200s? sorry, we haven't for A YEAR! The funny thing is that the original ERP didn't have 727 or 737-200 payrates, suddenly the new ERP has 737-200 payrates. Makes you go hmmmm.... Is it possible that we will park many more 747-400s? absolutely. Will they be retired? Not likely. When demand comes back, so will they. Of course we'll still have more of them than the rest of the US carriers combined. I think we also have more 777's than all the other US carriers combined. Ya think we're short on widebodies? as for the 767-200s, they are all owned (18) and average nearly 20 years of age. UAL may ditch them for fleet commonality. That will leave us with only 37 767's...

 

[AOG-N-IT]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/5/2002 12:42:32 PM Busdrvr wrote:

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


Couple points.
first, the scared pansies are already staying home.

AOG-N-IT Replies..and the potential for more to join them in not flying is a concern of everyone!!

The US market post 911 is still below the drop that the last Iraq war caused. The folks flying now will likely NOT be scared by an Iraq war JMHO

AOG-N-IT Replies...We have not seen what the bottom truly is!!..and the potential for the bottom going farther down is of a great concern to everyone. Flying would only continue to suffer from such fears..no matter if they are tangible fears or not?


Second, any new Iraq war will NOT be as long as the previous one. there could be a very short term spike in oil, but don't expect a replay of last time.

AOG-N-IT Replies..I don't expect a replay of last time..I do expect a more lengthy campaigne in Iraq itself..this being complicated by the demands of Urban Warefare to insure that Saddam is dead or at least ejected from control of his country. This is not a case of simply pushing his forces out of Kuwait again.

Third, If UAL gets the loan, coupled with significant cost savings and arguably the most fuel efficient fleet, from top to bottom, in the industry, UAL may then be one of the "better off" of all the others.

AOG-N-IT Replies..The operative word being If ..on all accounts????

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

 

[767jetz]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 11/5/2002 11:59:16 AM chipmunn wrote:

For example, the New York Times reported as part of the cutbacks, analysts said they expected United to retire up to 50 more planes, including about 20 Boeing 747-400 jumbo jets, at least a dozen Boeing 767-200's and its remaining Boeing 737-200 aircraft. Mr. Whiteford (UA ALPA MEC Chairman) of the pilots' union acknowledged that there would be some reductions in fleet size, saying, We've got to get leaner and meaner, but declined to be more specific.

Chip[/P]
----------------
[/blockquote]

More of your informed sources I suppose. Let's see... Since when does anything an analyst expects to happen, ammount to anything more than speculation? Does calling them an analyst give them more access to factual information?

Oh I get it! Mr. Whiteford acknowledged that there would be some reductions. Of course! SOME = 20 747's + 12 767's + lotsa 737-200's. That means the analyst must be right!

What a crock! Talk about fuzzy logic.
First of all, we don't fly 737-200's anymore. They've ALL been parked for quite some time now. Your expert analysts obviously don't have a clue, let alone any facts. There will be some shuffling of equipment to right-size the airline. But rest assured the parking of 20 747's and a total of 50 more airplanes is not the plan. If that were true, we'd be furloghing way more than 600 additional pilots.

I would love to spar with you some more over the differences between fact and fiction. But I know you have many other important things that need your attention... wait... what's that sound?... I think that was Delta taking some more of your market share! You better run and grab that RJ seat while you still can!

 

[magsau]

Chips USA TODAY HEADLINE:

United workers' dream fades

http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/20...l-workers_x.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow I thought from the headline we all were being furloughed and they had packed the tent. Just when I had finished packing my back for a 5 day South America trip.....

Then I actually read the article and low and behold the headline is misleading. Sure we have furloughed pilots and the gentleman mentioned in the article has lost his job for now. However, his story is not a unique corporate transaction limited only to UAL. His story could be told at every major carrier and many smaller carriers since 9/11. Furloughs have happened and will continue to happen in the future. They stink and you can either climb over the obstacle or tunnel below but you can not let it be a road block.

It is sad that Chip would choose to use a headline that indicates all UAL employees have lost a dream. UAL is still flying and the employees that are still at work are running the airline with the highest load factors and best on-time performance in the history of the airline. So fortunately the dream IS STILL ALIVE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Come fly the friendly skies of UNITED