njcapt
Freak power candidate
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 1,096
I've avoided posting my feelings on the ATA forum since that horse has been beaten to a mushy pulp, but I thought I would possibly enlighten some of the folks on the sidelines. I watched the taped webcast from our ALPA website, went to the MDW road show, and went home and voted for the LOA's.
ATA is in a cash-poor world of hurt right now. If we had a bunch of unrestricted cash, we would probably be able to muddle throught the next year or so until fuel prices go down or one of our competitors bites the dust. Given the loan covenants that dictate how we manage our cash, we only have a month and a half of operating cash on hand. Even if we hold our ground during the classically lucrative summer months, we would burn through our cash in the fourth and first quarters. Game over, Man.
Boeing's financing for the 717's is going to be contingent on ATAH getting some kind of relief from the organized employee groups BEFORE the deal is inked. Sealing the 717 deal will allow ATA to go ahead with the plan to move the 757's to the coasts to perform the overseas flying (which is apparently coming sooner, rather than later), while the 737's will move to the long haul cross-country stuff as the 717's arrive. The concessions and 717 rate and work rule LOA's will act as the starting gun for this to occur. Without them, we will be left in the gate.
ALPA's financial analyst said, that of the four scenarios floated by the company for the next few years, only the smaller jet version gave ATA any hope of long term survival, and it was a very sound business plan given the current LCC environment (ie. the only one that would generate significant additional revenue to the airline). Bottom line - this deal is our only hope. Plans B, C, and D involved: changing nothing, downsizing, or having Chicago Express operate new smaller (read RJ) aircraft.
To those who would vote this set of LOA's down in order to hold out for more the next time around: this is it. This was made very clear by the Negotiating Committee Chairman and the MEC. A no vote would force the company to utilize plans B, C, or D. I'm on my fifth airline, have nineteen years ten months and twenty six days to go until retirement, and I finally don't have to commute. I don't want to look for another job. I am satisfied from the information given by the Negotiating Committee, the MEC, and ALPA's financial analysis that the company is not simply playing us for a bunch of chumps, looking to chisel some cash out of us to help fund their latest half-a$$ed idea.
I respect the opinions of those who would vote no to this and stick it in the company's face, but haven't heard a valid argument as to why this deal isn't necessary, just criticism of the way our management has done business in the past. I agree. I have almost nothing but contempt for the way ATA management has played with themselves while the newcomer LCC's that haven't been around for thirty one frickin' years like we have leave us in the dust. I won't, however, cut off my nose to spite my face (or cut off their noses to spite my... wait... spite their faces... sh!t, time for another beer).
Fuk it. I voted yes.
ATA is in a cash-poor world of hurt right now. If we had a bunch of unrestricted cash, we would probably be able to muddle throught the next year or so until fuel prices go down or one of our competitors bites the dust. Given the loan covenants that dictate how we manage our cash, we only have a month and a half of operating cash on hand. Even if we hold our ground during the classically lucrative summer months, we would burn through our cash in the fourth and first quarters. Game over, Man.
Boeing's financing for the 717's is going to be contingent on ATAH getting some kind of relief from the organized employee groups BEFORE the deal is inked. Sealing the 717 deal will allow ATA to go ahead with the plan to move the 757's to the coasts to perform the overseas flying (which is apparently coming sooner, rather than later), while the 737's will move to the long haul cross-country stuff as the 717's arrive. The concessions and 717 rate and work rule LOA's will act as the starting gun for this to occur. Without them, we will be left in the gate.
ALPA's financial analyst said, that of the four scenarios floated by the company for the next few years, only the smaller jet version gave ATA any hope of long term survival, and it was a very sound business plan given the current LCC environment (ie. the only one that would generate significant additional revenue to the airline). Bottom line - this deal is our only hope. Plans B, C, and D involved: changing nothing, downsizing, or having Chicago Express operate new smaller (read RJ) aircraft.
To those who would vote this set of LOA's down in order to hold out for more the next time around: this is it. This was made very clear by the Negotiating Committee Chairman and the MEC. A no vote would force the company to utilize plans B, C, or D. I'm on my fifth airline, have nineteen years ten months and twenty six days to go until retirement, and I finally don't have to commute. I don't want to look for another job. I am satisfied from the information given by the Negotiating Committee, the MEC, and ALPA's financial analysis that the company is not simply playing us for a bunch of chumps, looking to chisel some cash out of us to help fund their latest half-a$$ed idea.
I respect the opinions of those who would vote no to this and stick it in the company's face, but haven't heard a valid argument as to why this deal isn't necessary, just criticism of the way our management has done business in the past. I agree. I have almost nothing but contempt for the way ATA management has played with themselves while the newcomer LCC's that haven't been around for thirty one frickin' years like we have leave us in the dust. I won't, however, cut off my nose to spite my face (or cut off their noses to spite my... wait... spite their faces... sh!t, time for another beer).
Fuk it. I voted yes.
