That's the newest news from USAviation.

So much for the nice upgraded flight service in ORF

:( :mad:

I'd say that's one of the scenarios being bandided about. If you look at the post from USA320Pilot - that's a scenario favored by creditors (but not by the company). And in that same post, it's noted that the 282 mainline aircraft plan is out there - assuming that the unions approve new agreements. So, it's one of many plans out there, and I wouldn't say it's the plan until either the company puts it out there, or it's what the Bankruptcy Judge approves.

Here's the link (for those who are registered there too): http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14189

That being said, I find that the postings on USAviation in the US forum are more noise than signal.

When Ch11 was declared this time around I went back to US Aviation to get a feel for what was there. I read a bit, and posted a bit. After doing this for a week or two I have decided to 1) cut back my time on the internet and 2) eliminate looking at usaviation.com and replace it with more productive surfing. For the more productive surfing I will probably be going with ebay and porn.

When Ch11 was declared this time around I went back to US Aviation to get a feel for what was there. I read a bit, and posted a bit. After doing this for a week or two I have decided to 1) cut back my time on the internet and 2) eliminate looking at usaviation.com and replace it with more productive surfing. For the more productive surfing I will probably be going with ebay and porn.

-----------------------------


hehehe

That's the newest news from USAviation.

So much for the nice upgraded flight service in ORF

:( :mad:
Unfortunately, the USAirways employees as a group continued to be paid much more than the market place requires. It seems that the only two viable alternatives at the moment are:
- terminate the most senior people, or
- reduce the munber of mainline jets and in time replace them with some version of express.

While I like to see the more experienced staff at USAirways, I must admit that in these type of jobs, more experience does not improve job performance. Sadly, for USAirways to survive, the employees I like so much will need to leave.

Right now I think this is more in speculation and vicious rumor department. I would not get too upset over it. Doesn't mean it isn't possible, but I'd like some more substantiation to it

How about this for a source:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID=6332172

The airline also wants to get out from under a labor contract requirement that it keep 279 planes in its active fleet and have flexibility to outsource some expensive maintenance.

Weliminate looking at usaviation.com and replace it with more productive surfing. For the more productive surfing I will probably be going with ebay and porn.

^

^

Unfortunately, the USAirways employees as a group continued to be paid much more than the market place requires. It seems that the only two viable alternatives at the moment are:
- terminate the most senior people, or
- reduce the munber of mainline jets and in time replace them with some version of express.

While I like to see the more experienced staff at USAirways, I must admit that in these type of jobs, more experience does not improve job performance. Sadly, for USAirways to survive, the employees I like so much will need to leave.

It's true that all of the pilots are US mainline are fairly senior, but to say that it makes more sense to terminate the more senior folks doesn't make any sense at all. Almost all of the co-pilots at US were at one time captains, and as far as salaries go the pilots max out on their salaries after their 12th year. An 18 year co-pilot is making the same salary as a 13 year co-pilot if they are flying the same type of airplane. US pilots would be happy to take the wages of a SWA pilot, SWA makes more!
And as far as more experience not effecting job performance, I would be much more comfortable with someone with several years of flying in and out of some of the airports US serves than someone who is still a little wet behind the ears. Ever flown into Charleston, WV in the dead of winter in a blinding snow storm with gusting winds and no visibility because of snow? Would you rather fly in there with a "senior" person or a 20 year old with minimum flight time that trained and did all of their previous flying in Florida?
Not trying to bash anyone else's opinion, this is just my 2 cents...

It's true that all of the pilots are US mainline are fairly senior, but to say that it makes more sense to terminate the more senior folks doesn't make any sense at all. Almost all of the co-pilots at US were at one time captains, and as far as salaries go the pilots max out on their salaries after their 12th year. An 18 year co-pilot is making the same salary as a 13 year co-pilot if they are flying the same type of airplane. US pilots would be happy to take the wages of a SWA pilot, SWA makes more!
And as far as more experience not effecting job performance, I would be much more comfortable with someone with several years of flying in and out of some of the airports US serves than someone who is still a little wet behind the ears. Ever flown into Charleston, WV in the dead of winter in a blinding snow storm with gusting winds and no visibility because of snow? Would you rather fly in there with a "senior" person or a 20 year old with minimum flight time that trained and did all of their previous flying in Florida?
Not trying to bash anyone else's opinion, this is just my 2 cents...

