http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/031216/airlines_usairways_1.html

My issue with this type of posturing is that this is cry for action but it offers no solution to the problem.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by geo1005:
http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/031216/airlines_usairways_1.html

My issue with this type of posturing is that this is cry for action but it offers no solution to the problem.</font>

Im a bit more positive on it than that. I read it as the pilots saying that management had an opportunity, they havent delivered and should be replaced. Hard to argue with that logic. They are also saying if asked to make concessions they want a management team they are confident can be successful, also pretty reasonable to me. I think the fact that they said they would consider additional concessions if there was a team in place they had confidence in is a very positive sign actually.

I figure the management will be out by the end of 2004. They are probably hammering out their golden parachutes--if not now--by mid-year 2004.

Oh by the way, I think management is the only group that has a parachute--talk about bad luck for everyone else!

Bronner speaks:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031216/dctu079_1.html

Press Release Source: US Airways

Statement of US Airways Chairman Dr. David Bronner
Tuesday December 16, 5:35 pm ET

ARLINGTON, Va., Dec. 16 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Dr. David G. Bronner, chairman of the board for US Airways Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: UAIR - News), today issued the following statement after the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) called for the resignation of President and Chief Executive Officer David N. Siegel and the senior management team:

"The US Airways Board of Directors has complete confidence in the management team, and Dave Siegel in particular. It is regrettable that ALPA would suggest that a change in management is the solution, when this management team has done a remarkable job and earned the confidence of the investment community for their leadership in tackling difficult issues. The shareholders, management and employees of US Airways all want the same thing: a successful airline. We are all frustrated with the reality of the airline industry and the need for significant change by the legacy carriers, but it is reality.

"ALPA's action does nothing to address the bigger issue of how we complete our restructuring and become a successful company, and ignores the fact that shareholders rely on management and union leaders to work together to solve problems, rather than looking for someone to blame. Personally, I believe that US Airways has thousands of great employees who want to see this airline succeed, and we are going to focus on them, and not the unconstructive statements of those who fail to recognize that the world is changing and that we must adapt.

"Over the last year, this team has successfully emerged from Chapter 11, secured a federal loan guarantee to enhance the company's liquidity, implemented a business plan that has achieved the greatest revenue and cost improvements in the industry, and financed a significant regional jet order. To accomplish these goals, Dave Siegel and his team have had to earn the confidence of investors, government agencies, and the banking and financial community.

"The Board of Directors will continue to work with Dave Siegel and this management team to revise the business plan, to maintain the confidence of all stakeholders and ensure the company's success and growth."


Source: US Airways

The second Bonner changes his mind Dave is toast.

Sure. I'd be furious if my pension evaporated like the pilots, but I don't know if any management team can pull US out of the fire

Bronner forgot two groups in his list of people who have confidence in current management, employees and customers......

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by GadgetFreak:
Im a bit more positive on it than that. I read it as the pilots saying that management had an opportunity, they havent delivered and should be replaced. Hard to argue with that logic. They are also saying if asked to make concessions they want a management team they are confident can be successful, also pretty reasonable to me. I think the fact that they said they would consider additional concessions if there was a team in place they had confidence in is a very positive sign actually.

</font>

I concur. For ALPA to take this step is a sign of how much this management team has alienated the company's employees, who can hardly be accused of not making some substantial concessions.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by GadgetFreak:
Bronner forgot two groups in his list of people who have confidence in current management, employees and customers......</font>

I love it when PR departments put words in Bronner's mouth like:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">"To accomplish these goals, Dave Siegel and his team have had to earn the confidence of investors, government agencies, and the banking and financial community."</font>

I guess he does not spend too much time tracking the stock prices of his toy airline (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=UAIR&t=6m&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=) or what analysts are saying (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ao?s=UAIR).

ALPA is right. Any undergraduate business major can slaughter contracts and costs inside Chapter 11. It takes innovative leadership and some business acumen to grow revenue coming out. This team has shown no ability to grow revenue, only to whine when their precious business plan turns out to be bunk.

In any case, Siegel is screwed. It's almost a lead pipe lock that the unions on the property are going to tell him to get bent on any further contract changes--and rightly so. They (CCY) should have gotten what they needed while still under Chapter 11 protection.

------------------
Don't feed the trolls.a

[This message has been edited by ClueByFour (edited Dec 16, 2003).]

I guess ALPA only has one side.

Remember all the fighting about RJ's. ALPA refused to allow US enough RJ's to compete. Instead it had to fly half empty planes on short hops. The result, losses and bankruptcy. Thanks ALPA

The problem with US is that their fixed costs are killing them. Their union employees, while some of the best in the business, live under very in-efficient work rules and as a result it ends up costing US much more that SW to fly a similar flight. The fact that all the junior employees (lower paid) are gone is also hammering them. Does anyone find it interesting that one of the cities Southwest added out of PHL is PVD? That's a pretty short hop not unlike many of the flights US makes with similar (737/A320 series) aircraft.

I still contend that the employees of US will only be happy with a management team that makes US turn a profit in an airline industry paradigm that no longer exsists. It is just not going to happen. The days of the "full service" carriers making big $$$ off the few full-fare business travellers are over and not to return.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by geo1005:
The problem with US is that their fixed costs are killing them. Their union employees, while some of the best in the business, live under very in-efficient work rules and as a result it ends up costing US much more that SW to fly a similar flight. The fact that all the junior employees (lower paid) are gone is also hammering them. Does anyone find it interesting that one of the cities Southwest added out of PHL is PVD? That's a pretty short hop not unlike many of the flights US makes with similar (737/A320 series) aircraft.
</font>

Right! Isn't it ironic that the union is complaining about a problem that they themselves contribute too?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by fried:
Right! Isn't it ironic that the union is complaining about a problem that they themselves contribute too?</font>

If the work rules are so inefficient, isn't it incumbent upon management to seek changes? They had a window to do so while in Chapter 11 and did little.
You cannot blame the unions for that.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by us2:
If the work rules are so inefficient, isn't it incumbent upon management to seek changes? They had a window to do so while in Chapter 11 and did little.
You cannot blame the unions for that.</font>

It's not just "work rules". There's a lot that management could do operationally that they haven't done. Rolling the PHL hub is a very big one -- smoothing out the peaks and valleys between banks would, theoretically, make much more efficient use of planes and people -- the problem that labor will have with that is that it might result in layoffs if traffic isn't increased in proportion to the efficieny gains.

I don't think it's quite as simple as "just do it" to roll a hub -- the resource planning challenges to make the change would be fairly daunting and may be too complex to have been accomplished while trying to get through chapter 11 quickly. But once done it should be very beneficial. Hopefully management is actually planning such moves -- but they've been pretty quiet about it so far if they are.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by A320 EOW:
Bronner speaks:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031216/dctu079_1.html

"Over the last year, this team has successfully emerged from Chapter 11, secured a federal loan guarantee to enhance the company's liquidity, implemented a business plan that has achieved the greatest revenue and cost improvements in the industry, and financed a significant regional jet order. To accomplish these goals, Dave Siegel and his team have had to earn the confidence of investors, government agencies, and the banking and financial community.

Source: US Airways</font>

That all sounded good, at the time. But it's somewhat ancient history in this world. What have they accomplished in the last six months? I can't think of anything particularly significant or encouraging.

Bonner said this same thing publicly about a CEO he had in another business in his portfolio. Months later he was gone.