Jeff's comment on outsourcing
11-29-2010 | 06:00 AM
#41
Thread Starter
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 15
From: 737 CAPT
And, no, I do not know what the solution "is" or "was" as I am not on the JNC and don't sit in the room. It's out of my hands until a vote anyway.
11-30-2010 | 05:52 PM
#42
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
I won't name my source other than he sits on the management side of the table on negotiations and often tells me about the lost money by management and the pilots by not closing the deal. I have said "whats the big deal run them separate", he always comes back with it's not possible due to the money being lost/left.
Also, USairways management formally asked the courts several months a go to make a decision (any management doesn't care which) on the whole usapa/seniority /contract problems. I don't know where the case stands in the system.
30west
Also, USairways management formally asked the courts several months a go to make a decision (any management doesn't care which) on the whole usapa/seniority /contract problems. I don't know where the case stands in the system.
30west
Furthermore, US Airways' sudden need to resolve the situation has everything to do with not being able to participate in further industry consolidation.
11-30-2010 | 06:19 PM
#43
On Reserve
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Just for clarification purposes, when you say your source "sits on the management side of the table", are you referring to US Airways 'management side of the table' or UAL 'management side of the table'?
Furthermore, US Airways' sudden need to resolve the situation has everything to do with not being able to participate in further industry consolidation.
Furthermore, US Airways' sudden need to resolve the situation has everything to do with not being able to participate in further industry consolidation.
30west
11-30-2010 | 06:59 PM
#44
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Thanks for the quick reply.
Again, I don't think it has to do with lack of synergies as US Airways posted the highest profit margin of any US airline last quarter. Below is an excerpt from an article that hints at why US Airways management is suddenly so interested in resolving the situation:
The deal also puts pressure on AMR Corp. (NYSE: AMR) and US Airways (NYSE: LCC), once thought to be a potential United partner. Each carrier will have to go it alone in a market that's become known for consolidation, high fuel prices, and packed-to-the-gills airplanes.
But this merger stings for US Airways more than it does American. Last month, US Airways CEO Doug Parker told pilots that a provision in their contracts that would allow for higher wages following a business combination wouldn't be retained were a deal reached with UAL or any other airline, TheStreet.com reported.
The implication? Parker wants to make his airline as attractive a takeover candidate as possible, even more so now that he's been spurned by Delta and United.
Again, I don't think it has to do with lack of synergies as US Airways posted the highest profit margin of any US airline last quarter. Below is an excerpt from an article that hints at why US Airways management is suddenly so interested in resolving the situation:
The deal also puts pressure on AMR Corp. (NYSE: AMR) and US Airways (NYSE: LCC), once thought to be a potential United partner. Each carrier will have to go it alone in a market that's become known for consolidation, high fuel prices, and packed-to-the-gills airplanes.
But this merger stings for US Airways more than it does American. Last month, US Airways CEO Doug Parker told pilots that a provision in their contracts that would allow for higher wages following a business combination wouldn't be retained were a deal reached with UAL or any other airline, TheStreet.com reported.
The implication? Parker wants to make his airline as attractive a takeover candidate as possible, even more so now that he's been spurned by Delta and United.
12-03-2010 | 08:08 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
From: Sitting down and facing front in a plane
Can you please point me to the contractual provision that allows us to hold up the Single Operating Certificate? That was a rhetorical question because there isn't one. The Single Operating Certificate is a matter between the FAA and management (when was the last time you heard the US Air call sign?). Moreover, has anyone else noticed that the optimization of aircraft and route structure is also not in our control? UA is about to start flying IAH-LIM with a 767-300, CO is about to start a bunch of 737 routes out of ORD and of course the well publicized regional flying out of IAH is about to become reality.
What we control is very limited: the ability for UA and CO pilots to fly together and for pilots to fly aircraft from the other pre-merger company --that's it. It's worth something, but only a fraction of the value that most pilots think we control. Meanwhile, years will go by as we wonder why management isn't capitulating to our demands while they already have 97% of the merger synergies in hand.
I know this post will be met with jeers from some, but it is a foolish endeavor to negotiate without a true assessment and understanding of your actual leverage. I'm all for maximizing the leverage we do have, but first we need to understand that we haven't hit the leverage lottery jackpot as some would like to believe.
I think ALPA is partially responsible for this mindset, because they think it's good politics to talk tough and cater to pilot's dream scenarios like controlling a billion + in merger synergies. Unfortunately, they seem to think it's bad politics to admit that most of it is just for show.
We are going to get the contract we're going to get and I'd prefer to have the time value of money working for me rather than against me. For those who think that retro-pay takes care of that concern, trust me, retro money just comes from some other area of the contract (for example, you could forgo the retro-pay and get higher pay rates or something else -- it's just money at that point). Furthermore there's no such thing as retro work rules -- you can't get back a day off from last year.
What we control is very limited: the ability for UA and CO pilots to fly together and for pilots to fly aircraft from the other pre-merger company --that's it. It's worth something, but only a fraction of the value that most pilots think we control. Meanwhile, years will go by as we wonder why management isn't capitulating to our demands while they already have 97% of the merger synergies in hand.