I think the work rules and seniority are a real issue. While US employees state that Southwest employees make more, the amount of money that US spends on labor to fly people around is more than Southwest. That is because of workrules and some intrinsic differences in the networks. The workrules have to change for US to become competitive.

You pointed out an extreme in the seniority issue but in most cases it isnt as extreme. As someone pointed out on usaviation.com before I went on to bigger and better internet adventures, there isnt much reason t think a pilot with 20 years experience is less safe than one with 30. Or for that matter 10 versus 15. I think it is generally true that at some point the seniority system at the airlines has to go. It is counterproductive for the most part both in terms of cost and making a competitive product. People should be evaluated on performance, not seniority. I think that is right, for what that is worth, but also that it will make the carriers better perceived by the flying public.

Shrink to Profitability......that's a great plan! Next thing you know US will only be flying LGA to MCO or BOS to FLL. Those would be full flights and profitable (even at $99 each way).

Cutting mainline for RJ's is a great idea too.....except that nobody will loan them the dough to buy more.

There's a bright side to this.....UNLIMITED UPGRADES FOR ALL :D :D

I think the work rules and seniority are a real issue. While US employees state that Southwest employees make more, the amount of money that US spends on labor to fly people around is more than Southwest. That is because of workrules and some intrinsic differences in the networks. The workrules have to change for US to become competitive.

You pointed out an extreme in the seniority issue but in most cases it isnt as extreme. As someone pointed out on usaviation.com before I went on to bigger and better internet adventures, there isnt much reason t think a pilot with 20 years experience is less safe than one with 30. Or for that matter 10 versus 15. I think it is generally true that at some point the seniority system at the airlines has to go. It is counterproductive for the most part both in terms of cost and making a competitive product. People should be evaluated on performance, not seniority. I think that is right, for what that is worth, but also that it will make the carriers better perceived by the flying public.

I agree that Southwest does utilize their crews much more productively. US pilots do not write their flight schedules, they just bid on the ones that the company provides them with, and all of the US crews would welcome changes in those schedules. There is nothing stopping them from working more productively except for the schedules themselves.
I still don't see how the company can benefit from terminating more senior pilots though. As I said, all of the pilots are paid basically the same salary because they have all been here for more than 13 years. All of the narrow-bodies are in one group of payscale, with the exception of A-320 and A-321 which I believe get a little bit more when they fly those airplanes in a trip pairing. The 757 and 767 are in a different pay group and the A-330 is in a group alone.
It's a little bit hard to evaluate airline pilots on job performance, unless you have a supervisor flying with them all the time. What determines good job performance? For the most part pilots rarely call in sick, they maintain a professional appearance, they try to run a smooth and on time operation for their part and they try to do it as safely as possible. They go to training twice a year and their job performance is measured there to a certain extent. If they don't pass, they don't fly. They also get sporadic checkrides during the year by check pilots and the FAA. I can't think of too much else to evaluate them on.
One more comment and then I'm finished. Why would the flying public's perception be changed by a pilot's seniority? There are several people that are extremely nervous about flying, and on any given day several will briefly stick their head in the cockpit when they board and then breath a small sigh of relief and comment "It's always nice to see gray hair in the cockpit". I perceive that as a statement that they equate experience with seniority. I've never had anyone comment that they are disappointed that they don't see someone "young" up there.
Again, this is just my opinion, although my thoughts are probably a little bit more in favor of the pilots than most. :)

How about this for a source:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=businessNews&storyID=6332172

There is no question that the company wants to look at reducing some of the fleet. There is a large question that they'd want to go to 150 planes.

Precisely. Nothing in this article says 150 airplanes. They probably want to dump or outsource all the boeings (or at least threaten to) to make the IAM deal OR actually do so to layoff the IAM.


There is no question that the company wants to look at reducing some of the fleet. There is a large question that they'd want to go to 150 planes.

