What is it with you? I've lurked on this board for about 4 years and you come across as a know it all to everybody on this board. I don't mean any ill will to any LCC employees, but as a 737-800 Captain with 17 years at DAL this is not a good deal for the DAL pilots or the rest of the employees.
USA320PILOT
- Thread starter dalad
- Start date
- Status
I can’t speak of pilot stuff...but I did read in a news article about 2 or 3 months ago Grinstein was quoted as saying that within 5 years no flight attendant at Delta first language would be English...I need to look for that article so I can post the whole thing.
I’m surprised the F/A's at DL didn’t go crazy with the idea of them being outsourced. And here is another thought, is DL management going to come at the employees for another pay cut to fatten the deal with the creditors if they really want to stop this? How much are you willing to give if that happens?
beachboy
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2006
- Messages
- 1,484
- Reaction score
- 48
On gees. 🙄 You know EDITED BY MODERATOR gets a lot of beating on here but at least he is respectful and gives information instead if just flaming like some people. 
Cut the guy some slack! Even I have my moments when I roll my eyes at him but it's all part of the USAviation game.
Cut the guy some slack! Even I have my moments when I roll my eyes at him but it's all part of the USAviation game.He certainly has cleaned up his act over the years, back in the US Air/ UAL proposed merger days he was a lot more opinion and a lot less fact.
Great thing for us at UAL that all of his predictions were just what we thought they were - a big bunch of baloney.
JBG
ICT?UCT? whatever....
Great thing for us at UAL that all of his predictions were just what we thought they were - a big bunch of baloney.
JBG
ICT?UCT? whatever....
Charlie_Tuna
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2005
- Messages
- 661
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't know if we can say he just posts facts now. But like was said before he has cleaned up his act and more or less just posts links to news now and for that we all should be grateful... 
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
Jbguppy:
Jbguppy said: "He certainly has cleaned up his act over the years, back in the US Air/ UAL proposed merger days he was a lot more opinion and a lot less fact. Great thing for us at UAL that all of his predictions were just what we thought they were - a big bunch of baloney."
USA320Pilot comments: With all due respect, I never said US Airways and United would merge. I always made a qualifying comment of "Will it occur? Maybe, maybe not."
In regard to the UCT/ICT, two acronyms I created, on March 3, 2001 about two months before the deal was announced, I stood up in front of the US Airways MEC during LOA 79 discussions and told the MEC about the pending deal. How did I know this? From an informed Wall Street source.
In fact, if you missed the earlier comments on February 7, 2004 the Charlotte Observer reported "We don't run from fights," said David Bronner, chief executive officer of Retirement Systems of Alabama, which is US Airways' principal partner in bankruptcy court and principal owner if it emerges. Bronner speculated that United has a 50-50 chance of surviving a war. He said that if United were to sell assets, he would consider backing the purchase of some "if it would be beneficial to US Airways."
Moreover, US Airways and United began discussions where US Airways would acquire all or part of the Chicago-based company and the parties code named the proposed deal "Project Minnow" or at first it was the UCT and then the ICT. For more information on the discussion click onto the following links:
See Story
See another "Project Minnow" article.
In regard to the failed merger attempt, most observers do not understand how close the 2001 attempt came to be completed.
On July 12, 2001 UAL Corp. and US Airways jointly submitted their 21-day Hart-Scott-Rodino Act notice to the Justice Department. This notice advised the government of the airline’s intent to complete the proposed transaction and required the regulators to render an antitrust opinion by August 1. Regulators told sources that UAL submitted the final requested documentation to the Antitrust Division on July 13 and the parties genuinely tried to complete the deal.
On July 23 all interested parties met in Washington at the Department of Justice and the airlines aggressively lobbied the federal government to not oppose the transaction. The parties in attendance included airline senior management (from UAL, US Airways, AMR, and DC Air), the company’s antitrust attorneys, States Attorneys Generals from Pennsylvania, New York, and Maryland, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), and the Justice Antitrust Division staff lead by Deputy Attorney General for Antitrust Hewitt Pate.
Reports indicate both UAL and US Airways aggressively sought to complete the deal, but no one knows for sure if UAL’s efforts were designed to complete the transaction or to avoid a potential breach-of-contract lawsuit. Nonetheless, Pate was said to be a “problem solver†versus “problem maker†and he tried to broker a deal that the federal government believed was within established M&A guidelines and case law. The airlines had no choice but to submit the original UAL-US Airways MOU, amended by the UAL-AMR Corp. January 9 agreement, to complete the transaction by the August 1 termination date, because any material change would require up to another four month regulatory review per M&A law.
During the July 23 meeting at the Justice Department reports indicate Pate offered a solution for the deal to proceed with a government “no action†letter. The proposed changes included eliminating DC Air, selling Washington National gates/222 slots to an established carrier(s), if this carrier was AMR eliminate the Shuttle Joint Venture/limits on American Airlines growth to permit AMR to create its own independent Shuttle, and sell approximately 15 PHL gates to provide effective competition for both the post-merger route monopoly/duoply issue.
Reports indicate UAL was agreeable to the governments requirements provided there would by no labor interference. Why? Simply put UAL found itself in a “catch 22â€. The Chicago- based airline was projected to lose over $1 billion during the year, it was experiencing a serious increase in costs, like other airlines has witnessed a stunning year-over-year revenue loss of approximately 10%, and had limited access to the capital markets. With open labor contracts for the mechanics and ramp workers, coupled with the AFA mid-term wage increase demands/scope clause issue, UAL could ill afford to complete the transaction and pay $4.3 billion for US Airways (minus the capital obtained from the post-merger divestitures) plus assume $8.1 billion in debt, if the airline was going to face continued labor unrest.
Reports indicated UAL chairman Jim Goodwin approached the unions about UAL’s predicament and the IAM was generally agreeable, but the AFA was not. The AFA said they would support the transaction and waive their scope agreements provided the company would provide the Flight Attendants with a pilot type wage increase of 20%. The company rejected the AFA demand and when the union filed its lawsuit in U.S. District Court on July 26, UAL could not accept the governments brokered plan to complete the merger transaction(s) and the deal(s) collapsed.
Faced with no alternative and the airlines request to have the regulators announce their decision by July 27, the government was forced to issue its press release announcing it would seek injunctive relief to block the merger if the airlines attempted to complete both the UAL-US Airways and UAL-AMR transactions. In response, the airlines elected to jointly terminate the MOU and US Airways agreed to accept the $50 million termination fee. These two steps eliminated a US Airways potential breach-of-contract lawsuit and there was widespread speculation US Airways will not seek damages because the airline did not want to jeopardize any future relationship with United Airlines.
Best regards,
USA320Pilot
Jbguppy said: "He certainly has cleaned up his act over the years, back in the US Air/ UAL proposed merger days he was a lot more opinion and a lot less fact. Great thing for us at UAL that all of his predictions were just what we thought they were - a big bunch of baloney."
USA320Pilot comments: With all due respect, I never said US Airways and United would merge. I always made a qualifying comment of "Will it occur? Maybe, maybe not."
In regard to the UCT/ICT, two acronyms I created, on March 3, 2001 about two months before the deal was announced, I stood up in front of the US Airways MEC during LOA 79 discussions and told the MEC about the pending deal. How did I know this? From an informed Wall Street source.
In fact, if you missed the earlier comments on February 7, 2004 the Charlotte Observer reported "We don't run from fights," said David Bronner, chief executive officer of Retirement Systems of Alabama, which is US Airways' principal partner in bankruptcy court and principal owner if it emerges. Bronner speculated that United has a 50-50 chance of surviving a war. He said that if United were to sell assets, he would consider backing the purchase of some "if it would be beneficial to US Airways."
