Rise & Fall of ALPA

[JetPilot500]

***** UPDATED LIST *****



People who "Get it"
Publisher
Metrosheriff
Rvrrat
RJFlyer (btw: another Great Reply)



People who "DON'T Get it"
Rick1128
furloboy
B1900DFO
flydog
1900laker
Rick1128

 

[JetPilot500]

Wait a minute. EAL and PAA can't be gone. Their pilots gave tons of concessions. After all, that's all it takes, isn't it? That's why TWA is currently the industry powerhouse.

Eastern, Pan Am, TWA, US Air and all of the others that got concessions, woulda been gone much sooner if they didn't get those concessions.

There is only so much money a company has to work with. When it dries up the Game is Over. The bigger the expenses (payroll), the faster the Cash Burn.

I'm not saying this is the only thing that will solve the problems, but it is definately a good start.

JetPilot500

 

[MetroSheriff]

I know what you're getting at but this sort of statement is tiresome. Why 100K? Why not 80K? Some folks will say the same thing about 50K. If I wanted, I could move to Nebraska or some other of the more affordable states (not necessarily a bad thing) and live on my miliary retirement and still pay for food and electricity. But I want more.

I want more to do more and to give more. If my current income was cut to 100K I wouldn't be able to do what I do--for myself or for others. I get tired of reading blanket statements from folks that in effect make 100K look like the end-all in terms of income.

It ain't. Still you're right--folks should live within their means. And for some folks that is 20K. For others it is much more.

Furloboy,

The 100k was an arbitrary number that I took from a post by Flydog:

How easy do you really think it is taking a pay cut from $150,000 a year down to $100,000 if you have a mortgage to pay, kids in college, car payments, etc. Would you risk personal bankrupcty to save your job?

According to the most recent census data, if you earn 100k +, your are in the top 5% of the population for income. My point was simple, if you cant make a go of it on 100k, you need to rethink how you spend your money. That is not to say that you don't want to earn more. I don't fault you for wanting more. But if you can't live confortably by MOST folks definition, you need some remedial financial management training. As for taking a pay cut from 150 to 100, well it sucks but thats how this business works. If you haven't figured out that things can be risky in aviation by the time you acheive employment with that level of income, you haven't been paying attention. I don't feel sorry for you. With that kind of salary, you ought to be able to put a few benjies in the bank and have something saved for a rainy day. If you don't, that's your fault and I'm not gonna play any violins for you. I left a management position with a great part 135 freight/corporate charter operator to go to ASA. The paycut was BIG, like 70%. We saved our money and I left for the regionals. Guess what, the cr@ppy first year pay was NO SURPRISE. Don't take the job and then cry in your beer cause the pay sucks. Make adjustments for changes you want to make, or may HAVE to make in your life. I was hoping for less than a two year upgrade, guess what, 9/11 happened and the upgrade may take 3 1/2 or 4 years. Those are the breaks.

Aviation is a fickle b1tch. She giveth and she taketh away. Play the game for a while and you learn to expect some hiccups. Plan accordingly. If you can't afford a pay cut then you are living hand to mouth and have no one to blame but yourself. The principle is the same whether you make 20k or 200k. Don't spend more than you make. Don't drive a car you can't afford just because you "really, really wanted it". Don't buy more house than you can afford because "You'll be making more in a couple years anyway". And as I keep saying put something away for a rainy day.

As I have said before, everything you really need to know, you should have learned in kindergarten (or maybe gradeschool).

As for employee concessions. It is an unfortunate situation in which a bad economy, a tragic terroristst act, and years of p1ss poor management, have completed the nasty Trifecta that has left some carriers in heaps of financial trouble. If they say they need concessions to survive, then it is probably true. That is not to say that payroll is what got them there. It is not. That is not to say that concessions guarantee their future liquidity or very survival. They won't. They are part of a plan. Whether or not the plan will work? Time will tell.

I am not to say what any of you should do regarding voting for or against the concessions. I don't have a dog in that fight, and quite frankly my opinion doesn't matter. Only those of you unfortunate enough to have to decide, must decide for yourselves what you think it best.

Hypothetically, I would support concessions if I felt it would help the company survive. More importantly, if I felt to not do so, would help to sound the funeral bell for my employer.

Industry +1% is neat. Fabulous bennies and million $ retirement packages are super. Big 'ol fat paychecks are swell.

But 100% of nothin'.......is nothin'.

 

[MetroSheriff]

Everyone,

There have been some great points made against the idea of concessions. I should have been more clear with my post. My thoughts assume that there is a realistic, feasible, multi faceted business plan, of which employee givebacks are a part.

