Open Letter to UAL COO
05-22-2009, 02:59 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: sitting
Posts: 116
Open Letter to UAL COO
Letter from UAL ALPA MEC Chair to UAL COO
United Airlines - Company information
**************************************************
An Open Letter to John Tague and All United Employees
May 22, 2009
Dear John,
I have just read the May 21, 2009 letter to your “fellow employees” and feel compelled to respond to the blatant mischaracterizations and outright falsehoods contained therein. Your letter is an affront to every United employee and it’s clear that you fail to “get it.”
You obviously have problems grasping the facts. First and foremost, ALPA has never said we were against United’s application for Antitrust Immunity. Instead, what we have made clear is that we are against any action by this Company’s management that does not have its employees’ interests and the United Airlines enterprise in mind. Despite your assertions to the contrary, aspects of this filing have the potential to do exactly that: harm the employees and destroy the enterprise. Let’s discuss facts from the employees’ view.
When the STAR Alliance was created in 1997, United had 575 aircraft with orders for more and had 90,000 employees. By the end of this year, United will have 396 aircraft and 46,000 employees. Where did those 44,000 jobs go? Meanwhile, United Express has grown to 280 aircraft and Lufthansa, our primary Alliance partner, has become the world’s über-international carrier. Are these the “United jobs” you were talking about?
You state that the Alliance gives us enough passengers to fill 75 B-777s a day. Unfortunately, United only operates 52 B-777s with no wide-body aircraft on order. Where are the passengers going that would fill those additional 23 B-777s? Are those aircraft operated and serviced by United employees?
We agree that the Alliance brings revenue to the UAL Corporation, but certainly not to the employees or to United Airlines. Instead, revenues from the Alliance are used to offset $1.1 billion in bad fuel hedges, pay management bonuses, retire cheap debt in exchange for more expensive debt, pay premiums to loosen debt covenants or pay shareholder dividends. Where are the new, fuel efficient airplanes that our competitors seem to be able to purchase with their “alliance” revenues?
You also claimed in your letter that “pilots at Continental…have supported [United’s] application because they recognize the need to meet the competitive threat posed by Delta-Air France-KLM.” I find this interesting, considering my counterpart at the Continental pilots’ MEC has openly expressed his pilot group’s unwavering support for our attempts to seek labor input in the ATI process. In a letter, dated March 11, 2009 to congressional leaders and Secretary LaHood, they stated the following:
“We agree with our fellow pilots at United that their management has shown disdain for pilots… In fact, the actions of United’s management threaten all airline employees, not just those of United, and we will continue to work hard to support the United pilots.”
ALPA is not opposed to the Alliance in and of itself. What we object to is that there are no provisions contained in the current application which protect American jobs, specifically United jobs. To the contrary, should the DOT grant full global antitrust immunity, as United desires, it is ALPA’s belief that this management will use that immunity to whipsaw employee groups against each other as well as export flying to Alliance partners. One only has to look at United’s recent announcement of a joint venture with Aer Lingus for a primer on how this management intends to operate in the future. As has been stated publicly, at its fruition, both companies intend to form a separate airline staffed with employees from neither United nor Aer Lingus. If that’s not “outsourcing” then I fail to grasp the definition of the term.
The airline scrap heap is full of the carcasses of carriers whose managements failed to learn one fundamental lesson: you cannot shrink to profitability. Yet you and this management team continue to pursue a course of just that. United has made the deepest capacity cuts in the industry but has yet to see a corresponding stabilization of its unit revenues. To the contrary: for April 2009 and YTD 2009 United’s year-over-year PRASM decline far exceeded the industry average PRASM decline despite United’s more aggressive reduction in ASMs. Management’s plan to shed capacity in order to stabilize the business is clearly not working and the request for global antitrust immunity is just one more example of a desire to shrink the airline even more. The employees see the course this management team is on and will not stand on the sidelines. ALPA will use all resources to stop United’s slide into oblivion.
Again, John, we are not against the Alliance, nor of some aspects of United’s recent application. Instead, we are pursuing protections for our pilots and other employees to ensure that United’s management does not continue down the path it is on — the pure shrinking and systematic dismantling of our airline. We want a management that will operate aggressively within the Alliance, preserving our relative share of the market. Despite having one of the best route structures in the world and a franchise that most analysts believe to be the best of any, this management has failed and continues to fail miserably to meet that challenge.
In Unity,
Captain Steve Wallach, Chairman
United Air Lines Master Executive Council
United Airlines - Company information
**************************************************
An Open Letter to John Tague and All United Employees
May 22, 2009
Dear John,
I have just read the May 21, 2009 letter to your “fellow employees” and feel compelled to respond to the blatant mischaracterizations and outright falsehoods contained therein. Your letter is an affront to every United employee and it’s clear that you fail to “get it.”
