U A L : D E N I E D ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

[DaveGriffin]

ALPA press release:​

June 17, 2004​

The Air Transportation Stabilization Board’s rejection of United Airlines’ loan guarantee application is a slap in the face to each United pilot and other employee who worked tirelessly and sacrificed greatly over the past 18 months to secure the company’s financial survival. The commitment and determination demonstrated by this pilot group and other employees since United’s bankruptcy filing in December 2002 has showcased the character that makes United Airlines one of America’s landmark companies.

Since United was denied a loan guarantee in December 2002, this pilot group laid the groundwork and made possible a radical reorganization plan that has transformed United Airlines into an economically sound enterprise. We’re disappointed that the ATSB – a federal agency formed to help airlines hit hardest by the 9/11 terrorist attacks that led to the loss of two United planes, 18 employees and 89 passengers – failed to live up to the mandate under which it was established.

The ATSB’s decision, however, will only make this pilot group more determined to ensure United’s emergence from bankruptcy. We remain confident that United Airlines will continue to build on its already strong economic footing and emerge from bankruptcy a powerful force in the world’s transportation industry.

Back her down Coxswain!!! Why does the ALPA UAL MEC claim that the attack of 9/11 is a primary factor in UAL's condition, yet the ALPA Delta MEC says that 9/11 is no justification for FM and the pilot furloughs? Could this be yet another not-so-subtle line of BS from our esteemed leaders at DALPA?

Meet me out behind the conex box Duane and Johnny.

 

[General Lee]

Good question Dave, NOT. Everyone knows that United was on the Titanic Watch prior to 9-11. And United "Dalpa" doesn't exist. Ignorance sucks. We didn't say 9-11 should not have resulted in furloughs---we argued for a timeline to bring them back, and we have hit that trigger. Thanks to "RJ Fred" Reid and his briliant RJ and Frequency equal dollars plan---we now have a glut of RJs and it is hard to bring in enough revenue with less seats--since we parked so many mainline planes and brought on too many 50 seaters. Now the LCCs are coming on strong with nice, new mainline sized planes--and we are stuck with too many RJs that many business people (the ones we want) hate. After our pay cuts are finalized, maybe we can get a good deal on 100 seaters, and then shelve the 50 seaters and actually bring in some needed revenue to our hubs.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[DaveGriffin]

We didn't say 9-11 should not have resulted in furloughs---we argued for a timeline to bring them back...Bye Bye--General Lee

Bull sh*t GL. You and the other traitorous, al Qaeda apologist pilots argued that 9/11 was only a security issue (talk to FDJ), that war hadn't been decalred, that war wasn't necessary, yada yada yada.

You argued that 9/11 and our action in Afghanistan did NOT consitute FM.

Don't try to change history Mr. Revisionist.

 

[General Lee]

Thank you for your insightful comments Dave. Pure genius. Everyone knew that 9-11 caused a large disruption in flying, and that hurt the company. We could see that. But, 9-11 only had a partial affect---the main affect was the down turning economy--and our No Furlough Clause did not allow furloughs for economic reasons. Delta tried to blame everything on 9-11---and that was not the sole problem. Dalpa fought for the furloughs, and the arbitrator agreed and set up a trigger---which was met. Some of the furloughs for 9-11 were needed, not all of them, and the trigger--which was initially thought to be a tough one to achieve--was actually hit when the passengers came back in droves. That is why Delta has agreed, reluctantly, to the recall.


That is the true history, Dave.


Bye Bye--General Lee

 

[DaveGriffin]

That is the true history, Dave.


Bye Bye--General Lee

How's this for true history dipwad? Here is a typical al Qaeda apologist ALPA member trying to justify why they should keep getting paid. There are many other in the archives if you want to see them.

Originally posted by PuffDriver:

[QB]

Basically, section 1 allows the company relief in a WAR emergency--no definition of WAR emergency that I can find, aircraft delays, labor dispute, grounding of aircraft--no this one does not apply--, a few others that don't apply. We haven't declared war. UsAirways pilots are fighting this one successfully for now.

[QB]

 

[DaveGriffin]

But, 9-11 only had a partial affect---the main affect was the down turning economy--and our No Furlough Clause did not allow furloughs for economic reasons. Delta tried to blame everything on 9-11---

That's right General Dipwad, al Qaeda attacking the US and killing 3,000 people was an economic event. You senior guys will say anything to protect your paycheck. The first enemy attack ever on CONUS, and you MEC numbnuts expalin it away to. Let the junior guys live with the furloughs and you get to pretend that you are fighting for the juniors, while you keep receiving a paycheck.

