Kill United now! was: United maps novel legal strategy in labor fight

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message
...


spamfree wrote:

Definatly ratcheting up a notch aren't they.


It is a complicated game of chicken. I do not believe UA will be the
first to swerve. If the unions continue their old game of strike, UA
will join the ranks of Eastern and Braniff. To beat my usual dead
horse, why can't the unions understand that a much better strategy
would be to sit down and negotiate? The unions somehow believe
that they can blackmail UA into submission. Of course, UA
management could lighten the atmosphere by agreeing to wage
cuts similar to those they are expecting the unions to accept.


Pete
who will fly any airline except UA in the future




The unions believe that management has run the airline into the ground and
wants them to pay the cost and management believes that the unions are
being obstructive. And they are both right. There is no salvation. Shut
down now.

There's a piece of the puzzle missing from this discussion. United is in
the process of outsourcing as many jobs as possible overseas. Stopping them
from abrogating the contract is the only way to keep them from being able to
fire a great many employees and outsourcing their jobs to overseas
contractors.

It is *not* a case of "why can't the union understand that a crappy job is
better than no job". In this case, is IS a last-ditch effort to save lots
of jobs. United is in the process of closing the reservation offices in the
United States and giving those jobs to overseas workers contracted to do the
work, who are not United employees -- for instance, the Seattle office
closes June 4th, throwing over 400 people out of work -- the India offices,
where those jobs have been outsourced to, goes into operation 24/7 on June
5th.

Almost no one believes there will be a single US reservations office left
open, if they are allowed to dump the contract altogether. One of the major
bones of contention in the negotiations is that the union insists on the
company agreeing that at least *some* US office remain open, that they can't
close down every single one of the United States offices. That's at the
heart of the possible strike -- because otherwise, large numbers of people
lose their jobs anyway. It's not so much about wages as it is about the
huge outsourcing of jobs to non-United employees overseas.

TOliver wrote:
The bottom line is simple....without outsourcing reservations to India,
substantial contract concessions from employees, incentives from some
over-served but under-boarding markets and major alterations to its method
of operations (plus conning some folks into a capital infusion or two), UA
is about as certain to go "Belly Up" as the oddsmakers can make it.


You are forgetting one very important issue: the lessors.

The lessors will do everything they can to keep UA alive, even if
permanently under bankrupcy protection because they much prefer getting
money for leased aircraft than getting a whole bunch of aircraft handed
back to them and having to pay parking fees in the desert and not
getting any revenu.

As long as UA pays the lessors *some* money, the lessors will keep on
lending money to United.

The concesssions demanded of employees are merely to show "progress" in
the "restructuring" in order to keep on extending bankrupcy protection.

Had United truly been worried, they would have imposed the same
pay/rules as say Jetblue or Southwest at the onset of bankrupcy, and
turned themselves into a low cost but full service carrier very quickly.
They would have adjusted their schedule to me really efficient use of
aircraft, reduced congestion at hubs to make their hubs finction better
and at much lower cost.

United (and US Air) have not restructured themselves into LCCs, they
have done just enough changes to please the judge and creditors one step
at a time.

Consider that US Air is only now admitting it can get rid of some 30
aircraft while still maintaining capacity through better schedules and
use of aircraft. Why didn't they do that during their first bankrupcy ?
Why did they go and order a whole litter of baby jets (cancelled upon
enteriong 2nd bankrucpy) if they already had too many aircraft ?

Look at Air Canada. part of its "restructuring" was to buy 100 baby
jets. Not 93 or 87, they got a nice round number. Not exactly the sign
that they planned exactly how many jets they really need. Seems to me
that the airlines are just pawns of the leasing companies whose profit
goal dictate they convince airlines to buy more jets than necessary.

And that is perhaps the biggest difference with LCCs: the LCCs do not
bow to leasing company (and manufacturer) pressures to buy more jets
than necessary.

"TOliver" wrote in message
.. .

"bunny" wrote in message
.. .



