Originally Posted by
Wiskey Driver
Ok now lets examine who did what and how the ALPA merger changed. If my old man mentality recalls it was USAIR that caused the merger policy to change from DOH to what it is today. I always get a huge laugh out of easties that cry foul at the process when it was them that caused it to change in the first place. The east is greedy as hell and will not be happy until everything and everyone is as miserable as they are.
I also LOVE the part where you east folk talk about how profitable usair is and how weak AWA was. Tell me something though if the east was so profitable why on earth was it twice bankrupt in an extremely short period of time prior to Doug Parker coming in and saving it from complete destruction???
I know you also dont want to admit it but I am going to force you to acknowledge the truth. The world knows that AAA was out of money and time. The lease holders for the buses they had were being called in and AAA started buying RJ's and not E190's either they came later after the merger for which the east has stolen every single seat! I am talking about the Canadair 50's that AAA was buying as that's the only company that would finance AAA at the time. I also read where Canadair stopped financing them too. It was PARKER and AWA's books that financed the deal on the A321's that you now operate!! Dont believe it?, contact corporate yourself its public knowledge my friend.
The issue that is coming for this entire company is the fact that I doubt that BK courts will allow the thing to move fwd with this issue hanging out in the breeze. It was not before Judge Lane until usapa very ill advised at that made a motion before the BK court. That was ignorant and now the court must address it. I am thankful for that fact because now this is one more court that must examine the validity of arbitration in this country.
Its almost over Relay!
WD at AWA
Your old man mind has failed you. See above.
But as for your rant about "the east's fault", let's look at the 190 issue. You said "
E190's either they came later after the merger for which the east has stolen every single seat!" Stolen Really? The E190s went where they did as a result of, wait for it,
ARBITRATION!!!! From a whiney west resolution wanting your seats now despite the conditions for getting them not being met:
"WHEREAS Arbitrator Eischen was selected to determine the fair and equitable allocation of EMB-190 aircraft as between AAA and AWA. Hearings were held over August 1 and 2, 2006. The opinion (“Eischen Award”) was published on September 5th, 2006. Arbitrator Eischen determined one-third of the new flying generated by the fifty-seven (57) EMB-190 aircraft was the fair and equitable share for the AWA pilots,
however, the AWA pilots would not be afforded any EMB-190 positions until after Operational Integration; in Arbitrator Eischen’s words, his Award represented “IOUs” to the West". Integrity in action, again.
I'm sure you can provide a link to where US couldn't get financing for CRJs. Then tell me how the entire Mid Atlantic fleet of EMB 170s made it here.
Here are a couple other links for you. Education is a great thing. You should avail yourself to it. I'll be here to help when ever you need it, don't hesitate to ask.
http://old.post-gaze...2/508153-28.stm
http://jamhoff.com/PDFs/ArbitratorDecisionAward.pdf
The Financial Picture
From the evidence, it is clear enough that the merger with AWA was a meaningful factor in U.S. Airway’s emergence from bankruptcy. Together, the two companies were able to attract investments that, operating alone, they might not have secured. However, West’s claim that U.S. Airways emerged from bankruptcy "only because it [was] acquired by a stronger enterprise"
10 is reflected neither in the KPMG audit report (cited by West)11 nor in any other portion of the evidence. Instead, each carrier had something to contribute. Airways, for example, was much larger. It served almost twice as many destinations as AWA and carried twice the number of passengers.12 Airways has substantially more cash on hand, following the merger agreement. AWA, for its part, brought relative success as a low cost carrier operation with a meaningful presence in the Western United States.
Airways’ "fresh start"13 included a series of steps designed to strengthen Airways’ financial situation. Among other things, it entered into concessionary bargaining with its unions, ultimately securing some $1 billion dollars per year in cost reductions. 14 Termination of certain existing defined benefit and other post-retirement benefit plans generated substantial savings.15 A 35 percent decrease in labor cost16 taken together with other cost saving measures, resulted in a positive net operating income for the second and third quarters of 2005, prior to approval of the merger agreement in September of 2005. 17 AWA, for its part, while not in bankruptcy, was attempting to confront what it regarded as a troubled and potentially perilous future, absent the merger, in the face of rising fuel costs and depressed unit revenues as a result of over capacity, among other things. It, too, needed cash.
West characterizes the merger decision on AWA’s part as a one-way economic bailout. But there is no support for this in the record; surely, the respective companies did not endorse that view. AWA concluded, according to the statements of its CEO, that "…when we looked out at our future, what we sawwasn’t good…. Assuming we couldn’t go out and restructure or raise cash, it is possible that AWA would have been facing its own Chapter 11 at some point. Employees may like to think we "saved" US but the fact is we saved each other…18