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

UAL early retirement numbers

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


Bye Bye !!!
Nov 28, 2001
After reading an earlier post, thought some UAL folks might be interested in this. Heard today from DEN mgmt. (Joe Swenson) that early retirement takers were originally estimated at around 30. Actual numbers were closer to 100 ! Not really sure how this will affect numbers for March 1st. Anyway, it does sound good.

Keeping my fingers crossed for no more furloughs and a quick return of the 591 !

Those are pretty remarkable numbers for an action like that. It looks like a win-win for everybody then. I think I'd take them up on it too if I were in that category.
Sure would like to see some formal numbers published though. Such as, how many military call ups, (one of my new hire class mates was recalled), how many voluntary leave of absence participants there are, and an exact number of early retirements. I am sure that our MEC is working on this and it is still an "in works" project. As has been already mentioned, the training surge at TK is a bit unclear as to how long it will take to process all of the bumps so this adds complication to the whole picture. In any case, I see the 100 senior pilots interested in an early out can only be good news, hope that is an accurate number. Anyone else hear anything about the other two categorys ?

Good info, hope this info is accurate, that would definately help the guys in MAR 2002. I have not heard how many military guys at United have been called up, any information on that would be great....hopefully we can get the 591 back to United as quick as we can. Although my gut tells me that it is still going to be at least a year if not 2. But only time will tell.

Just retrieved off of UAL MEC 11/30 announcement on the web.

Early retirements - 99 applied, 42 awarded

535 Surplus reduction lines for Jan. vs 367 for Dec.

Speacial Leave of Absence - 80 applied, 55 for Dec (24 awarded)
13 awarded for Jan.
Some that were not awarded in Dec. will be asked if interested for Jan. Anyway, take a look at the web page for more info, sounds encouraging. Would like to see all 99 early outs granted though. We'll see how this all shakes out.

Any ideas how to get jumpseat privileges extended for the 591 ? I would like to see them extended for the duration if not for one year like some other carriers are talking about. Great time to take the lead in people relations! I plan to write some letters, asking others to do so as well. Thanks.

Though the posted applications for the early retirement were as you reported, roughly 100, the Company only approved (accepted) about 45! As to the requested leaves, there were something like 50 requested and the Company only approved 24!

If the Company is only accepting 45 early retirements, do they really have a need to furlough any additional pilots, or even those they already have? Makes one wonder. If this is indicative of what is going on, is there any REAL need for pilots (ALPA) to consider any concessions?
Interesting to see how all the retirement numbers are going to impact the future furlough numbers. I, too, wonder what the status will be for the "next round" based upon the larger than anticipated takers of the early out. One other piece of information that I'm seeing is that a number of other carriers are starting to reverse the trend in the furloughs. Many of them are the smaller ones, but companies like Champion are supposed to have all their furloughed folks back by the end of February. Frontier is expanding, SWA still hasn't cut a single thing and their delivery schedule has not been deferred. AA is talking about being back to 90% of pre-9/11 by sometime next year. I guess all this means that if UAL continues to follow, instead of lead, we'll be back to 90% also. Maybe this will allow some hope for those on the street after all the "earlies" are accomodated.
That is good to hear the number of guys that are applying for these early outs, but still disappointed to see the numbers that were approved. You have to ask yourself if they are only approving so many, why are we going to need to furlough any more guys. If we keep shrinking the company just how much is going to left. Hopefully Christamas will come early and the loads will reflect that we do not need to scale back any further.

In my opinion, we do not need to give up so much ground to our competitors. I realize that we need to make profit and trim the fat, but at the same time not scale back so much that we are giving up any ground. I think the furloughs will have to start settling down since we have drastically scaled back the UAL operation.

The balance sheet should reflect the changes that UAL has made in Oct/Nov.

* Furloughed close to 800 professionals
* Retired all 727-200 & 737-200
* Scaled back total operation close to 27%
* Only taking 24 Airbus' in 2002 and none in 2003

Now these are just some of the biggest changes that have affected so many pilots. Again, maybe the next couple of months will hopefully show some more promising signs of recovery.
Boz, one of my concerns about looking from the "outside" of the management realm is that it seems that we're shrinking the very part of the company that provides the bread and butter to the balance sheet. It's true that if we had NO airplanes, NO hubs, NO CSRs, NO mechanics, and NO reason to buy fuel, then we would have dramatically reduced our operating costs. But we also wouldn't have any way for us to bring in revenue either. Airplanes are our vehicle for bringing in revenue. I'm concerned that the company may not be cutting in other significant areas. I don't wish for anyone to be out of a job...not even the management people. BUT, I have to wonder if we have to much extraneous infrastructure. How many middle and upper management positions positions have been cut? More over, how many lower management positions have been cut? Certainly, if we're going to cut the fat, there are a myriad of areas that need to be reduced OTHER than the very thing that brings us our revenue. Maybe there are drastic cuts being made at the management/support end of the company. But I'm not too sure, nor am I privy to hear about it. I bet that right now UAL is even more lopesided with respect to aircraft BALANCING out the support structure than ever. I can only hope that this isn't the case. But does anyone else wonder this sort of thing too? I would think that the optimum situation for ANY airline would be to invest heavily in capacity to build revenue (ie aircraft, crew, mx, f/a's, and csr's, etc), in addition to STRONG MARKETING, and minimize everything else. Of course you need a core management, but a ten aircraft airline or a thousand aircraft airline I would think should require about the same sort of cores management to run. I know that there have been many a company that has failed in history because they have got way too top heavy to effectively respond and project to new markets. There are many empires and competing interests in large organizations...sometimes they aren't all looking and focusing on the long term of success of the company. Sears, KMart, and GM is some that come to mind. Just a thought and another way to kill some time while on furlough.

Latest resources