Almost no one believes there will be a single US reservations office left
open, if they are allowed to dump the contract altogether. One of the
major bones of contention in the negotiations is that the union insists
on the company agreeing that at least *some* US office remain open, that
they can't close down every single one of the United States offices.
That's at the heart of the possible strike -- because otherwise, large
numbers of people lose their jobs anyway. It's not so much about wages
as it is about the huge outsourcing of jobs to non-United employees
overseas.


"Principle" and 50 cents may get you a cup off coffee in a conveneience
store on Farm to Market Road.

You're missing the point. You can make more money working at that
convenience store on Farm. The wages have already been cut down to the
bone; there's no more to cut there. Now it's down to other things, and the
way things are, the company has left little to no incentive not to strike.
If the jobs suck badly enough, the rank and file doesn't *care* to save jobs
where they're making the same as fast food workers for complicated, skilled
work. If you don't get that, then you're missing the real bottom line.


The bottom line is simple....without outsourcing reservations to India,
substantial contract concessions from employees, incentives from some
over-served but under-boarding markets and major alterations to its method
of operations (plus conning some folks into a capital infusion or two), UA
is about as certain to go "Belly Up" as the oddsmakers can make it.

Not quite right on all points, but right on some. Problem is, you can't
keep going back to the well that you've already sucked dry. You gotta go to
the other parts of the equation.

The current uA employee roster is working (and may strike) under a
dangerous misconception, that anyone but themselves really gives a ****
(other than the vultures awaiting dismemberment and evisceration of the
steenckin' corpse.

No, you've got this part wrong. There are no misconceptions; United workers
have a very good idea what's going on. Whether anyone else cares doesn't
make any difference --although you're wrong there, a lot of customers *do*
care because they complain a *lot* about having to use the automated voice
system and complain a lot about people who cannot sufficiently understand
and speak English well enough to process reservations without making a lot
of costly mistakes. The point is, the bottom line is that there's nothing
left to lose. We can go to work anywhere else and make better money.
Threatened with job loss? Big deal. My job is already outsourced; Seattle
closes on June 4th and India goes online 24/7 June 5th. The same thing is
already happening throughout United. What's to lose with a strike? The
American jobs are on their way out anyway without a strike.

Whether United survives or not at this point is extremely questionable. It
may very well fold. If that's the way the management wants to play it,
don't expect tears in the beers from United workers. You try doing highly
skilled labour for fast food wages and get back to me after a couple of
years -- see how much more you're willing to give back to save that kind of
job. :-)

bunny wrote:
If the jobs suck badly enough, the rank and file doesn't *care* to save jobs
where they're making the same as fast food workers for complicated, skilled
work. If you don't get that, then you're missing the real bottom line.

The real bottom line is that it is the unions who dictate what happens,
and unions have certain vested interests which may not match those of
the workers of one company. On the one line, uniosn gets revenu from
employees, so they want to preserve those revenus. On the other hand,
unions do not want to jeoperdize revenus of their owther customers
working for other airlines by agreeding to concessions at United which
would then be used as precedents at other airlines.

If the unions feel that by shutting down United, it will give other
airlines sufficient breathing space that the other airlines will no
longer had to ask for major concessiosn from employees, then perhaps the
union would end up with better financials for itself.


Not quite right on all points, but right on some. Problem is, you can't
keep going back to the well that you've already sucked dry. You gotta go to
the other parts of the equation.


I agree. I have yet to hear of major initiatives undertaken by Untied to
streamline its operations, schedule, remove redundant aircraft , reduce
turn around time etc etc. Seems we only hear about request to cut wages
over and over again. Unityed shoudl have asked for one round of cuts to
get the wages where they are really needed. This progressive lowering of
wages makes management look incompetant because what they are asking
isn't going to be enough and they'll have to come back and ask for more concessions.

already happening throughout United. What's to lose with a strike? The
American jobs are on their way out anyway without a strike.

Consider Pilots and Flight Attendants whose contracts are tied to
seniority. When Untied shuts down, they start at the very bottom of the
line if they seek employement at another airline. And if they strike, no
other airline will want to buy United in such a way that they would have
to honour crew seniority and integrate it into its own crews. (like AC
did with CP, which caused a lot of grief because CP pilots displaced AC pilots).

