Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

UAIR to ask judge for 23% today

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
MEC CODE-A-PHONE UPDATE
September 28, 2004
This is Jack Stephan with a US Airways MEC update for Tuesday, September 28th, with two new items.

Item 1. Yesterday, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court scheduled a hearing date on the Company’s 1113(e) motion for authority to implement immediate cost reductions for Thursday, October 7th. As there are other motions scheduled to be heard that day, the motion for interim relief may not conclude on October 7th. The date the hearing is most likely to continue is October 12th. ALPA plans to oppose this motion in court if an agreement is not reached before the hearing. Objections are due on October 5th.



Please be aware that no changes to the contract will be made until after a hearing. US Airways management will continue to seek agreements with each union prior to that hearing. If the court grants the 1113(e) motion, during the time that the short-term cost reductions are in effect, US Airways and ALPA can continue their Transformation Plan negotiations on longer-term relief. If the court imposes interim relief, the terms imposed do not dictate the terms of a long-term agreement with the Company.



It is ALPA's goal to have the Negotiating Committee negotiate a comprehensive, consensual agreement that covers short-term and long-term relief without the need for 1113(e) interim relief or long-term 1113 relief. The Negotiating Committee plans to continue meetings with management.



Item 2. The Contract Hotline reports that Crew Scheduling has been telling some first officers that they can fly up to 95 hours per month domestically. Please take note that the contractual limit for domestic flying remains 85 hours, with a 95 hour limit for international flying.



Please remember we have 1,879 pilots on furlough.

Thank you for listening.
 
LearLove said:
. .Please be aware that no changes to the contract will be made until after a hearing. US Airways management will continue to seek agreements with each union prior to that hearing. If the court grants the 1113(e) motion, during the time that the short-term cost reductions are in effect, US Airways and ALPA can continue their Transformation Plan negotiations on longer-term relief. If the court imposes interim relief, the terms imposed do not dictate the terms of a long-term agreement with the Company. . .

Don't count on it. This will be considered the starting point of any future negotiations. Nothing forbids the company from seeking additional 1113(e) relief during the coming weeks and months as revenue forecasts and oil prices dictate a continual shortage of cash. And remember, the ATSB has given USAirways permission to burn through their $750 million loan only down to $500 million before they pull the plug.



Also, the IAM (and AFA to a degree) have said they won't talk again. Any job action (legal or otherwise while in Chapter 11) will close the doors. USAirways' only hope of survival hasn't changed for several years now. They are in dire need of a management team that is willing to run an airline rather than continually batter their employees.

Red
 
dlredline said:
Don't count on it. This will be considered the starting point of any future negotiations. Nothing forbids the company from seeking additional 1113(e) relief during the coming weeks and months as revenue forecasts and oil prices dictate a continual shortage of cash. And remember, the ATSB has given USAirways permission to burn through their $750 million loan only down to $500 million before they pull the plug. I think that's $585M till 10/15. Also, since the ATSB has full collateral, don't be surprised if the whole $585M is put on the table for the DIP if necessary. The Feds have every reason to make this work, as a Chapt 7 will probably mean the Feds would have to p/u the retirement money owed of $2.3B. Actually, UAIR is very close to viability if they roll out a business model that only has 125-150 a/c.

Also, the IAM (and AFA to a degree) have said they won't talk again. Any job action (legal or otherwise while in Chapter 11) will close the doors. Hardly. If a 125-150 a/c LCC is mandated in the next 60 days, the F/A's will be climbing all over each other for work. I believe IAM had their wings clipped by 1113 at UAL, and at worse their numbers will be decreased 50% with the reduced fleet, and any job action will give the judge the reason he needs to outsource maintenance to Alabama on an all Airbus mainline fleet. I think Bronner and Lakefield will petition the court for an immediate sale of the Shuttle, European Landing Slots, and possibly PSA to receive $125M cash from the sale, with the ATSB receiving the remaining proceeds. USAirways' only hope of survival hasn't changed for several years now. They are in dire need of a management team that is willing to run an airline rather than continually batter their employees. Actually, I think the employees like Bruce Lakefield.

Red
.....
 
$500M Cash in March based on $44 oil

Cash projections given to the judge show available cash using the ATSB money based on certain assumptions. These numbers are based on the current fleet and the existing capacity that will most certainly be reduced by Jan 1, and they don't include the requested 23% reduction of pay rates for a savings of $200M, plus a mgt reduction 20% for an additional $45M. My guess is oil will remain over $50 per barrel, but the changeover to a more economical Airbus mainline fleet will off-set the increase.

PHL has requested that UAIR turn over 2 gates in terminal D to them for lack of use. LUV will probably be the recipiant of this good fortune in what could be the beginning of the reduction of hub traffic through PHL, as UAIR will have to focus on more point to point with a fleet of only 125-150 a/c.

Posted on Wed, Sep. 29, 2004

US Airways bets on oil, passenger predictions

STAN CHOE AND ADAM BELL
Staff Writers

Like any business plan, US Airways' blueprint to survive and change into a low-cost carrier depends on certain gambles.

