I was about ready to ask on the Allegiant forum what more they could tell us about AL from firsthand experience. I've got a lot of questions like what Baseball asked above. His employment history is really disturbing. I'd like to think somewhere along the way he's noticed that the best performing airlines over the long term are typically the ones with the best labor relations. But somehow I doubt that he has.

Tell us there Mr. Inconsistent, how do you call the ALPA representatives names and on the same day tell us you are GLAD that those same ALPA representatives negotiated an extension you praise?

You're starting to sound like Chuck Cummins spewing ALPA hate.

Hi Staller.

Everything at Allegiant was run based on spending little to no money on the operation. If something went wrong, which happened a lot, it was automatically the fault of the pilot, not management, training, dispatch, scheduling, or anything.

The operation was WAAAAAYYYY understaffed, in all departments. It was cheaper to not have enough pilots, mechanics, dispatchers, agents and ground workers, and spare parts. Most maintenance was done by the lowest bidder, with all the resulting problems from that.

As for why he left Allegiant, I know it wasn't his choice to leave. I know some of the details, and some of the rumors, but I couldn't give a specific reason as to why. I know a lot that went in to it, but I don't know if it was for one thing, or a combination of things.

I forgot and left out the best part:

There was also the policy that on VFR days, landing fuel in the MD-80 was 5,000 lbs and the Airbus was 4,000 lbs. They said that was equal to 45 minutes.

That's UNSAT.

I support the winner of the IAH election, It was democratic, and fair But I also support what Chuck has done for ALPA members. Chuck has no hate for ALPA. Chuck, in my experience is much like a baseball umpire. He calls balls and strikes fairly. ALPA's not perfect, and if you care for something, then you really want to try hard to make it perfect.

The whole "This is an aircraft carrier" speech that ALPA gives its members to tell them to slow down because change is slow is what drives members crazy. If you're trying to change the direction of the all ahead slow aircraft carrier and keep it from running aground, then you're gonna ruffle a few tail feathers.

There's also been more than a few people in the past that have tried to help ALPA find its way. Some not so great stewards of ALPA's money and resources, but some were. Most people are smart enough to know that ALPA's not perfect, but nothing is.

Many moons ago I worked allot with John Cox. He had allot to do with my ALPA work in the past. He gave me one great piece of advice. ALPA will take all you can give, and then some. When ALPA's through with you, it will chew you up and spit you out. That's when it's time for you to be a gentleman and pass the baton to the next person to continue the race. I just think it's Chuck's time to pass the baton. I see no hate in his heart for ALPA. I see that ALPA needs to do a better job in taking care of its military dues paying members, and a better job of returning moneys to its members in contractual provisions that it negotiated (LTD). It's not a valid argument to say "management has the money" when it was your negotiators that put the language in place to give management the money.

It's time to start calling balls and strikes fairly regardless of who's up to bat. If ALPA's in the box, then so be it. If management's in the box then so be it. A little consistency goes along way to having some credibility. Without credibility there's not much trust. Without trust the unity won't be there when you need it. At the end of the day, you want Chuck on your team. He drives results and gets things done. And, there's allot of other guys out there that ALPA could get in their dugout and on their team if ALPA is perceived as playing ball the right way.

Very sorry for the threat drift....

Do you know if he has a resume that can be found?

His background and on-line profile's don't say much. That tells me that it is all about the relationship.

1. He either has crossed paths with or co-pollenated the same flowers that other current UAL managers have in the past, or were chums in a previous life: academia, fraternities, etc.

2. He may have history with board members. I wonder if he served on any boards where other UAL management were, or were possible board members as well. Often times people serve on multiple boards in different companies.

3. How did he get the job with Allegiant? What was the connection to land him that job?

His departure may not have been his idea. Let's presume it wasn't. He had to have known that the end result was a few months out. In that few months prior to his departure he had to have been massaging his contacts to see what is out there. He either got a friend of a friend to drop his name, or his relationship was solid enough to self initiate the move and send out the right feelers and signals that he would be available. His experience is lack luster. Therefore it has to be all about the relationship. What relationship(s) did he leverage to land the position.

If it was all about the relationship this concerns me because he will owe loyalty to and allegiance to the person or persons that swore him in and gave him the secret hand shake. That means they will tolerate poor performance and mistakes from him because they value that relationship as well. I think it's a red herring. I don't trust him until I know how he got the job and who are his minders.

I agree. Not a good time to push hard for bigger gains. The timing was right for what we got. ALPA did good.

I did research Julia Haywood. I am very impressed with her. It looks to me that she has some key skillsets that United needs in senior leadership. This may be the person who OM has picked to succeed him. Usually new CEO's pick someone within their first few years to mentor. This may be his pick.

I am starting to connect some of the dots. Education and M Power experience may have more to do with his connections than Allegiant.

I think at the next sit down with OM, our union should just ask him how, why, etc. Get it out in the open and on the record. Managers come and go, but the reality is, this is our airline. If this guy poops his pants we aren't going to wipe up his mess, but we may wipe the floor with him. OM should know we are watching and we don't have the patience or tolerance for any more anti-labor types. Normally a guy gets 3 strikes. I think he stepped up to the plate to an 0-2 count.

FWIW, she was the head consultant at Boston Consulting Group for UAL and directed the recent consultant's report that recommended that UAL shrink to profitability (yes, in 2016, when every competitor is growing).

From the C34 update:

Our concern with the appointment of Julia Haywood is less about her resume and more to do with the recommendations Boston Consulting Group (BCG) gave United under her leadership. The BCG recommended we start wholesale shrinking the airline to cut costs. They advocated we close the Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., hubs (and perhaps others) and take other draconian measures to close the cost gap between Delta and us. Everyone knows that in the airline industry, you cannot shrink your way to profitability. This is especially true during robust profitable years, as we currently experience. The failure of Haywood’s BCG to see the big picture is troubling. Their report was myopic, failing to identify the importance of closing the capacity gap with Delta, improving the operation, and the true value of hubs in LA and DC

She is now in charge of such things.

Just saying.....