UAL DEN Vice Chair Letter
11-17-2010, 06:40 PM
#71
HOSED BY PBS AGAIN
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,713
Yep......you're certainly right about that. It screwed me in that I was hoping to be LONG GONE before 60............but all this friggin backwards movement is ensuring that won't happen as soon as I thought. I still plan to leave before 60 because as much as I love what I do and the folks I work with, I want to enjoy life a little before I see the earth in my rearview mirror. Unfortunately, not many over 60 guys feel that way, and stagnating the seniority list means nothing to them. After 35-40 years, they had no clue they were going to have to retire and now feel they can be ready with five more years. I think that's pretty pathetic in my book, but hey, whatever. I'm just hoping to be sitting on a beach in SXM in a few more years, and I'll watch those planes come in and leave, and think how wonderful retired life is.
11-17-2010, 07:08 PM
#72
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,253
11-17-2010, 07:36 PM
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
I'll tell you the argument that United parked planes and furloughed pilots to facilitate the merger just became a whole lot clearer today as Continental just announced flights from Chicago to both Ft Lauderdale and West Palm and Denver to Ft Lauderdale. How did ALPA allow a transition agreement that allows one airline to add flights into the other airlines hubs? Especially since these routes were flown by United pre downsizing.
11-17-2010, 07:51 PM
#74
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Posts: 111
No disrespect, but you don't represent your pilots well and sound like a misinformed goof. You'd rather have rjs fly the route than cal planes? You are your own worst enemy. Good luck in your that 70s show smoked out basement. Your 70 seaters were just announced in a dozen previously owned cal routes. Ual flights scheduled to replace cal planes on other routes. And your ****ed we will fly some dinky fluffs to Florida? Most likely by your furloughed guys who weren't expected to return for years without the merger? Don't bogart the herb man.... Pass it on.....
11-17-2010, 08:22 PM
#75
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: UAL 2172
Posts: 72
We need SCOPE!
I hope you enjoy the 70 seaters in your hubs too. If you believe, UAL did not "right size" to make this merger happen, you should look at the facts. It is easy to talk smack, if you are not the one who got furloughed a second time, lost your house and was forced to move.
2172 Strong..
2172 Strong..
2172
11-17-2010, 08:33 PM
#76
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: UAL 2172
Posts: 72
Need Scope!
2172
11-17-2010, 08:43 PM
#77
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 239
Not wanting to rain on anyone's parade here, but the thought did just occur to me that from 2007 to 2009 the entire US aviation industry reduced their overall asm's by around 7% (I eye-balled that off of Data Elements), and as I recall United was most definitely not alone in parking significant amounts of iron. In fact it is that industry "right sizing" exercise that so dramatically turned around the balance sheets of every legacy carrier during the last 18 months.
Point is . . . maybe just maybe, UAL management parked the 737 fleet because it made sense from a business standpoint. I suppose its possible that management would close a profitable branch of business in hopes of encouraging a merger, but not overly likely. In fact I just posed the question to my wife who is a career finance executive who has worked at numerous businesses at the CFO level or just below and when I posited the question of did she think it possible her response was first to laugh hard and then ask "Are you serious?" So I'm guessing she doesn't consider it likely either.
Of course that and a buck will get you a cup of coffee, but just thought I'd put out a little point counter point to keep things "real".
Point is . . . maybe just maybe, UAL management parked the 737 fleet because it made sense from a business standpoint. I suppose its possible that management would close a profitable branch of business in hopes of encouraging a merger, but not overly likely. In fact I just posed the question to my wife who is a career finance executive who has worked at numerous businesses at the CFO level or just below and when I posited the question of did she think it possible her response was first to laugh hard and then ask "Are you serious?" So I'm guessing she doesn't consider it likely either.
Of course that and a buck will get you a cup of coffee, but just thought I'd put out a little point counter point to keep things "real".
The following info is from the Morgan Stanley Weekly Co-Pilot report dated 7.12.2010:
Domestic capacity change (ASM's) in 2009 Mainline /Regional
Mainline/ Regional
AA -8.7% / -8.2%
CAL -6.9% / -6.4%
UAL -10.3%/ +11.2%
DAL -7.8% / -0.3%
In fact, in Q1 of 2010 all Leagcy carriers had flat or negative growth in Regional flying...Except UAL which had a increase of 17.3% in ASM's while Mainline ASM's were down another -5.5%. CAL/AA/DAL ASM's were only down 1-2%
Have to ask the UA guys: Did the RJ's take over mainline routes and city pairs while also increasing frequency?
Why would you replace aircraft with lower CASM's with aircraft with higher CASM's. From a business standpoint wouldn't it make more sense to reduce seats across the board and not just the ones the guppy flies? On some city pairs they run A320 or 757's. Then why wouldn't you put a 300 or maybe even a 500 to ASM's? IOW, down gauging across the board where necessary. Eliminating a whole fleet GREATLY reduces your capacity flexibility. Doesn't at all make any sense from a standpoint of running a flexible business to fine tune your capacity to demand. What if demand increases? Whoops, can't take advantage of that, Tilton eliminated a fleet. Talk about painting yourself in a corner. If you were in charge wouldn't you want to leave some options open to adjust capacity quickly? Doesn't seem to me as a sound business decision. Just an observation based on what every other mainline carrier did. When I read the report in July it struck me that UAL was the obvious oddball in its response to capacity changes.
Oh, SUNVOX, maybe you can ask your wife. I found it interesting that the share prices were nearly equal on the merger date. How important is that when doing a stock swap? I thought I remember, and I could be wrong, that there was no cash involved in the deal. And, how important is similar Market Cap's in that kind of a deal?
11-17-2010, 08:46 PM
#78
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: UAL 2172
Posts: 72
We need SCOPE!
11-18-2010, 04:11 AM
#79
Ben Salley
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Left
Posts: 924
Yes, I was furloughed because of right sizing. Yes, I have seen all pieces of this puzzle fit together for this merger. Yes, I believe I will be put behind all active CAL pilots on the SLI. HOWEVER, not one of the 147 CAL pilots on furlough on merger day should be put ahead of an 11 year UAL pilot. 2172
As a former Eastie, I can appreciate your anger. I would beckon you to understand that the same things that hurt you, Scope and Furloughs, now hurt the CAL pilot group too. You got screwed through bankruptcy and bad management. We got screwed because we are now tied at the hip to you, your furloughs and your Scope. So who should really be angry with who?
I am not angry at the UAL pilot group for what happened to them. I am however astounded by attempts to regain what they lost at the expense of the CAL pilot group. As I previously stated. I do not believe this stance is wide-spread in the UAL ranks. I hope that it will not fester in Bandera, Cotto and others for long.
11-18-2010, 04:27 AM
#80
Ben Salley
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Left
Posts: 924
What's amazing is that this guy will soon be pleading that CAL pilots not to pick-up open time as to expedite his return. Not a long-term thinker, I assume.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