For the rest of the staff who are not on "seniority" employment, things
may be quite different, and they could leave anyday they wish if they
find a better job elsewhere.

Whether United survives or not at this point is extremely questionable. It
may very well fold.


US Air was left for dead many times. Now, it appears to be poised for
quite a revival. I am not convinced United is a dead horse yet.

Employees did not strike as predicted when their pension was voided.

If there is a strike which really affects operations ( and cash inflow),
then I could see lessors just taking their aircraft back, and airports
possibly auctioning some gates to other airlines.

Would a strike by employees be legal under bankrupcy protection ? or
could the judge force employees to continue to work ?

After all, doesn't bankrucpty protection force regular suppliers to
continue to supply goods and services during the bankrupcy ? (with court
assurance that they would be paid for services rended after declaration
of bankrupcy protection) ?

nobody wrote:
bunny wrote:
If the jobs suck badly enough, the rank and file doesn't *care* to
save jobs
where they're making the same as fast food workers for complicated,
skilled
work. If you don't get that, then you're missing the real bottom
line.

The real bottom line is that it is the unions who dictate what
happens,
and unions have certain vested interests which may not match those of
the workers of one company. On the one line, uniosn gets revenu from
employees, so they want to preserve those revenus. On the other hand,
unions do not want to jeoperdize revenus of their owther customers
working for other airlines by agreeding to concessions at United
which
would then be used as precedents at other airlines.

If the unions feel that by shutting down United, it will give other
airlines sufficient breathing space that the other airlines will no
longer had to ask for major concessiosn from employees, then perhaps
the
union would end up with better financials for itself.
[snip]
US Air was left for dead many times. Now, it appears to be poised for
quite a revival. I am not convinced United is a dead horse yet.

Employees did not strike as predicted when their pension was voided.
[snip]

In this may be a clue for the union strategy. They really need to
find a way to stop this "void the pension" strategy. One way may be
to "teach" the lesson that if you void the pension, you go belly up.
The US Airway strategy only created a blue print for UA. The
union may see a need to "make an example" out of UA and stop any
future idea of airlines voiding pensions as a threat.

Also, if UA goes up in smoke, along with ATA and any others
out there ready to bite the dust, that can only create a better
market for the other employers and keep them away from bankruptcy.
From a union standpoint, UA going out of business because the union
decided they were may be the best thing in the long run for the union
and the rest of its members.

On 24 May 2005 10:21:12 -0700, "

In this may be a clue for the union strategy. They really need to
find a way to stop this "void the pension" strategy. One way may be
to "teach" the lesson that if you void the pension, you go belly up.
The US Airway strategy only created a blue print for UA. The
union may see a need to "make an example" out of UA and stop any
future idea of airlines voiding pensions as a threat.

This is not very realistic, though it is essentially what happened to
Eastern Airlines. You are asking tens of thousands of employees to
sacrifice their jobs so that others at other airlines can keep theirs.
Not a likely scenario.


Also, if UA goes up in smoke, along with ATA and any others
out there ready to bite the dust, that can only create a better
market for the other employers and keep them away from bankruptcy.
From a union standpoint, UA going out of business because the union
decided they were may be the best thing in the long run for the union
and the rest of its members.

While this is true, USair would have tanked long ago had not the
government kept them in business with government loans, and the same
is also true of America West, so you are going to have a low cost
carrier as the fifth largest in the US created especially for you by
the government who should have let both of these dogs die months ago.

wrote in message
...
On 24 May 2005 10:21:12 -0700, "

In this may be a clue for the union strategy. They really need to
find a way to stop this "void the pension" strategy. One way may be
to "teach" the lesson that if you void the pension, you go belly up.
The US Airway strategy only created a blue print for UA. The
union may see a need to "make an example" out of UA and stop any
future idea of airlines voiding pensions as a threat.