What a deal.

 

[xanderman]

Well! ...Not exactly...

Good question Dave, NOT. Everyone knows that United was on the Titanic Watch prior to 9-11. And United "Dalpa" doesn't exist. Ignorance sucks. We didn't say 9-11 should not have resulted in furloughs---we argued for a timeline to bring them back, and we have hit that trigger. Thanks to "RJ Fred" Reid and his briliant RJ and Frequency equal dollars plan---we now have a glut of RJs and it is hard to bring in enough revenue with less seats--since we parked so many mainline planes and brought on too many 50 seaters. Now the LCCs are coming on strong with nice, new mainline sized planes--and we are stuck with too many RJs that many business people (the ones we want) hate. After our pay cuts are finalized, maybe we can get a good deal on 100 seaters, and then shelve the 50 seaters and actually bring in some needed revenue to our hubs.


Bye Bye--General Lee

General,
I think it should be pointed out that there are TOO MANY seats available now. The market is flooded. Thus your yeild will fall. It's simple supply and demand! While I don't believe that 50 seaters are the answer, bringing back 767's for example will only exacerbate the already difficult situation. You guys at DAL are in a tough spot. I do not envy you. Most of the testimonies given the House Aviation Subcommittee pointed to the fact that the load factors are high and the yeilds are low. Too many choices for the traveling public. The representitive from the S&P stated that the industry should look for ways to reduce the number of ASM's in hopes of raising the yeild. I will admit the there was talk of high fuel prices and excessive federal taxes but the subject of the yeilds was more than obviously the point to make.
Andy

 

[Skank]

Wait just a minute there, I'm feeling a little hostility on these boards. Calling the General a dipwad, while maybe personally satisfying for you, is conduct unbecoming.....(you fill in the blanks). I don't want to intrude on the quality discussion taking place, but let's put those "dipwads," and "Al Qaeda ALPA" comments away, and play nice. Have a good day. By the way, Dave, are you the guy on that JAG TV show?

 

[xanderman]

woops...sorry

General,
I think it should be pointed out that there are TOO MANY seats available now. The market is flooded. Thus your yeild will fall. It's simple supply and demand! While I don't believe that 50 seaters are the answer, bringing back 767's for example will only exacerbate the already difficult situation. You guys at DAL are in a tough spot. I do not envy you. Most of the testimonies given the House Aviation Subcommittee pointed to the fact that the load factors are high and the yeilds are low. Too many choices for the traveling public. The representitive from the S&P stated that the industry should look for ways to reduce the number of ASM's in hopes of raising the yeild. I will admit the there was talk of high fuel prices and excessive federal taxes but the subject of the yeilds was more than obviously the point to make.
Andy

Let me correct myself. I have misquoted the S&P rep. He mainly spoke of the inability of the legacy carriers to compete with the lcc's. The legacy's obviously do not want to give up market share and are forced to price competitively therefore reducing their yeild because of CASM. Sorry! I'll shut up now...
Andy

 

[Cactus73]

General,
I think it should be pointed out that there are TOO MANY seats available now. The market is flooded. Thus your yeild will fall. It's simple supply and demand! While I don't believe that 50 seaters are the answer, bringing back 767's for example will only exacerbate the already difficult situation. You guys at DAL are in a tough spot. I do not envy you. Most of the testimonies given the House Aviation Subcommittee pointed to the fact that the load factors are high and the yeilds are low. Too many choices for the traveling public. The representitive from the S&P stated that the industry should look for ways to reduce the number of ASM's in hopes of raising the yeild. I will admit the there was talk of high fuel prices and excessive federal taxes but the subject of the yeilds was more than obviously the point to make.
Andy

Xanderman,

I think this glut of seats on the market today is going to hurt the LCC's too. The LCC's are adding seats at rates that are not sustainable. Between jetBlue, AirTran, Southwest, IAir, and now Virgin America, the LCC's are going to start hurting each other soon enough. I think DP's approach here at Cactus is actually smart. At every employee and investor meeting he tries to pound the point home that somethings got to give with the overcapacity in the marketplace. Will it be the demise of USAirways or mergers between the LCC's, that has yet to play itself out.
If United got the loan, it would have been given a government backing to dump seats at below cost just to fend of the onslaught of the LCC's.
One has to pause too when they hear JO talk about 737's at MESA or Skywest starting a LCC, there aren't enough customers out there willing to pay the costs needed to run all these airlines.

We have trouble filling our JFK-SFO flights when UA and AA PAY their passengers to fly their airlines. What makes Branson think SFO will be any friendlier to his brand?