You obviously have problems grasping the facts. First and foremost, ALPA has never said we were against United’s application for Antitrust Immunity. Instead, what we have made clear is that we are against any action by this Company’s management that does not have its employees’ interests and the United Airlines enterprise in mind. Despite your assertions to the contrary, aspects of this filing have the potential to do exactly that: harm the employees and destroy the enterprise. Let’s discuss facts from the employees’ view.
When the STAR Alliance was created in 1997, United had 575 aircraft with orders for more and had 90,000 employees. By the end of this year, United will have 396 aircraft and 46,000 employees. Where did those 44,000 jobs go? Meanwhile, United Express has grown to 280 aircraft and Lufthansa, our primary Alliance partner, has become the world’s über-international carrier. Are these the “United jobs” you were talking about?
You state that the Alliance gives us enough passengers to fill 75 B-777s a day. Unfortunately, United only operates 52 B-777s with no wide-body aircraft on order. Where are the passengers going that would fill those additional 23 B-777s? Are those aircraft operated and serviced by United employees?
We agree that the Alliance brings revenue to the UAL Corporation, but certainly not to the employees or to United Airlines. Instead, revenues from the Alliance are used to offset $1.1 billion in bad fuel hedges, pay management bonuses, retire cheap debt in exchange for more expensive debt, pay premiums to loosen debt covenants or pay shareholder dividends. Where are the new, fuel efficient airplanes that our competitors seem to be able to purchase with their “alliance” revenues?
You also claimed in your letter that “pilots at Continental…have supported [United’s] application because they recognize the need to meet the competitive threat posed by Delta-Air France-KLM.” I find this interesting, considering my counterpart at the Continental pilots’ MEC has openly expressed his pilot group’s unwavering support for our attempts to seek labor input in the ATI process. In a letter, dated March 11, 2009 to congressional leaders and Secretary LaHood, they stated the following:
“We agree with our fellow pilots at United that their management has shown disdain for pilots… In fact, the actions of United’s management threaten all airline employees, not just those of United, and we will continue to work hard to support the United pilots.”
ALPA is not opposed to the Alliance in and of itself. What we object to is that there are no provisions contained in the current application which protect American jobs, specifically United jobs. To the contrary, should the DOT grant full global antitrust immunity, as United desires, it is ALPA’s belief that this management will use that immunity to whipsaw employee groups against each other as well as export flying to Alliance partners. One only has to look at United’s recent announcement of a joint venture with Aer Lingus for a primer on how this management intends to operate in the future. As has been stated publicly, at its fruition, both companies intend to form a separate airline staffed with employees from neither United nor Aer Lingus. If that’s not “outsourcing” then I fail to grasp the definition of the term.
The airline scrap heap is full of the carcasses of carriers whose managements failed to learn one fundamental lesson: you cannot shrink to profitability. Yet you and this management team continue to pursue a course of just that. United has made the deepest capacity cuts in the industry but has yet to see a corresponding stabilization of its unit revenues. To the contrary: for April 2009 and YTD 2009 United’s year-over-year PRASM decline far exceeded the industry average PRASM decline despite United’s more aggressive reduction in ASMs. Management’s plan to shed capacity in order to stabilize the business is clearly not working and the request for global antitrust immunity is just one more example of a desire to shrink the airline even more. The employees see the course this management team is on and will not stand on the sidelines. ALPA will use all resources to stop United’s slide into oblivion.
Again, John, we are not against the Alliance, nor of some aspects of United’s recent application. Instead, we are pursuing protections for our pilots and other employees to ensure that United’s management does not continue down the path it is on — the pure shrinking and systematic dismantling of our airline. We want a management that will operate aggressively within the Alliance, preserving our relative share of the market. Despite having one of the best route structures in the world and a franchise that most analysts believe to be the best of any, this management has failed and continues to fail miserably to meet that challenge.
In Unity,
Captain Steve Wallach, Chairman
United Air Lines Master Executive Council
05-22-2009, 08:04 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: Sitting down and facing front in a plane
Posts: 136
Originally Posted by 30west
I wish my email to Mr. Tague was as eloquent as the MEC chairs was, all I wrote was....... Liar, Liar Pants on Fire
Everyone repeat after me; "Unity, Unity!"
05-23-2009, 05:07 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Tu-95 PIC
Posts: 104
Originally Posted by JetDaily
Eloquent? PLEASE!! More whining from a failed union and it's pathetic "leadership."
Everyone repeat after me; "Unity, Unity!"