I think it is generally true that at some point the seniority system at the airlines has to go. It is counterproductive for the most part both in terms of cost and making a competitive product. People should be evaluated on performance, not seniority. I think that is right, for what that is worth, but also that it will make the carriers better perceived by the flying public.

Someone always trots out this same old bromide anytime a carrier is not profitable. However, NO ONE has proposed any kind of alternative that is workable. WN uses seniority. Non-union carriers use seniority. If anyone has any system other than seniority to determine who works which job in a business where hundreds or thousands of people do essentially the same job, bring it on, I'm sure there are some airlines that would like to hear it.
But until you can offer a viable alternative, you're just flogging a dead horse wringing your hands about "the seniority system".

Someone always trots out this same old bromide anytime a carrier is not profitable. However, NO ONE has proposed any kind of alternative that is workable. WN uses seniority. Non-union carriers use seniority. If anyone has any system other than seniority to determine who works which job in a business where hundreds or thousands of people do essentially the same job, bring it on, I'm sure there are some airlines that would like to hear it.
But until you can offer a viable alternative, you're just flogging a dead horse wringing your hands about "the seniority system".

-------------------------------------------

I would agree--seniority in itself isn't the problem. You can still do a review of performance for pilots at all seniority levels and act as needed on under performers. I doubt that any airline would let a pilot slide on performance regardless of where he stands in the seniority ranking.

I don't know about US pay scales--or DL, etc. The one tidbit of knowledge that I have comes from the 1980's--so I don't know how reflective it is now--

I knew a UA flight attendant--the person made about $43,000 a year. The person flew mainly international routes--and worked mostly Friday, Saturday and Sunday--perhaps Monday.

I had my engineering degree and was going to grad school at night for my MBA--and at that time--I was making right around the same amount of money.

Although I never said it to my friend, it never quite made sense to me that our salaries were about the same--but he worked a lot fewer days during a month than I did and I had gone through 5+ years of post high school education at that point with more to go for my occupation where as my friend had not gone onto post high school education

I scratched my head and wondered if I had made a mistake and should have been working for an airline instead of what I was doing for a living.

Again, I don't know a thig about crew or pilot wages these days--but it seemed to me then that the job and the salary level didn't seem like a sustainable long term arrangement.

Shrink to Profitability......that's a great plan! Next thing you know US will only be flying LGA to MCO or BOS to FLL. Those would be full flights and profitable (even at $99 each way).

Cutting mainline for RJ's is a great idea too.....except that nobody will loan them the dough to buy more.

There's a bright side to this.....UNLIMITED UPGRADES FOR ALL :D :D


LOL, it'd be even more funny if it weren't TRUE. Let's give everyone unlimited upgrades, but then reduce First class space just to grind their nerves!

There is no question that the company wants to look at reducing some of the fleet. There is a large question that they'd want to go to 150 planes.

I agree. It seems to me that they're itching to reduce their mainline jet fleet. However the question is by how much. And that's the point I was making.

It seems apparent that they want to be able to ditch the 737 fleet. That's why they're asking for this and the out of seniority furlough permission.

One reason for doing that seems to be that it gives them a way around the mechanics. Another reason would be that it makes sense to continue reducing the number of types of equipment that they operate. There may also be a cost argument -- the arbii might be cheaper to operate than the 737s (I'm sure that can be argued both ways by some people).

That doesn't mean that they plan to do it or that they will do it. But having the ability to do it would be a useful but of flexibility and leverage.

Personally I'd like to see the Boeings replaced by Airbii yesterday.

It seems apparent that they want to be able to ditch the 737 fleet. That's why they're asking for this and the out of seniority furlough permission.

One reason for doing that seems to be that it gives them a way around the mechanics. Another reason would be that it makes sense to continue reducing the number of types of equipment that they operate. There may also be a cost argument -- the arbii might be cheaper to operate than the 737s (I'm sure that can be argued both ways by some people).

That doesn't mean that they plan to do it or that they will do it. But having the ability to do it would be a useful but of flexibility and leverage.

Personally I'd like to see the Boeings replaced by Airbii yesterday.