I know this post will be met with jeers from some, but it is a foolish endeavor to negotiate without a true assessment and understanding of your actual leverage. I'm all for maximizing the leverage we do have, but first we need to understand that we haven't hit the leverage lottery jackpot as some would like to believe.
I think ALPA is partially responsible for this mindset, because they think it's good politics to talk tough and cater to pilot's dream scenarios like controlling a billion + in merger synergies. Unfortunately, they seem to think it's bad politics to admit that most of it is just for show.
We are going to get the contract we're going to get and I'd prefer to have the time value of money working for me rather than against me. For those who think that retro-pay takes care of that concern, trust me, retro money just comes from some other area of the contract (for example, you could forgo the retro-pay and get higher pay rates or something else -- it's just money at that point). Furthermore there's no such thing as retro work rules -- you can't get back a day off from last year.
Good post, 2wright. Wow..there's hope that intelligent life exists, at least partially, in this forum!
JD
12-10-2010 | 07:17 AM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
From: A320/A319/B737 Sys Acft Maint Controller
Pilots plan to protest today on outsourcing | Business | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
I find this comment interesting. He made the same comments about the pre-merged Continental. However, as Jeff pointed out earlier this year, from 2000-2009, CAL lost $1 billion. That's $1 billion OVER A 10 YEAR PERIOD while solely having a max of 50-seat small-jets. Now, no loss of money is a good thing I admit. However, if you compare that to the other legacy carriers, CAL lost the least amount of money over that same period while those other carriers HAD 70-seat small jets. CAL was considered to be in good shape financially (this is not a CAL vs. UAL statement and is not aimed at UAL guys related to anything to do with JCBA or SLI).
So Jeff, I ask you, how exactly is the combined company at a competitive disadvantage FINANCIALLY because CAL has a scope clause that limits you to 50-seat jets for the feeders? CAL seemed to do OK before this merger with just 50-seaters.
I find this comment interesting. He made the same comments about the pre-merged Continental. However, as Jeff pointed out earlier this year, from 2000-2009, CAL lost $1 billion. That's $1 billion OVER A 10 YEAR PERIOD while solely having a max of 50-seat small-jets. Now, no loss of money is a good thing I admit. However, if you compare that to the other legacy carriers, CAL lost the least amount of money over that same period while those other carriers HAD 70-seat small jets. CAL was considered to be in good shape financially (this is not a CAL vs. UAL statement and is not aimed at UAL guys related to anything to do with JCBA or SLI).
So Jeff, I ask you, how exactly is the combined company at a competitive disadvantage FINANCIALLY because CAL has a scope clause that limits you to 50-seat jets for the feeders? CAL seemed to do OK before this merger with just 50-seaters.
Is this $1B a Loss in Potential sales?? Or is this just a paper loss like writing off "Goodwill"?? I've heard this comment recently again by Managment but they can't actually produce any hard document that confirms any such number. It's kind of like calling sime one a "Bigot" or a "Queer". How are they going to PROVE they're not?? Some of these Nebulous statements made recently need to show some PROOF of Authenticity. I think they're designed to get the pilots all riled up in preparation for running a "scam" them at the bargaining table, using Outsourcing as a "red herring" to gain something ELSE they value MORE.
I've said it before. You guys aren't playng cards with Dummies. You need to be as smart and as "cunning" as the "Assassins" you're siting across from. Good Luck!
12-10-2010 | 01:13 PM
#47
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,045
Likes: 1
From: Retired 121 pilot
12-11-2010 | 06:16 AM
#48
Thread Starter
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 15
From: 737 CAPT
************************************************** ******
Is this $1B a Loss in Potential sales?? Or is this just a paper loss like writing off "Goodwill"?? I've heard this comment recently again by Managment but they can't actually produce any hard document that confirms any such number. It's kind of like calling sime one a "Bigot" or a "Queer". How are they going to PROVE they're not?? Some of these Nebulous statements made recently need to show some PROOF of Authenticity. I think they're designed to get the pilots all riled up in preparation for running a "scam" them at the bargaining table, using Outsourcing as a "red herring" to gain something ELSE they value MORE.
I've said it before. You guys aren't playng cards with Dummies. You need to be as smart and as "cunning" as the "Assassins" you're siting across from. Good Luck!
Is this $1B a Loss in Potential sales?? Or is this just a paper loss like writing off "Goodwill"?? I've heard this comment recently again by Managment but they can't actually produce any hard document that confirms any such number. It's kind of like calling sime one a "Bigot" or a "Queer". How are they going to PROVE they're not?? Some of these Nebulous statements made recently need to show some PROOF of Authenticity. I think they're designed to get the pilots all riled up in preparation for running a "scam" them at the bargaining table, using Outsourcing as a "red herring" to gain something ELSE they value MORE.
I've said it before. You guys aren't playng cards with Dummies. You need to be as smart and as "cunning" as the "Assassins" you're siting across from. Good Luck!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