Everyone repeat after me; "Unity, Unity!"
05-26-2009, 07:37 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: Sitting down and facing front in a plane
Posts: 136
Originally Posted by seven6
Since it's a so called 'failed union' they should just give up and let the ATI pass with no employee protection, correct? That is the message I am getting from your post.
Eloquent? PLEASE!! More whining from a failed union and it's pathetic "leadership."
Everyone, repeat after me, "Unity, Unity!"
05-26-2009, 07:41 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: Sitting down and facing front in a plane
Posts: 136
Originally Posted by Low & Slow
Letter from UAL ALPA MEC Chair to UAL COO
United Airlines - Company information
**************************************************
An Open Letter to John Tague and All United Employees
May 22, 2009
Dear John,
I have just read the May 21, 2009 letter to your “fellow employees” and feel compelled to respond to the blatant mischaracterizations and outright falsehoods contained therein. Your letter is an affront to every United employee and it’s clear that you fail to “get it.”
You obviously have problems grasping the facts. First and foremost, ALPA has never said we were against United’s application for Antitrust Immunity. Instead, what we have made clear is that we are against any action by this Company’s management that does not have its employees’ interests and the United Airlines enterprise in mind. Despite your assertions to the contrary, aspects of this filing have the potential to do exactly that: harm the employees and destroy the enterprise. Let’s discuss facts from the employees’ view.
When the STAR Alliance was created in 1997, United had 575 aircraft with orders for more and had 90,000 employees. By the end of this year, United will have 396 aircraft and 46,000 employees. Where did those 44,000 jobs go? Meanwhile, United Express has grown to 280 aircraft and Lufthansa, our primary Alliance partner, has become the world’s über-international carrier. Are these the “United jobs” you were talking about?
You state that the Alliance gives us enough passengers to fill 75 B-777s a day. Unfortunately, United only operates 52 B-777s with no wide-body aircraft on order. Where are the passengers going that would fill those additional 23 B-777s? Are those aircraft operated and serviced by United employees?
We agree that the Alliance brings revenue to the UAL Corporation, but certainly not to the employees or to United Airlines. Instead, revenues from the Alliance are used to offset $1.1 billion in bad fuel hedges, pay management bonuses, retire cheap debt in exchange for more expensive debt, pay premiums to loosen debt covenants or pay shareholder dividends. Where are the new, fuel efficient airplanes that our competitors seem to be able to purchase with their “alliance” revenues?
You also claimed in your letter that “pilots at Continental…have supported [United’s] application because they recognize the need to meet the competitive threat posed by Delta-Air France-KLM.” I find this interesting, considering my counterpart at the Continental pilots’ MEC has openly expressed his pilot group’s unwavering support for our attempts to seek labor input in the ATI process. In a letter, dated March 11, 2009 to congressional leaders and Secretary LaHood, they stated the following:
“We agree with our fellow pilots at United that their management has shown disdain for pilots… In fact, the actions of United’s management threaten all airline employees, not just those of United, and we will continue to work hard to support the United pilots.”
ALPA is not opposed to the Alliance in and of itself. What we object to is that there are no provisions contained in the current application which protect American jobs, specifically United jobs. To the contrary, should the DOT grant full global antitrust immunity, as United desires, it is ALPA’s belief that this management will use that immunity to whipsaw employee groups against each other as well as export flying to Alliance partners. One only has to look at United’s recent announcement of a joint venture with Aer Lingus for a primer on how this management intends to operate in the future. As has been stated publicly, at its fruition, both companies intend to form a separate airline staffed with employees from neither United nor Aer Lingus. If that’s not “outsourcing” then I fail to grasp the definition of the term.
The airline scrap heap is full of the carcasses of carriers whose managements failed to learn one fundamental lesson: you cannot shrink to profitability. Yet you and this management team continue to pursue a course of just that. United has made the deepest capacity cuts in the industry but has yet to see a corresponding stabilization of its unit revenues. To the contrary: for April 2009 and YTD 2009 United’s year-over-year PRASM decline far exceeded the industry average PRASM decline despite United’s more aggressive reduction in ASMs. Management’s plan to shed capacity in order to stabilize the business is clearly not working and the request for global antitrust immunity is just one more example of a desire to shrink the airline even more. The employees see the course this management team is on and will not stand on the sidelines. ALPA will use all resources to stop United’s slide into oblivion.
Again, John, we are not against the Alliance, nor of some aspects of United’s recent application. Instead, we are pursuing protections for our pilots and other employees to ensure that United’s management does not continue down the path it is on — the pure shrinking and systematic dismantling of our airline. We want a management that will operate aggressively within the Alliance, preserving our relative share of the market. Despite having one of the best route structures in the world and a franchise that most analysts believe to be the best of any, this management has failed and continues to fail miserably to meet that challenge.