Contracts are too hard fought to be shredded because outside influence put a company in jeopardy. They should be insituted with a CONTRACTUAL plan to return the concessions when times improve. FDJ said concessions are not an elixer. True. There is no magic bullet to combat the threat of insolvency. It takes good leadereship, management, and a solid PLAN to re-achieve success and stability.

Any management that asks for concessions without meeting those criteria should be told to get bent.

As always JMHO,

 

[AAflyer]

Metro,

Glad you added your last post. I was getting worried. Now if we can only get the real numbers, if Enron can show a profit, I bet these guys can show massive losses. Before someone fries me, yes I know we are bleeding, I would just like to see if we need a band-aid, or an ambulance to the emergency room.

AAflyer

 

[publisher]

Management

A couple of small points.

At this point, UAL is knocking on the door of the American taxpayer who may about to be a stockholder in UAL. That may be an indicator that the company is not doing well. In short, this means that the company has failed.

Does it really matter then who did what to whom. No.

There will be new management, there will be changes. Does the average taxpayer who is contributing to this care about your hard won contract and work rules. Not really. They want paid back. Perhaps they feel that what you won, good management would not have agreed to. Perhaps they feel if they have to come bail you out, you should be making a major contributon yourself.

Perhaps they are asking why bail you out at all. Just let SWA and AirTran or Jetblue just keep taking over. Would the world come to an end if there was no United or USAir. Let American or Delta fight over the spoils, let some new start up take over.

When Eastern and Pan American and TWA, and Braniff, and or whoever departed, did the world end. No!

I will tell you one thing, there were a good number of their pilots that never flew again.

 

[MetroSheriff]

Yeah, I thought I better clarify that.

My take on the REAL situation?

It's half as bad as they say it is, and twice as bad as they think it is.

I know that things are in the p00per. The bleeding is bad. They probably do need some givebacks to survive. But anyone who beleives management isn't doin' a little gravedancing, is either a fool, or....well....management.

 

[MetroSheriff]

What wears me out is the guy with half a mouth of teeth and an eighth grade education who thinks that anyone who makes $100K ought not to want for more if he can get (earn) it (regardless of the job). I can and I do.

Furloboy,

He may only have a gradeschool education, but he is s sound financial manager. On his limited 16k income, he realizes that he has to prioritize his spending. There he has wisely cut "luxury items" from the budget. First things to go are whimsical items, such as toothpaste and dental care.


TICly,

 

[goldentrout]

While none of us likes to see any pilot on the street, we have to get away from the emotions and look at economic realities.

If the cash flow of a company does not meet its expenses, then it will eventually have to declare bankruptcy.

The major overhead costs for an airline are employees and fuel. Fuel prices and pretty much out of the control of the company. While some tinkering can be done on the edges by eliminating paper tickets, etc., the major drop in overhead has to come from the employee group.

I saw UAL has a new CEO. I guess maybe people think he has some magical idea that the US Airways, Continental, Delta, Northwest, American and former United CEOs couldn't figure out.

My fix?

Baseline salaries have to come done to cover overhead. Then, when the company is profitable again, employees get profit sharing. Share in the good times, but don't bankrupt your company in the bad times.

Easier said than done since I'm not, currently, facing concessions ...but this seems to be the reality of the situation.

 

[Rvrrat]

Since we've gone on a concessions streak

Tuesday September 3, 11:59 am ET

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Credit Suisse First Boston analyst James Higgins Tuesday cut his rating on United Airlines parent UAL Corp. to "sell" from "hold," saying bankruptcy was "almost inevitable."
UAL, the No. 2 U.S. airline, Monday named oil executive Glenn Tilton as chairman, chief executive and president, replacing outgoing chairman and CEO Jack Creighton.

Despite the appointment, a host of problems remain, Higgins said in a research report.

"UAL's unions remain in deep denial about the dire circumstances in which their company finds itself, and we believe it nearly impossible that UAL will gain labor cost savings that will pass muster with the Air Transportation Stabilization Board," Higgins said.

"By comparison, all US Airways unions except for the mechanics have approved labor cost savings that, if applied to United's higher base labor costs, would be nearly $2 billion, far more than the $1.5 billion United is asking of its employees.

Ualexpress,
If indeed the employee-owners shares are not votable, that was a raw deal.


Now, once more, how ALPA ties into this mess.
I assert that ALPA will influence against concessions.
For the sake of argument, let's say UAL is not granted the concessions it seeks, can't pay the bills in November and subsequently goes TU. Result? 8k+ pilots for hire out on the market, ALPA membership reduced by same amount.
Thus begins the implosion of ALPA. I can not see how the organization will maintain its long term bargaining status after the loss of large amounts of membership from UAL and other actions the union is facing.