The airline, for example, is guessing crude oil prices will stay around $44 per barrel through April and that it will lose no more than $100 million from nervous fliers ditching it for competitors.

Those assumptions are guiding US Airways' all-important cash projections as it tries to pull itself out of its second tumble into bankruptcy protection in two years. If those assumptions prove wrong, it could force a "very significant" drop in cash holdings, the company said in a bankruptcy court filing last Friday. That could be a dire turn for the Arlington, Va.-based airline's 28,000 employees, including 5,700 based in its busiest hub of Charlotte.

US Airways' creditors -- led by the federal Air Transportation Stabilization Board -- are keenly watching that cash. They could cut off the airline if its cash holdings dip too low.

The reason US Airways is in bankruptcy protection again, the airline says, is it made wrong assumptions when it first left bankruptcy in March 2003. Mainly, it had assumed fliers would continue to pay high fares.

"US Airways did not accurately anticipate the magnitude of this structural shift," it wrote in its bankruptcy filing Sept. 12. But, the airline added, neither did its lenders or the ATSB, which backed $900 million in loans and is now the airline's most powerful creditor.

Analysts give the airline credit for "fessing up" to past mistakes and believe US Airways' management this time will be extra cautious in making projections, for fear of getting burned again.

"They're facing reality now," said aviation analyst Ray Neidl of Calyon Securities in New York. "They're realizing it's do-or-die at this point."

The airline says it carefully studied the numbers to come up with the best projections possible. It used a combination of economic models and outside consultants to arrive at its $44-per-barrel assumption and others. The airline told the bankruptcy court it devised a reasonable range for its assumptions, with best- and worst-case scenarios.

In the best case, the airline would have about $500 million at the end of March, not including a 23 percent pay cut from union workers it's requesting. In the worst case, it would have what it considers a dangerously low $256 million, not including pay cuts. The airline estimates the most likely result is $387 million.

Labor unions at the airline say they're still studying US Airways' assumptions.

The assumptions were included in a filing that asked Bankruptcy Judge Stephen Mitchell in Alexandria, Va., to impose temporary 23 percent pay cuts on its labor unions. The cuts would save the airline about $200 million over five months.

Those cuts will let the airline hold onto enough cash to convince creditors to allow it to continue tapping into cash and restructure, US Airways said. The company also continues to try to work out long-term concessions with the unions.

The creditors will likely weigh in on the assumptions in court. That could come in an Oct. 7 hearing on the 23 percent pay cuts, though that session could spill into another hearing Oct. 12.

The creditors will also be in court at an Oct. 14 hearing, when US Airways will ask for permission to continue dipping into its cash.

Some analysts who have reviewed US Airways' filings say management may be a bit optimistic in its assumptions.

The airline listed three major dangers that could push its projections out of whack: soaring oil prices, which mean higher jet-fuel costs; nervous passengers booking away from US Airways; and hurricanes, terrorism or other world events.

During the last three months, the airline said, oil prices have ranged from $37.50 to $48 per barrel. With its assumption of $44 per barrel through April, each $1 per barrel increase costs the airline an extra $2 million a month.

Crude oil just broke the $50-a-barrel barrier, and energy analysts are unsure where the price goes from here.

It doesn't take much to push oil prices up, they say, such as hurricanes that delay freighter shipping, problems at a giant Russian oil producing company or political turmoil in Iraq that disrupts the supply of oil. Some also worry about unrest in Nigeria, Africa's leading exporter of oil.

That's on top of rising global demand and limited refinery capacity.

Seth Kleinman, an energy market analyst with PFC Energy, a Washington consulting firm, called US Airways' $44 projection "extremely optimistic."

A cold winter, with its ensuing higher oil demand, "makes that number look silly," he said. "We're entering unexplored territory for prices here."

Kleinman expects to see prices around $48 or $49 per barrel.

Doug MacIntyre, senior oil market analyst with the federal Energy Information Administration, called the $44 figure "as reasonable an estimate as anyone can make."

The agency is estimating oil will be $40-$42 per barrel through April, but MacIntyre acknowledged it's possible it could hit $50 or more.

"Everyone has been constantly underestimating the prices, including ourselves," he said.

Analysts also question US Airways' projection of $100 million lost to book-aways. "I think $100 million is probably low," said Robert Mann, an aviation consultant on Long Island.

Mann pointed to the high number of sales coming from US Airways in the past week. Those $349 round-trip tickets from Charlotte to Paris are US Airways' attempts to entice passengers to stay with US Airways rather than book on another carrier.

In calculating projections, Mann said airlines must practice an the art of finding the balance between being too conservative and too optimistic. It's not a science, he said.

"It's a decision tree; you're looking at possible outcomes out of a whole slew of variables."
 
Last edited:
YOU CAN'T SHRINK TO PROFITIBILITY!TC
 
The indoctrination

AA717driver said:
YOU CAN'T SHRINK TO PROFITIBILITY!TC
Have you been having power lunches with Robert Crandall? I bet you are chain smoking, drinking too much coffee and jogging 5 miles a day. What's next, "value pricing"?

PS: I didn't wake up intending to be a smAArt AA$$ today, it just worked out that way!
 
