Did you read the post above yours? Read what the UAL MEC Vice Chairman is saying about his own experience with ALPA national. THAT is why USAPA is here (minus DOH and minus Nic.) It is about getting rid of ALPA more than anything else. It was coming long before the Nicolau shame was published. Do a "who is" search on the URL "decertifyalp.org" which was the first web address for USAPA. Tell me when the URL was created.
Check your facts. Do you even know the difference between LEC (LOCAL Executive Council) and MEC (MASTER Executive Council)???
You are referring to comments made by one vice-chairman of only one local council. ie: Council 34. Hardly the voice of all 8000 UA pilots.
Just came from a meeting yesterday. Trust me when I say there is absolutely no sympathy, support, or respect for USAPA on the UAL property. Not to worry though... You may still be fighting your civil war for a long time to come. Contrary to the onslaught of rumor and speculation from the media, there are absolutely NO confirmed reports to the UA Board of Directors that UA is in imminent merger talks with US. It is of course possible that Tilton is concocting a deal and will drop the bomb at the next board meeting. But that would still need to be approved by the BOD. And Tilton's support on the BOD is slipping while ALPA's support is growing.
Several other points of interest. The UAL MEC a while back started UPAC, (United Political Action Committee) that collects funds for lobbying law makers
specifically on issues that benefit UAL pilots. This is separate from any other PAC contributions and is used exclusively by UA pilots. How much political clout does USAPA have??? One of our NY reps recently attended a gathering of lawmakers including Charles Rangel, to solidify support for ALPA and particularly UA pilot support. For those who are not familiar, Rangel is Chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. Those kind of political connections go a long way when it comes time to support or oppose a merger.
Another point of interest is an analysis of Net Income (or loss) by airline at various prices of oil and at current fares, load factors, etc. It does not take into consideration increased summer loads or recent fuel surcharges instituted recently by all airlines. But the trend and the point of how fuel costs affect each airline is still valid...
Basically it points out that recent losses are driven solely by fuel and are not necessarily an indication of how well a company is operating. Fuel prices are escalating so fast, that ALL airlines will lose money since they can not raise fares fast enough, and even when they do, the revenue is not immediate since it is only for future booking. This point is for those who claim that US is in such better financial shape than UA. It is not. As I pointed out recently, when you compare apples to apples, and look at cash flow, UA had less of a negative cash flow than US in Q1 with the exception of paying down debt that was not required but strategic to save the company on future interest charges.
But back to the fuel chart. UA obviously burns more jet fuel by nature of how much more UA flies than US. Just like AA currently flies slightly more than UA. At $90/barrel oil, UA's
negative net income (net loss) is $255 Millon. US's is $179 Mllion. At $125/barrel oil, UA's
negative net income jumps to $2.1 Billion while US's jumps to $771 Million. The chart I saw listed about 8 airlines and prices from $90 to $150 per barrel. But you get the idea. Interestingly, AA (currently the biggest airline) is hurt even more than UA on Net Loss as prices go up. And Continental, considered by most as the healthiest and best run of all hub and spoke airlines currently, loses more than US as oil goes up. Obviously ticket prices must go up and oil speculation must stop inflating prices. But if nothing were to change, no airline will survive.
Our industry does not exist in a vacuum. The larger the airline, the more of an obstacle fuel becomes. So smaller airlines seem to have an advantage. But it is also incomplete financial analysis and overly simplified to say that this one fact alone makes one company stronger than another. Having assets to parlay into increased revenue is an asset and advantage to the larger airlines with greater international scope, higher yield seats, and more cargo carrying capacity. So one needs to stop obsessing over mergers and other distractions, and refocus on running an airline. This is an idea that the BOD at UA is starting to slowly come around to.