This is not very realistic, though it is essentially what happened to
Eastern Airlines. You are asking tens of thousands of employees to
sacrifice their jobs so that others at other airlines can keep theirs.
Not a likely scenario.

Not only Eastern, but also Pan Am and Braniff (the IAM and the Teamsters).
But it is union management rather than rank and file that makes the
decision, so the folks at United may not really have a say in the matter.
Note, however, that the union's power today is pretty limited given the real
circumstances involving the industry.


Also, if UA goes up in smoke, along with ATA and any others
out there ready to bite the dust, that can only create a better
market for the other employers and keep them away from bankruptcy.
From a union standpoint, UA going out of business because the union
decided they were may be the best thing in the long run for the union
and the rest of its members.

While this is true, USair would have tanked long ago had not the
government kept them in business with government loans, and the same
is also true of America West, so you are going to have a low cost
carrier as the fifth largest in the US created especially for you by
the government who should have let both of these dogs die months ago.

Actually, the industry tanked after 9-11, and America West was in decent
shape at that point, although highly leveraged. They've been profitable
since their loan. US, on the other hand, has been a disaster since it
acquired Piedmont and PSA in 1987, mainly because of a management team that
refused to acknowledge that Piedmont and PSA were well managed carriers too.
Then they hired Stephen Wolf whose job was pretty much to sell the airline,
like he did with Flying Tigers (to FedEx), Republic (to Northwest), and
United (to the employee ESOP). When that didn't happen, they just didn't
have a "plan B."

wrote in message
...
On 24 May 2005 10:21:12 -0700, "

In this may be a clue for the union strategy. They really need to
find a way to stop this "void the pension" strategy. One way may be
to "teach" the lesson that if you void the pension, you go belly up.
The US Airway strategy only created a blue print for UA. The
union may see a need to "make an example" out of UA and stop any
future idea of airlines voiding pensions as a threat.

This is not very realistic, though it is essentially what happened to
Eastern Airlines. You are asking tens of thousands of employees to
sacrifice their jobs so that others at other airlines can keep theirs.
Not a likely scenario.

Not only Eastern, but also Pan Am and Braniff (the IAM and the Teamsters).
But it is union management rather than rank and file that makes the
decision, so the folks at United may not really have a say in the matter.
Note, however, that the union's power today is pretty limited given the real
circumstances involving the industry.


Also, if UA goes up in smoke, along with ATA and any others
out there ready to bite the dust, that can only create a better
market for the other employers and keep them away from bankruptcy.
From a union standpoint, UA going out of business because the union
decided they were may be the best thing in the long run for the union
and the rest of its members.

While this is true, USair would have tanked long ago had not the
government kept them in business with government loans, and the same
is also true of America West, so you are going to have a low cost
carrier as the fifth largest in the US created especially for you by
the government who should have let both of these dogs die months ago.

Actually, the industry tanked after 9-11, and America West was in decent
shape at that point, although highly leveraged. They've been profitable
since their loan. US, on the other hand, has been a disaster since it
acquired Piedmont and PSA in 1987, mainly because of a management team that
refused to acknowledge that Piedmont and PSA were well managed carriers too.
Then they hired Stephen Wolf whose job was pretty much to sell the airline,
like he did with Flying Tigers (to FedEx), Republic (to Northwest), and
United (to the employee ESOP). When that didn't happen, they just didn't
have a "plan B."

On Tue, 24 May 2005 15:25:10 -0500, "Jeff Hacker"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On 24 May 2005 10:21:12 -0700, "

In this may be a clue for the union strategy. They really need to
find a way to stop this "void the pension" strategy. One way may be
to "teach" the lesson that if you void the pension, you go belly up.
The US Airway strategy only created a blue print for UA. The
union may see a need to "make an example" out of UA and stop any
future idea of airlines voiding pensions as a threat.

This is not very realistic, though it is essentially what happened to
Eastern Airlines. You are asking tens of thousands of employees to
sacrifice their jobs so that others at other airlines can keep theirs.
Not a likely scenario.