Moreover, US Airways and United began discussions where US Airways would acquire all or part of the Chicago-based company and the parties code named the proposed deal "Project Minnow" or at first it was the UCT and then the ICT. For more information on the discussion click onto the following links:
See Story
See another "Project Minnow" article.
In regard to the failed merger attempt, most observers do not understand how close the 2001 attempt came to be completed.
On July 12, 2001 UAL Corp. and US Airways jointly submitted their 21-day Hart-Scott-Rodino Act notice to the Justice Department. This notice advised the government of the airline’s intent to complete the proposed transaction and required the regulators to render an antitrust opinion by August 1. Regulators told sources that UAL submitted the final requested documentation to the Antitrust Division on July 13 and the parties genuinely tried to complete the deal.
On July 23 all interested parties met in Washington at the Department of Justice and the airlines aggressively lobbied the federal government to not oppose the transaction. The parties in attendance included airline senior management (from UAL, US Airways, AMR, and DC Air), the company’s antitrust attorneys, States Attorneys Generals from Pennsylvania, New York, and Maryland, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), and the Justice Antitrust Division staff lead by Deputy Attorney General for Antitrust Hewitt Pate.
Reports indicate both UAL and US Airways aggressively sought to complete the deal, but no one knows for sure if UAL’s efforts were designed to complete the transaction or to avoid a potential breach-of-contract lawsuit. Nonetheless, Pate was said to be a “problem solver†versus “problem maker†and he tried to broker a deal that the federal government believed was within established M&A guidelines and case law. The airlines had no choice but to submit the original UAL-US Airways MOU, amended by the UAL-AMR Corp. January 9 agreement, to complete the transaction by the August 1 termination date, because any material change would require up to another four month regulatory review per M&A law.
During the July 23 meeting at the Justice Department reports indicate Pate offered a solution for the deal to proceed with a government “no action†letter. The proposed changes included eliminating DC Air, selling Washington National gates/222 slots to an established carrier(s), if this carrier was AMR eliminate the Shuttle Joint Venture/limits on American Airlines growth to permit AMR to create its own independent Shuttle, and sell approximately 15 PHL gates to provide effective competition for both the post-merger route monopoly/duoply issue.
Reports indicate UAL was agreeable to the governments requirements provided there would by no labor interference. Why? Simply put UAL found itself in a “catch 22â€. The Chicago- based airline was projected to lose over $1 billion during the year, it was experiencing a serious increase in costs, like other airlines has witnessed a stunning year-over-year revenue loss of approximately 10%, and had limited access to the capital markets. With open labor contracts for the mechanics and ramp workers, coupled with the AFA mid-term wage increase demands/scope clause issue, UAL could ill afford to complete the transaction and pay $4.3 billion for US Airways (minus the capital obtained from the post-merger divestitures) plus assume $8.1 billion in debt, if the airline was going to face continued labor unrest.
Reports indicated UAL chairman Jim Goodwin approached the unions about UAL’s predicament and the IAM was generally agreeable, but the AFA was not. The AFA said they would support the transaction and waive their scope agreements provided the company would provide the Flight Attendants with a pilot type wage increase of 20%. The company rejected the AFA demand and when the union filed its lawsuit in U.S. District Court on July 26, UAL could not accept the governments brokered plan to complete the merger transaction(s) and the deal(s) collapsed.
Faced with no alternative and the airlines request to have the regulators announce their decision by July 27, the government was forced to issue its press release announcing it would seek injunctive relief to block the merger if the airlines attempted to complete both the UAL-US Airways and UAL-AMR transactions. In response, the airlines elected to jointly terminate the MOU and US Airways agreed to accept the $50 million termination fee. These two steps eliminated a US Airways potential breach-of-contract lawsuit and there was widespread speculation US Airways will not seek damages because the airline did not want to jeopardize any future relationship with United Airlines.