An equally strong case can be made for ditching the narrowbody Airbus fleet, as the Boeings are not terribly old, many of them are owned outright, and the lessors can find new homes for the 320-family birds with financial upside.

An equally strong case can be made for ditching the narrowbody Airbus fleet, as the Boeings are not terribly old, many of them are owned outright, and the lessors can find new homes for the 320-family birds with financial upside.

Didn't I mention that someone would try to argue it the other way? ;)

From this passenger's personal point of view the Airbus fleet is a vastly superior ride. While it is defintely showing signs of neglect in the cleaning department it is, IMHO, more comfortable and less dingy than the Boeings. Every Airbus has laptop power at every seat. No Boeings have laptop power. Every Airbus has flip down monitors throughout the cabin. The Airbuses have larger overheads. The Airbuses seem more reliable -- I seem to have fewer reliability issues when riding an Airbus. I like the Airbuses far more than the Boeings. US should dump Boeing yesterday :cool:

Where do you get your information on the Boeings being owned outright? I'm under the impression that US has no aircraft that have not been turned into leased aircraft. But I can't put my finger on anything that shows it either way right at the moment.

Didn't I mention that someone would try to argue it the other way? ;)

From this passenger's personal point of view the Airbus fleet is a vastly superior ride. While it is defintely showing signs of neglect in the cleaning department it is, IMHO, more comfortable and less dingy than the Boeings. Every Airbus has laptop power at every seat. No Boeings have laptop power. Every Airbus has flip down monitors throughout the cabin. The Airbuses have larger overheads. The Airbuses seem more reliable -- I seem to have fewer reliability issues when riding an Airbus. I like the Airbuses far more than the Boeings. US should dump Boeing yesterday :cool:

Where do you get your information on the Boeings being owned outright? I'm under the impression that US has no aircraft that have not been turned into leased aircraft. But I can't put my finger on anything that shows it either way right at the moment.

IIRC, US currently owns approx. 60 aircraft, the A330s + some of the Boeings.

I agree that the Airbus equipment is nicer from the customer perspective. However, as ALPA mentioned during its pre-BK quagmire, the Airbus lessors have identified potential new customers for the 320-family that are willing to pay something more than the below-market lease rates that US currently enjoys. The Airbus fleet is less than 10 years old, and still has a decent residual value, something the Boeing fleet just doesn't have.

US does own many of the boeings, but they have no UNENCUMBERED assets. From BK1, they got many very good below-market lease deals on the Airbus aircraft so it makes no sense for them to dump airbus aircraft.

US does own many of the boeings, but they have no UNENCUMBERED assets. From BK1, they got many very good below-market lease deals on the Airbus aircraft so it makes no sense for them to dump airbus aircraft.

Who said that US WANTS to dump the Airbus aircraft? The creditors and/or lessors might FORCE the airline to do so if the birds can be placed elsewhere and the all-focus city plan actually comes to pass...

That may happen in a liquidation, but the creditors would be stupid to take/attempt to reposses US's essential instruments to making a profit. Plus, its not like the aircraft can be redeployed instantly to another carrier. The last thing that anyone wants outside of a Chapter 7 situation is for airplanes to be sitting around not making money.


Who said that US WANTS to dump the Airbus aircraft? The creditors and/or lessors might FORCE the airline to do so if the birds can be placed elsewhere and the all-focus city plan actually comes to pass...

That may happen in a liquidation, but the creditors would be stupid to take/attempt to reposses US's essential instruments to making a profit. Plus, its not like the aircraft can be redeployed instantly to another carrier. The last thing that anyone wants outside of a Chapter 7 situation is for airplanes to be sitting around not making money.

Airbus can probably re-lease the Airbii, and probably at rates greater than what US is currently paying.

The Boeings, OTOH, are all but useless to anyone but US.

Has anybody considered the possibility that they don't know what they want to do? They are out of money, at war with their employees, the owners and the CEO have no industry experience, and the senior mangement, who, if they didn't cause half the problems, certainly didn't restrain the one's who did, are now calling the shots. I say, Piney Bob for interim Chairman. He's looking better every day.