Just some thoughts..

 

[furloughed dude]

Cactus,


What DP is saying is that he doesn't have the access to capital to expand like some of the others like Jetblue. He is certainly utilizing his aircraft alot more, even getting into the transcon market. LCC's with low costs like JB and Airtran are smelling blood and want to have the ability to move quickly when legacy airlines fail.


In short, AWA is definitely adding to the capacity problem as well.

 

[Heavy Set]

Dave,

Are you a Delta pilot? No. If you knew that your paycheck could be cut by 30-40% would you just "accept it" and allow management to have its way with you or would you try to negotiate once an actual plan was presented? Can you even fathom the average Delta pilot's viewpoint? Think about it.

Your statements make it difficult for you to be taken seriously. I am not a Delta pilot but I support the wage "bar" that they are trying to preserve - someone has to while Mesa and USAirways continue to chip away at our financial well-being. If you don't support the Delta pilots and their crusade to preserve a "good percentage" of their salaries (not suggesting that they shouldn't take a cut - a cut is needed in the LCC environment), then you support lower "average" salaries for everyone... Why do you have such a negative viewpoint toward Delta?

 

[DaveGriffin]

Dave,

Are you a Delta pilot? No. If you knew that your paycheck could be cut by 30-40% would you just "accept it" and allow management to have its way with you or would you try to negotiate once an actual plan was presented? Can you even fathom the average Delta pilot's viewpoint? Think about it.

Your statements make it difficult for you to be taken seriously. I am not a Delta pilot but I support the wage "bar" that they are trying to preserve - someone has to while Mesa and USAirways continue to chip away at our financial well-being. If you don't support the Delta pilots and their crusade to preserve a "good percentage" of their salaries (not suggesting that they shouldn't take a cut - a cut is needed in the LCC environment), then you support lower "average" salaries for everyone... Why do you have such a negative viewpoint toward Delta?

Heavy;

I know you are not a DL pilot. GL and his ilk are unwittingly destroying DL with their "max pay to the last day" strategy.

Please don't confuse the issue!! You are hereby authorized to take me as seriously as you choose.

I support junior DL pilots; just not the senior 48%.

The rest have a career also.

( This post is officially certified as no "bad language").

 

[xanderman]

so what is to be done?

Cactus,


What DP is saying is that he doesn't have the access to capital to expand like some of the others like Jetblue. He is certainly utilizing his aircraft alot more, even getting into the transcon market. LCC's with low costs like JB and Airtran are smelling blood and want to have the ability to move quickly when legacy airlines fail.


In short, AWA is definitely adding to the capacity problem as well.

Cactus73, furloughed dude,
If too many seats are the problem (I agree with this) and no company wants to lose market share, what should be done? In the case of AWA I believe that the increased ASM's are due in part because of increased a/c utilization. Also the company wants to expand 8-10% per year through 2006. If AWA feels there is a market share to be gained but also aligns itself with the notion that there too many ASM's... what can be done? Are there any other options besides consolidation or the unfortunate demise of some legacy carrier? Just thinking out loud...
Andy

 

[Cactus73]

Cactus73, furloughed dude,
If too many seats are the problem (I agree with this) and no company wants to lose market share, what should be done? In the case of AWA I believe that the increased ASM's are due in part because of increased a/c utilization. Also the company wants to expand 8-10% per year through 2006. If AWA feels there is a market share to be gained but also aligns itself with the notion that there too many ASM's... what can be done? Are there any other options besides consolidation or the unfortunate demise of some legacy carrier? Just thinking out loud...
Andy

AWA, as all the LCC's, are in a classic situation in this business. They either grow or wither away. If they grow they are adding to their own problems. Peoples Express had this problem back in the 80's. They had to grow but everytime they added seats, the a majors added even more.

IMHO, there will be consolidation among the LCC's. Southwest will remain free standing no matter what. The east coast LCC's may have to do some mating with the west coast LCC's to bring some rationalization back to the industry. Then you have the wild cards, Virgin, IAIR, and ATA.
If USAirways goes under, it won't fix the overcapacity problem because the majors and LCC's will just jump in and fill the void.

Now the question remains, who is going to merge? Its got to happen.

 

[Publishers]

marketshare

This is like the story of a conference where each airline claimed that they had X% marketshare. When you added them up, the all had about 137% of the market, a good trick if you can do it. Seats in a yield system follow the market until saturation exists. When they are all there,, then the premium seats have been taken away and there is a shortage of them.The process reverses.

This is the cycling of the industry that we all talk about constantly.