Best regards,
USA320Pilot
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
Dalad:
Dalad said: "What is it with you? I've lurked on this board for about 4 years and you come across as a know it all to everybody on this board. I don't mean any ill will to any LCC employees, but as a 737-800 Captain with 17 years at DAL this is not a good deal for the DAL pilots or the rest of the employees."
USA320Pilot responds: With all due respect, I offer my opinion just as everyone else. I research the industry and my company, which I have an interest in and then provide factual or what I believe are informed opinons. No more, no less. However, is that not what a message board is all about?
Here's the issue: Delta is a failed company (like US Airways and many other legacy carrier's) who does not control its own destiny. The creditors and bankruptcy court do. We at US Airways fully understand this because we lived the uncertainty of a "formal reorganization", not once, but twice, and it is no fun.
In regard to Lee Moak's comments and his perceived hysteria let's put this into perspective.
US Airways Manager of Media Relations Phil Gee told Ted Reed of TheStreet.com the Tempe-based airline has no plans to reduce the number of Delta pilots. "We didn't furlough one pilot, or any other represented employee, with the America West-US Airways merger, and we have stated from the get-go that we believe the same will hold true [in this case]."
See Story
In my opinion, the Delta MEC could create an issue that if the proposed corporate transaction becomes to difficult to complete then you could see another proposal to the bankruptcy court, which could break up Delta similar in scope to what Delta did to Pan Am. Why? The parts may be greater than the whole and labor could be removed from the equation.
Therefore, would it be better for the Delta pilots to endorse the merger or run the risk of a fragmentation, asset sale, and limited employee transfer? How many times have we seen this movie (Eastern, Braniff, etc.).
US Airways has said its model assumes labor costs will increase to the higest level of the existing levels in every goup. US Airways expects to manage capacity reduction through attrition and leaves, not furloughs. In the case of the US Airways/America West merger the fleet was intially reduced by 15%, but there were no mainline furloughs post merger and we have begun hiring in every work group.
Is that such a bad deal for a failed bankrupt company?
Dalad, it appears that US Airways is going to fight to compelte the deal, which could open up competing bids and a fragmentation if your union keeps up its approach.
According to US Airways senior vice president Elise Eberwein, she hopes Delta comes around, but she insisted her company will fight for the deal it has proposed. "We have no intention of walking away," Eberwein said. US Airways' chief executive, Doug Parker, issued a statement saying his company is "absolutely determined to take the necessary steps to move the process forward."
See Story
Dalad, you might have an option: face a fragmentation or accept US Airways' terms. Could Delta remain independent? Absolutely. But, there could certainly be greater risk for your pilot group, greater than merging with US Airways and embracing Doug Parker's overture, because like it or not your company is "in play".
Regards,
USA320Pilot
P.S. It appears Wall Street endorsed today's merger news because US Airways' stock soared clsoing up $2.63 or 4.56%.
Dalad said: "What is it with you? I've lurked on this board for about 4 years and you come across as a know it all to everybody on this board. I don't mean any ill will to any LCC employees, but as a 737-800 Captain with 17 years at DAL this is not a good deal for the DAL pilots or the rest of the employees."
USA320Pilot responds: With all due respect, I offer my opinion just as everyone else. I research the industry and my company, which I have an interest in and then provide factual or what I believe are informed opinons. No more, no less. However, is that not what a message board is all about?
Here's the issue: Delta is a failed company (like US Airways and many other legacy carrier's) who does not control its own destiny. The creditors and bankruptcy court do. We at US Airways fully understand this because we lived the uncertainty of a "formal reorganization", not once, but twice, and it is no fun.
In regard to Lee Moak's comments and his perceived hysteria let's put this into perspective.
US Airways Manager of Media Relations Phil Gee told Ted Reed of TheStreet.com the Tempe-based airline has no plans to reduce the number of Delta pilots. "We didn't furlough one pilot, or any other represented employee, with the America West-US Airways merger, and we have stated from the get-go that we believe the same will hold true [in this case]."
