Usa320pilot Was Wrong

M

motnot

Advanced
Aug 20, 2002
185
0
One of the PIT papers is reporting details of the CWA contract, and while there may be plenty of fine print we don't know about, it seems like the company "caved."

Since USA320Pilot avoided a discussion with me the other day, I'm calling him out here. He clearly was wrong with his repeated statements that the "ask" would get worse as time goes. Because the CWA deal seems to be a retreat from the company's previous position. He's undeniably wrong and, if history is any indication, won't admit it, but should be happy tonight nonetheless.

Anyway, enough about him. It seems to me that there may be a path of survival for US Airways. Since the company backed off with the CWA, the AFA will expect the same. If that happens, the IAM will be last, given its hard-line position. The company probably can get minor concessions from the mechs, despite all the rhetoric, and now the company has the cover to do so.

I think the company realized that letting the judge abrogate any contract would result in a strike that would kill the company (a cause-and-effect I've been convinced of). So the company drastically changed its tune. My guess is Bronner must see a reason to save the airline.

With what we know now, I still think the odds are against US Airways surviving, but right now, I at least can envision a scenario where that happens.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04339/421742.stm
 
Motnot:

The company's proposals to all of the union's have gotten worse over time and the CWA did meet the Company's recent "ask". There was some give and take in the end, but the Company obtained the recent CWA "ask" cost cut target.

The union agreed to the company's "ask", therefore, can you tell me how the company caved?

Click here for some rank-and-file comments

In regard to not answering your comments, I do not read every post and you write long drawn out posts with multiple and somewhat confusing questions. It would be helpful in the future if you were more succinct.

Best regards,

USA320Pilot
 
320 ;
i believe you are off target here......
there is written media reflecting the "ask" being less than originally gone for and agreed to by CWA...T/A.
"The sacrifices, while significant, were not as severe as the airline's original demands. :down:
for more inside info-
 
DellDude:

I believe the comment you are referring to was one of the company's proposals sought a 34% pay cut to prevent layoffs and other contract changes. This pay cut proposal was withdrawn by the company when CWA negotiators agreed to other contract changes to cut costs.

Other union labor leaders have been briefed on the CWA TA and the union met the company's $137 million "ask". Too many people focus on pay rates, but there is a lot of other expenses in labor contracts and that has been changed for the CWA.

The company reached its revised CWA composite target cost goal for pay, work rule, seniority, outsourcing, benefit, and pension plan changes.

US Airways has increased its union request to cut $950 million in costs, up from $800 million and the higher number is still in place. ALPA, the CWA, and 3 TWU units hit their higher cost cut goals. The company still wants $150 million a year in concessions from flight attendants, up from I believe $113 million, and $298 million from all 3 IAM units.

Separately, I believe the AFA will reach a TA too, but I am much less optimistic about the IAM-M, IAM-FSA, and IAM Trainers.

Best regards,

USA320Pilot
 
DeltaWatch:

You need to do a side by side comparison of each proposal and look at the total cost cuts. The company sought and obtained a $137 million in annual savings, according to both union and company sources.

What's to bad is that the CWA could have cut this deal earlier, and like ALPA, not have given up so much. If a deal would have been obtained prior to bankruptcy, the CWA would have given up about $110 to $115 million per year, but instead fought the company and ended up meeting the "ask".

Is it a good deal? Yes...because it creates a win-win for the union and the company. For the union it permits employee choices, which include continued employment, recall rights, a generous severance program, and for probably Pittsburgh Rez agents, the opportunity to transfer to Winston-Salem. For airport and CTO employees, the same choices exist, but with broader city options.

For the company, it now has 5 new labor agreements in place and it moved one-step closer to cutting its annual labor expense by $950 million per year.

Separately, it's clear why Rez agents received an additional severance bonus of $5,000. One and maybe both reservation sales centers could be closed due to GoFares "call time" reductions of 40%, increased Internet booking, and possibly an offshore call center.

Meanwhile, the CWA is recommending members ratify the TA, which could be done before the 2004 S.1113© hearings end on December 17.

Best Regards,

USA320Pilot
 
Most of what you say is true about this deal being a good one.... But it IS much better than the July offer.... July offer would have been worth more like 237 million to the company. Their math tends to not credit the employees with enough for sacrifices made. Once that was cleared up we saw a livable deal agreed to.
 
The fact is that the CWA stuck together. Or should I say the members of the CWA stuck together.

Once all the pilots were divided and 320 (and all his spineless friends) started their attack on the RC4 the Company had the pilots group right where they wanted them.

I am sure the TA is not great but it appears to be something that can be voted on.
 
The judge stated other judges can and will hear the case while he is on vacation, so the 17th will not be the end date of the hearings if the unions or the PBGC needs more time.

You really should post ALL the facts.
 
WARNING!

To all Forum members attempting to reason with A320pilot: Your forum membership will be revoked if you do not cease and desist immediately!

His mind is made up. Do not attempt to confuse him with facts.

This is your first and final warning!
 
jimntx said:
WARNING!

To all Forum members attempting to reason with A320pilot: Your forum membership will be revoked if you do not cease and desist immediately!

His mind is made up. Do not attempt to confuse him with facts.

This is your first and final warning!
[post="206032"][/post]​
Click to expand...
hep me...hep me...somebody please hep me..... :huh:
 
jimntx said:
WARNING!

To all Forum members attempting to reason with A320pilot: Your forum membership will be revoked if you do not cease and desist immediately!

His mind is made up. Do not attempt to confuse him with facts.

This is your first and final warning!
[post="206032"][/post]​
Click to expand...


Un-friggin-believable! :down:

Like I've said before they should change the name of this forum to USA320pilot.com :shock:

See ya, :blink: I have to go puck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
USA320Pilot said:
Separately, I believe the AFA will reach a TA too, but I am much less optimistic about the IAM-M, IAM-FSA, and IAM Trainers.

Best regards,

USA320Pilot
[post="206018"][/post]​
Click to expand...


Liquidate Now. Stop the pain.
 
deltawatch said:
Most of what you say is true about this deal being a good one.... But it IS much better than the July offer.... July offer would have been worth more like 237 million to the company. Their math tends to not credit the employees with enough for sacrifices made. Once that was cleared up we saw a livable deal agreed to.
[post="206025"][/post]​
Click to expand...

While I agree that on the surface, the July "ask" seemed to be more, but wasn't the original "ask" under the assumption that ALL or MOST of the employees would remain with the company. With the new "ask" isn't there an assumption that a fair number of employees will take the buyout. By eliminating higer paying jobs and replacing them with contract employees or new hires, there is a tremendous cost savings there.

That's just my guess.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #15
"With all due respect," my post are long and drawn out? My post starting this thread is the about the longest I've ever written here, and yet two of your three responses in this thread are longer than that.

You could've just said you're too busy posting your own views over and over that you don't have time to actually consider and respond to others' views. ;-)

Again, what I've been saying is that if the judge orders employees not to strike, they will strike anyway or simply not show up to work en masse. Either way kills the airline. There's a simple reason why he's waiting until January to rule -- because of the potential huge disruption to the U.S. air system, and he'd catch no end of grief if that happened during the holidays.

Basically, I was disputing your assertion that an abrogation and injunction would work. I explained my reasoning and was specifically interested in your response since your viewpoint is so well-known.

But this new CWA contract actually gives some (small) hope that other deals can be reached and the judge won't have to rule on the contract abrogation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top