Not only Eastern, but also Pan Am and Braniff (the IAM and the Teamsters).
But it is union management rather than rank and file that makes the
decision, so the folks at United may not really have a say in the matter.
Note, however, that the union's power today is pretty limited given the real
circumstances involving the industry.


Also, if UA goes up in smoke, along with ATA and any others
out there ready to bite the dust, that can only create a better
market for the other employers and keep them away from bankruptcy.
From a union standpoint, UA going out of business because the union
decided they were may be the best thing in the long run for the union
and the rest of its members.

True, but the membership of the unions do vote on what the union
agrees with the airline and that is far from certain victory for the
union management.


While this is true, USair would have tanked long ago had not the
government kept them in business with government loans, and the same
is also true of America West, so you are going to have a low cost
carrier as the fifth largest in the US created especially for you by
the government who should have let both of these dogs die months ago.

Actually, the industry tanked after 9-11, and America West was in decent
shape at that point, although highly leveraged. They've been profitable
since their loan. US, on the other hand, has been a disaster since it
acquired Piedmont and PSA in 1987, mainly because of a management team that
refused to acknowledge that Piedmont and PSA were well managed carriers too.
Then they hired Stephen Wolf whose job was pretty much to sell the airline,
like he did with Flying Tigers (to FedEx), Republic (to Northwest), and
United (to the employee ESOP). When that didn't happen, they just didn't
have a "plan B."


The industry did tank, but, as I remember, of the larger airlines only
AW and US took loans, though United tried and couldn't qualify. That
was on top of the direct funding that was done to all of them. And AW
is only marginally profitable, hardly a big success story. You're
right about US being a disaster for years, but neither of these guys
would have been around now had not the government made them those
loans.

On Tue, 24 May 2005 15:25:10 -0500, "Jeff Hacker"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On 24 May 2005 10:21:12 -0700, "

In this may be a clue for the union strategy. They really need to
find a way to stop this "void the pension" strategy. One way may be
to "teach" the lesson that if you void the pension, you go belly up.
The US Airway strategy only created a blue print for UA. The
union may see a need to "make an example" out of UA and stop any
future idea of airlines voiding pensions as a threat.

This is not very realistic, though it is essentially what happened to
Eastern Airlines. You are asking tens of thousands of employees to
sacrifice their jobs so that others at other airlines can keep theirs.
Not a likely scenario.

Not only Eastern, but also Pan Am and Braniff (the IAM and the Teamsters).
But it is union management rather than rank and file that makes the
decision, so the folks at United may not really have a say in the matter.
Note, however, that the union's power today is pretty limited given the real
circumstances involving the industry.


Also, if UA goes up in smoke, along with ATA and any others
out there ready to bite the dust, that can only create a better
market for the other employers and keep them away from bankruptcy.
From a union standpoint, UA going out of business because the union
decided they were may be the best thing in the long run for the union
and the rest of its members.

True, but the membership of the unions do vote on what the union
agrees with the airline and that is far from certain victory for the
union management.


While this is true, USair would have tanked long ago had not the
government kept them in business with government loans, and the same
is also true of America West, so you are going to have a low cost
carrier as the fifth largest in the US created especially for you by
the government who should have let both of these dogs die months ago.

Actually, the industry tanked after 9-11, and America West was in decent
shape at that point, although highly leveraged. They've been profitable
since their loan. US, on the other hand, has been a disaster since it
acquired Piedmont and PSA in 1987, mainly because of a management team that
refused to acknowledge that Piedmont and PSA were well managed carriers too.
Then they hired Stephen Wolf whose job was pretty much to sell the airline,
like he did with Flying Tigers (to FedEx), Republic (to Northwest), and
United (to the employee ESOP). When that didn't happen, they just didn't
have a "plan B."


The industry did tank, but, as I remember, of the larger airlines only
AW and US took loans, though United tried and couldn't qualify. That
was on top of the direct funding that was done to all of them. And AW
is only marginally profitable, hardly a big success story. You're
right about US being a disaster for years, but neither of these guys
would have been around now had not the government made them those
loans.