In Unity,
Captain Steve Wallach, Chairman
United Air Lines Master Executive Council
United Airlines - Company information
**************************************************
An Open Letter to John Tague and All United Employees
May 22, 2009
Dear John,
I have just read the May 21, 2009 letter to your “fellow employees” and feel compelled to respond to the blatant mischaracterizations and outright falsehoods contained therein. Your letter is an affront to every United employee and it’s clear that you fail to “get it.”
You obviously have problems grasping the facts. First and foremost, ALPA has never said we were against United’s application for Antitrust Immunity. Instead, what we have made clear is that we are against any action by this Company’s management that does not have its employees’ interests and the United Airlines enterprise in mind. Despite your assertions to the contrary, aspects of this filing have the potential to do exactly that: harm the employees and destroy the enterprise. Let’s discuss facts from the employees’ view.
When the STAR Alliance was created in 1997, United had 575 aircraft with orders for more and had 90,000 employees. By the end of this year, United will have 396 aircraft and 46,000 employees. Where did those 44,000 jobs go? Meanwhile, United Express has grown to 280 aircraft and Lufthansa, our primary Alliance partner, has become the world’s über-international carrier. Are these the “United jobs” you were talking about?
You state that the Alliance gives us enough passengers to fill 75 B-777s a day. Unfortunately, United only operates 52 B-777s with no wide-body aircraft on order. Where are the passengers going that would fill those additional 23 B-777s? Are those aircraft operated and serviced by United employees?
We agree that the Alliance brings revenue to the UAL Corporation, but certainly not to the employees or to United Airlines. Instead, revenues from the Alliance are used to offset $1.1 billion in bad fuel hedges, pay management bonuses, retire cheap debt in exchange for more expensive debt, pay premiums to loosen debt covenants or pay shareholder dividends. Where are the new, fuel efficient airplanes that our competitors seem to be able to purchase with their “alliance” revenues?
You also claimed in your letter that “pilots at Continental…have supported [United’s] application because they recognize the need to meet the competitive threat posed by Delta-Air France-KLM.” I find this interesting, considering my counterpart at the Continental pilots’ MEC has openly expressed his pilot group’s unwavering support for our attempts to seek labor input in the ATI process. In a letter, dated March 11, 2009 to congressional leaders and Secretary LaHood, they stated the following:
“We agree with our fellow pilots at United that their management has shown disdain for pilots… In fact, the actions of United’s management threaten all airline employees, not just those of United, and we will continue to work hard to support the United pilots.”
ALPA is not opposed to the Alliance in and of itself. What we object to is that there are no provisions contained in the current application which protect American jobs, specifically United jobs. To the contrary, should the DOT grant full global antitrust immunity, as United desires, it is ALPA’s belief that this management will use that immunity to whipsaw employee groups against each other as well as export flying to Alliance partners. One only has to look at United’s recent announcement of a joint venture with Aer Lingus for a primer on how this management intends to operate in the future. As has been stated publicly, at its fruition, both companies intend to form a separate airline staffed with employees from neither United nor Aer Lingus. If that’s not “outsourcing” then I fail to grasp the definition of the term.
The airline scrap heap is full of the carcasses of carriers whose managements failed to learn one fundamental lesson: you cannot shrink to profitability. Yet you and this management team continue to pursue a course of just that. United has made the deepest capacity cuts in the industry but has yet to see a corresponding stabilization of its unit revenues. To the contrary: for April 2009 and YTD 2009 United’s year-over-year PRASM decline far exceeded the industry average PRASM decline despite United’s more aggressive reduction in ASMs. Management’s plan to shed capacity in order to stabilize the business is clearly not working and the request for global antitrust immunity is just one more example of a desire to shrink the airline even more. The employees see the course this management team is on and will not stand on the sidelines. ALPA will use all resources to stop United’s slide into oblivion.
Again, John, we are not against the Alliance, nor of some aspects of United’s recent application. Instead, we are pursuing protections for our pilots and other employees to ensure that United’s management does not continue down the path it is on — the pure shrinking and systematic dismantling of our airline. We want a management that will operate aggressively within the Alliance, preserving our relative share of the market. Despite having one of the best route structures in the world and a franchise that most analysts believe to be the best of any, this management has failed and continues to fail miserably to meet that challenge.
In Unity,
Captain Steve Wallach, Chairman
United Air Lines Master Executive Council
Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.
Gotta get back to my job and produce some revenue....excuse me.
JD
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Dan64456
Pilot Health
19
09-15-2008 03:35 AM