See Story
In my opinion, the Delta MEC could create an issue that if the proposed corporate transaction becomes to difficult to complete then you could see another proposal to the bankruptcy court, which could break up Delta similar in scope to what Delta did to Pan Am. Why? The parts may be greater than the whole and labor could be removed from the equation.
Therefore, would it be better for the Delta pilots to endorse the merger or run the risk of a fragmentation, asset sale, and limited employee transfer? How many times have we seen this movie (Eastern, Braniff, etc.).
US Airways has said its model assumes labor costs will increase to the higest level of the existing levels in every goup. US Airways expects to manage capacity reduction through attrition and leaves, not furloughs. In the case of the US Airways/America West merger the fleet was intially reduced by 15%, but there were no mainline furloughs post merger and we have begun hiring in every work group.
Is that such a bad deal for a failed bankrupt company?
Dalad, it appears that US Airways is going to fight to compelte the deal, which could open up competing bids and a fragmentation if your union keeps up its approach.
According to US Airways senior vice president Elise Eberwein, she hopes Delta comes around, but she insisted her company will fight for the deal it has proposed. "We have no intention of walking away," Eberwein said. US Airways' chief executive, Doug Parker, issued a statement saying his company is "absolutely determined to take the necessary steps to move the process forward."
See Story
Dalad, you might have an option: face a fragmentation or accept US Airways' terms. Could Delta remain independent? Absolutely. But, there could certainly be greater risk for your pilot group, greater than merging with US Airways and embracing Doug Parker's overture, because like it or not your company is "in play".
Regards,
USA320Pilot
P.S. It appears Wall Street endorsed today's merger news because US Airways' stock soared clsoing up $2.63 or 4.56%.
Charlie_Tuna
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2005
- Messages
- 661
- Reaction score
- 0
I admit I was wrong in my last post. I take it back...
Not to change subject anyone see Deja Vu? I think I got a heavy dose of it tonight.
Not to change subject anyone see Deja Vu? I think I got a heavy dose of it tonight.
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
Just one more point...
I believe the Delta pilots may have more to worry about than seniority with the proposed merger if history is an indication. The fact is Delta is “in play†and as such Delta ALPA MEC actions could create another corporate transaction option: fragmentation.
If Lee Moak squawks too much Doug Parker and other business entities may submit a plan to the bankruptcy court to carve up Delta “Pan Am†style. Then maybe US Airways’ offer of not furloughing any line employee and providing contracts that increase to the highest of the existing levels in every group may not sound so bad.
In my opinion, the Delta pilots may see stagnation during the integration with a loss of some mainline ASM’s. However, I believe not only will they see their contract go to the highest level of the existing group, but with $1.65 billion in proposed cost and revenue synergies, I expect that the US Airways, AWA, and Delta pilots (other labor groups too) will get contract improvements greater than they would have as a stand-alone business entity.
In the end for a three failed companies post September 11, is that so bad?
Regards,
USA320Pilot
I believe the Delta pilots may have more to worry about than seniority with the proposed merger if history is an indication. The fact is Delta is “in play†and as such Delta ALPA MEC actions could create another corporate transaction option: fragmentation.
If Lee Moak squawks too much Doug Parker and other business entities may submit a plan to the bankruptcy court to carve up Delta “Pan Am†style. Then maybe US Airways’ offer of not furloughing any line employee and providing contracts that increase to the highest of the existing levels in every group may not sound so bad.
In my opinion, the Delta pilots may see stagnation during the integration with a loss of some mainline ASM’s. However, I believe not only will they see their contract go to the highest level of the existing group, but with $1.65 billion in proposed cost and revenue synergies, I expect that the US Airways, AWA, and Delta pilots (other labor groups too) will get contract improvements greater than they would have as a stand-alone business entity.
In the end for a three failed companies post September 11, is that so bad?
Regards,
USA320Pilot
- Status