AA717driver said:
YOU CAN'T SHRINK TO PROFITIBILITY!TC
Sure you can, if you change from a hub carrier to a direct LCC. Shrinking an existing business model is suicide, but going to an O&D airline with an LCC cost structure will work.

Listen the Feds don't want to get stuck with the $2.3B pension bill. They understand that they cannot continue to prop up UAIR as they exist today with the ATSB cash and the 23% payroll reduction. The airline needs a complete makeover and an ability to avoid harmful job actions. The only way to do this is to shrink the airline 40-50%, and institute an O&D model with LCC cost structure.

The Feds are probably going to get stuck with the pensions at UAL. They simply will not be able to survive with that liability due to the covenants required to get exit financing. DL will face a similar situation when they enter BK shortly. These two airlines just don't have the time, and will be at the mercy of job actions because of their size and their inability to perform a complete makeover like UAIR.
 
Shrinking not successful

No airline to my knowledge has been successful using a shrink to profitability.

You can change the business plan, dehub the operation to some degree, etc. Shrinking just doesn't cut it.
 
Jeff Helgeson said:
No airline to my knowledge has been successful using a shrink to profitability. No airline has attempted to go from a hub operation to pure O&D. Hubs by their very nature require large feed and therefore a large fleet.


You can change the business plan, dehub the operation to some degree, etc. Shrinking just doesn't cut it. Sit back and watch the show. It will be a first.
.....
 
Originally Posted by lowecur
Sure you can, if you change from a hub carrier to a direct LCC.

Lowecur,
The biggest fator that you have not addressed is the PEOPLE. SWA, JetBlue, Frontier, ect.. are successful LCC because you have a very motivated workforce all on the same sheeet of music. From what I hear this is not the case at U.

How motivated would you be if you have a management team that has wrecked your company again and again and always takes its mistakes out on your job security and pay. NOT VERY, I would guess.

The good people at U are now working twice as hard for a fraction of their previous pay. I have met several new First Officers here at Southwest that are very happy to be here after being on the up and down rollercoaster ride at U for 13-15 years. In my opinion, the workforce at U will not just roll over for MGMT again and will be a very significant factor in any transition. They might just ride this one in and look for a better job. Just my .02.


 
T45Flyer said:
Originally Posted by lowecur
Sure you can, if you change from a hub carrier to a direct LCC.

Lowecur,
The biggest factor that you have not addressed is the PEOPLE. I think I have. SWA, JetBlue, Frontier, ect.. are successful LCC because you have a very motivated workforce all on the same sheeet of music. From what I hear this is not the case at U. Don't forget, 40-50% of this workforce will not be here in 6 months due to furlough or release. How motivated would you be if you have a management team that has wrecked your company again and again and always takes its mistakes out on your job security and pay. NOT VERY, I would guess. There just aren't that many jobs around, and besides why go somewhere else where you have to start at year 1 pay? Even if 20% decide on some sort of job action, that will not disrupt an airline that plans to have 1/2 as many workers in 6 months.

The good people at U are now working twice as hard for a fraction of their previous pay. I have met several new First Officers here at Southwest that are very happy to be here after being on the up and down rollercoaster ride at U for 13-15 years. I'm sure they are. Hopefully, the existing 737 pilots for UAIR will be fortunate enough to hitch their wagons to LUV in the next 6 months. In my opinion, the workforce at U will not just roll over for MGMT again and will be a very significant factor in any transition. They might just ride this one in and look for a better job. Never happen, for all of the above reasons. Just my .02.
.....
 
Last edited:
I have an innovative idea. Why don't you set-up a mini-hub out of South Florida (say, Ft. Lauderdale) and compete directly with AA and Spirit (future plan) in the Caribbean! USAirways has experience in the area already and it could make a bundle! Oooh yeah, Lakefield, etc. already SUGGESTED that.... But wait, it wasn't included in their latest restructuring plan to the courts.... Sounds like they know what they are doing...
 
Posted by Lowecur:
There just aren't that many jobs around, and besides why go somewhere else where you have to start at year 1 pay? Even if 20% decide on some sort of job action, that will not disrupt an airline that plans to have 1/2 as many workers in 6 months.

Lowecur,
You are quite the optimist. There are lots of other jobs around, maybe not in the airline industry. And a 20% employee job action will DEFINITY hurt U. Just look at the effect of the United Pilots slowdown. United has never recovered because thier customers have had enough.

You cannot overlook the fact that companies/travel agents are avoiding flying on U, due to uncertainty that the flight will actually be there when its time to board. Add a job action and upset employees and the future is not very bright, regardless of your so called analysis of the people of U. Thats the problem when you look from the outside in.

Don't forget, 40-50% of this workforce will not be here in 6 months due to furlough or release.

Do you think that fact is going to motivate the workforce and improve customer relations? Hardly.
 
turn

It is very very hard to turn a dinosaur around to go in a different direction when the corporate culture has been something else altogether.

People are mad, people are concerned, people are usually everything but productive. Even with substantial cuts, there may be people on the senior end earning a good wage versus their productivity.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom