Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4417618/

Topic: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Olympic472
Posted 2009-05-19 20:22:34 and read 8899 times.

ALPA's request may be detrimental to the airline in the face of the AA-BA co-operation and the new DL.
Here is the article:

http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1242786710.html

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2009-05-19 20:43:44 and read 8817 times.

"The loss of US jobs" is not a factor in anti-trust, AFAIK. The way it's worded, of course, it also makes it sound like jobs will go overseas. Which can't happen with two US carriers.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Olympic472
Posted 2009-05-19 20:54:46 and read 8770 times.

Why now? May 31 is only 11 days away.
I agree with Ikramerica regarding jobs not going overseas because these are two US carriers.
Are they unions dealing in good faith?

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: DLMD90
Posted 2009-05-19 21:06:12 and read 8720 times.

hmm this is interesting, I also wonder why now? Slightly off topic, but related to the two carriers, How likely is it that CO and UA will merge in the near future? I know there was merger talks, but as far as I know, CO declined?

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Falcon84
Posted 2009-05-19 21:08:51 and read 8706 times.



Quoting DLMD90 (Reply 3):
Slightly off topic, but related to the two carriers, How likely is it that CO and UA will merge in the near future? I know there was merger talks, but as far as I know, CO declined?

Personally, I don't think it'll be for at least 3/4 years, if ever. Until UA shows some big financial improvements, I don't think it would work out. Let's see how well the alliance develops, and let that grow first, then let's worry about a merger.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: MasseyBrown
Posted 2009-05-19 21:17:50 and read 8662 times.

Since ALPA has "issued a statement" appealing to the Administration and Congress rather than filed an answer to the show cause order with the DOT, I have to think ALPA has had some political encouragement to do this.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: HNL-Jack
Posted 2009-05-19 23:35:39 and read 8437 times.

As if the pilots haven't done enough to destroy UA already. The combination of ALPA and Tilton is deadly.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: United1
Posted 2009-05-20 00:09:06 and read 8362 times.



Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 6):
Since ALPA has "issued a statement" appealing to the Administration and Congress rather than filed an answer to the show cause order with the DOT

Actually they did on May 15th, basically they just want some sort of wording in the ATI agreement that US jobs won't go overseas.

Page 14 of the docket....

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspubli...n=DocketDetail&d=DOT-OST-2008-0234

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Aeroman62
Posted 2009-05-20 06:32:01 and read 8105 times.



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4):
Personally, I don't think it'll be for at least 3/4 years, if ever. Until UA shows some big financial improvements, I don't think it would work out. Let's see how well the alliance develops, and let that grow first, then let's worry about a merger.

The cultures at the two companies are very different - UA employees are demoralized after many years of mismanagement, CO employees are generally in a better space, with more consistent management experiences. If CO took over UA, the integration of these two disparate work groups would be a difficult undertaking (like when USAir took over Piedmont), and the customer would suffer. CO management knows this, and is likely also scared by UA's financial situation (they don't want to do a BofA purchase of Merrill Lynch type event...). Until the day arrives that UA's envrionment changes, or they end up in a fire sale situation, I don't see CO going any further than what has been announced thus far.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: ElmoTheHobo
Posted 2009-05-20 06:38:31 and read 8079 times.



Quoting Olympic472 (Reply 2):
Are they unions dealing in good faith?

Of course they aren't. It's union fat cats plundering the airlines and lining their pockets with union dues.

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 5):
Since ALPA has "issued a statement" appealing to the Administration and Congress rather than filed an answer to the show cause order with the DOT, I have to think ALPA has had some political encouragement to do this.

Of course, because an actual filing would have been sent to the shredder immediately because it is merit less. Not to mention that with a pro-union POTUS and a filibuster proof majority, it makes a lot of sense to go crying to your Democratic senators about the injustices your union members face.

Quoting HNL-Jack (Reply 6):
As if the pilots haven't done enough to destroy UA already. The combination of ALPA and Tilton is deadly.

I wouldn't blame the pilots or the Union itself, just the people in charge of the unions.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
"The loss of US jobs" is not a factor in anti-trust, AFAIK.

It's one of those button phrases that can be thrown out there to change people's opinions. It's a hail Mary statement that forces everyone to line up with you for fear of looking like you're against the American worker, no matter how much of a lie that statement is.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: MasseyBrown
Posted 2009-05-20 09:47:56 and read 7782 times.



Quoting United1 (Reply 7):
Actually they did on May 15th,

That letter, which the DOT has docketed on April 16th (presumably an error), was untimely under the answer/reply deadlines of the show cause order. ALPA's appeal went directly to the Attorney General and the Secretary of Transportation and wasn't filed as an answer to the show cause order. It is an extra-legal appeal for a stay of the Star Alliance decision.

It will be especially interesting to see how it is treated for the reasons discussed in Ikramerica's now-vanished post.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: United1
Posted 2009-05-20 10:03:26 and read 7746 times.



Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 10):
That letter, which the DOT has docketed on April 16th (presumably an error), was untimely under the answer/reply deadlines of the show cause order. ALPA's appeal went directly to the Attorney General and the Secretary of Transportation and wasn't filed as an answer to the show cause order.

True enough they did both....

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 10):
It is an extra-legal appeal for a stay of the Star Alliance decision.

I don't think this is going to go anywhere ALPA is just flexing its muscles, there really isn't any reason for the attorney general to be involved anymore then his department already is.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: DescendVia
Posted 2009-05-20 17:57:56 and read 6244 times.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
"The loss of US jobs" is not a factor in anti-trust, AFAIK. The way it's worded, of course, it also makes it sound like jobs will go overseas. Which can't happen with two US carriers.

Not so....... notice we said "loss of jobs" not CO. In my view and opinion of "able to operate" as one carrier will go to CO. Glenn has already demonstrated that he could care less if UA only existed on paper as it is already. Since mainline flying is getting cut left and right, this is just another way to push around the employees. Again this is my take on the situation..........

Quoting ElmoTheHobo (Reply 9):

It's one of those button phrases that can be thrown out there to change people's opinions. It's a hail Mary statement that forces everyone to line up with you for fear of looking like you're against the American worker, no matter how much of a lie that statement is.

See above.......

Quoting HNL-Jack (Reply 6):
As if the pilots haven't done enough to destroy UA already. The combination of ALPA and Tilton is deadly.

O brother...... you have no clue. Did you just throw that on the wall to see if it would stick? UA APLA is trying to do whats best for the employees of United, which is ever more important these days. Some of their methods might be at bit detrimental at times but the overall goal is there.

[Edited 2009-05-20 18:04:26]

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Bluesky02
Posted 2009-05-20 18:43:44 and read 6065 times.



Quoting DescendVia (Reply 12):
UA APLA is trying to do whats best for the employees of United, which is ever more important these days. Some of their methods might be at bit detrimental at times but the overall goal is there.

Specifically, how is this better for United employees?

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: DescendVia
Posted 2009-05-20 18:48:39 and read 6036 times.

Quoting Bluesky02 (Reply 13):
Specifically, how is this better for United employees?



Quoting DescendVia (Reply 12):
"loss of jobs" not CO. In my view and opinion of "able to operate" as one carrier will go to CO

Meaning even more flying is going to be cut. Plus that comment was not so much about this but about ALPA in general.

[Edited 2009-05-20 18:51:07]

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Bluesky02
Posted 2009-05-20 18:57:13 and read 5989 times.



Quoting DescendVia (Reply 14):

Meaning even more flying is going to be cut. Plus that comment was not so much about this but about ALPA in general.

So let me see if I understand. You are saying that if UA/CO merge, more UA flying will be cut and thus it will hurt UA employees?

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: DescendVia
Posted 2009-05-20 19:01:02 and read 5974 times.



Quoting Bluesky02 (Reply 15):



Quoting DescendVia (Reply 12):
"able to operate" as one carrier

Who said anything about merge......

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Bluesky02
Posted 2009-05-20 19:06:35 and read 5940 times.



Quoting DescendVia (Reply 12):
Not so....... notice we said "loss of jobs" not CO. In my view and opinion of "able to operate" as one carrier will go to CO. Glenn has already demonstrated that he could care less if UA only existed on paper as it is already.

I assumed that was what you meant by that- a CO/UA merger.

My real question here to you is how is United not partnering with Continental beneficial for United employees?

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Flybyguy
Posted 2009-05-20 19:09:16 and read 5930 times.

I'm not sure if this is off topic, but can CO buy whats left of UA when in Chapter 11 or must it be Chapter 7? Rather than taking on an entire airline why hasn't there been a case where the airline buys another under Chapter 11 and keeps only useful routes and a handful of assets while discarding the rest of the airline? That would probably make better business sense than spending years merging and diminishing your product just for marketshare.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: DescendVia
Posted 2009-05-20 19:19:35 and read 5880 times.



Quoting Bluesky02 (Reply 17):

My real question here to you is how is United not partnering with Continental beneficial for United employees?

How many times do I need to reference what I posted in the first place.........

This "thing" would allow UA and CO to operate a lot of flights as "only one airline" and that means the flying would likely go to CO, especially with all the cuts going on as we speak. Hence why United ALPA brought this up and not CO.

Again this is my view on the subject in regards to all the cuts going on right now.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Luvflng
Posted 2009-05-20 19:19:39 and read 5880 times.



Quoting DescendVia (Reply 12):
UA APLA is trying to do whats best for the employees of United, which is ever more important these days. Some of their methods might be at bit detrimental at times but the overall goal is there.

...not employees....PILOTS only...

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Bluesky02
Posted 2009-05-20 19:37:48 and read 5797 times.



Quoting DescendVia (Reply 19):
How many times do I need to reference what I posted in the first place.........

Thank you for clarifying. I didn't understand what you meant in your first post. But I think I do now.

But you did say

Quoting DescendVia (Reply 12):
UA APLA is trying to do whats best for the employees of United, which is ever more important these days. Some of their methods might be at bit detrimental at times but the overall goal is there.

This is the paragraph I am getting at. What specifically does UA ALPA do that looks out for the overall welfare of UA employees?

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: DescendVia
Posted 2009-05-20 19:46:45 and read 5765 times.



Quoting Bluesky02 (Reply 21):

This is the paragraph I am getting at. What specifically does UA ALPA do that looks out for the overall welfare of UA employees?

Well for one thing..... keeps management in enough check as to not allow them to f*** it up anymore then it is now.

Using the scab flight from IAD-MAD as another example and all the fighting they have been doing against that.

Like I said some of the stuff, like the hat crap, is "childish" but the overall goal is always there.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Bluesky02
Posted 2009-05-20 19:56:29 and read 5712 times.



Quoting DescendVia (Reply 22):

Well for one thing..... keeps management in enough check as to not allow them to f*** it up anymore then it is now.

So really then you have no facts to back up your claim about what would happen to United pilots with this CO/UA Co-Op, you just don't particularly like United management so you assume all these negative things would happen.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: DescendVia
Posted 2009-05-20 20:03:19 and read 5693 times.



Quoting Bluesky02 (Reply 23):
So really then you have no facts to back up your claim about what would happen to United pilots with this CO/UA Co-Op, you just don't particularly like United management so you assume all these negative things would happen.

Last time referencing my OP...........  Wink

Quoting DescendVia (Reply 12):
In my view and opinion

Yes I don't have any proof but it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out whats behind all this, especially being part of it.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: DescendVia
Posted 2009-05-20 20:05:37 and read 5677 times.

Quoting Bluesky02 (Reply 23):
you just don't particularly like United management so you assume all these negative things would happen.

This sort of makes me smile......

NO ONE likes United management except the BoD. I will say there are some good people mixed in that bunch but yeah.........

[Edited 2009-05-20 20:06:09]

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Bluesky02
Posted 2009-05-20 20:11:21 and read 5820 times.



Quoting DescendVia (Reply 25):
NO ONE likes United management except the BoD.

This statement only proves my point.  Wink

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Apodino
Posted 2009-05-21 13:13:39 and read 5506 times.

personally I think the UA pilots have no legitimate gripe here at all. That being said, I was reading the post, and if there is ATI here, you will likely see UA flying dwindle even further with AC leaving and no new AC coming onto the property. I could easily see UA pulling out of EWR altogether, and leaving that flying for CO, and I would bet that UA is going to close the Pilot domicile in NY. Domestically in NY, they will let CO operate all the EWR flights, and will focus NY ops in LGA, and the PS flights in JFK, with the token RJ presence there as well. IAH will stay, but will be split with CO and this will either feed the IAH latin america traffic, or the Asian traffic in SFO or LAX. UA would probably operate most of the IAD traffic I would think, since CO has a presence in DCA. I suspect CO would operate more of the DEN flights than UA because of the MX facility.

Another weird story here. Years ago CO and HP had a major codeshare. Now with HP merged into US, and both airlines are in star, they are partners again. And AC and CO were hitched a while ago, and now again. The only thing is though that CO doesn't really offer US much that UA didn't already offer. But Perker has stated that CO will solidify US position in Star A.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Bluesky02
Posted 2009-05-22 17:20:21 and read 5225 times.

Here is what United had to say about this whole thing:




Dear fellow employee:

Yesterday, Delta, the world’s largest airline and our largest competitor, announced a joint venture across the Atlantic with Air France-KLM, the world’s second largest carrier, that they project will cover more than $12 billion in revenue and garner 25 percent market share over the Atlantic while generating hundreds of millions of dollars in new benefits for the airlines. This venture is made possible by the anti-trust immunity the two carriers already have in place.

As you know, we are seeking anti-trust immunity for Continental to join United, Lufthansa and Air Canada in an immunized trans-Atlantic alliance. Continental also is expected to join Star Alliance in October following its exit from Sky Team.

It has been suggested by ALPA and the AFA that our anti-trust immunity has “the potential to outsource” U.S. jobs. This is simply not true, and there are absolutely no facts to support it. Let me be completely clear. This is about jobs: not job destruction as suggested, but protection of the ones we have today. These are the facts.

* Alliances have created 15,000 U.S. airline jobs. Star Alliance brings traffic to our network, just as we bring traffic to our partners. In March 2009, our partners put 593,465 passengers on our flights - enough to fill 75 B777s each day.
* Our alliance partners generated $2.4 billion in annual revenue for United in the twelve months ended March 2009, approximately 14% of the company’s total passenger revenue for the same period. Over half of this revenue is from international flying on United flights.
* Based on our March 2009 schedule, United and United Express serve 236 destinations. With our partners, that number grows to 498 cities. This allows us to be competitive with the 572 cities served by Delta and its SkyTeam partners.
* Across the globe, every major network carrier today participates in an alliance. In the U.S., even Southwest is seeing the benefit and is seeking to partner beyond U.S. borders, with the sole purpose of building revenue and maintaining relevance for customers.
* The DOT has recognized the importance of alliances in providing customer choice and competition and has granted tentative approval to our application. More than 30 mayors and governors and more than 90 members of Congress have endorsed our current application. Importantly, pilots at Continental also have supported our application because they recognize the need to meet the competitive threat posed by Delta-Air France-KLM.
* We have been granted anti-trust immunity with 10 airlines over the past decade, and none of the applications have been objected to by any of our labor groups. Similarly, during our current application - a fully open and transparent process that provided many opportunities for input over a period of 10 months - labor groups did not raise nor file one objection. Who did? Delta, our largest competitor. And they of course already enjoy with Air France-KLM the immunity we are seeking.

Alliances benefit our people and our customers by providing jobs, destinations and opportunities we would not otherwise have. To suggest otherwise ignores the facts and potentially undermines our competitive position.

A United operating on our own, without our alliance partners would not enjoy the international presence we have today. To compete and win against those who seek to take market share from us, we need the best partnerships, network and assets. This is what gets us there.

John Tague

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: ORDflier
Posted 2009-05-22 18:29:54 and read 5127 times.



Quoting DescendVia (Reply 12):
UA APLA is trying to do whats best for the employees of United, which is ever more important these days.

Let's be clear... ALPA is doing what they feel is best for the United Airlines Pilots. ALPA at United could care not one bit about the other employee groups. I strongly believe that If ALPA could manage it such that all other unions were outsourced so they could get more money and benefits they would do it in a heart beat.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Shamrock604
Posted 2009-05-22 19:01:27 and read 5081 times.



Quoting DescendVia (Reply 22):
Using the scab flight from IAD-MAD as another example and all the fighting they have been doing against that.

DescendVia, you do your arguement no favours by referring to fellow industry staff as "scabs" and so forth. Such talk only harks to a socialist agenda which will really find little favour among anyone.

By all means, I see your point on the IAD-MAD venture, but using such emotive terms doesnt help to get one's point across.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Olympic472
Posted 2009-05-22 20:53:46 and read 5029 times.

I've met quite a few UA pilots and I have to believe that they are not in agreement with their union bosses at ALPA on this one.
They understand that the airline needs to get healthy first in order to compete, and a house divided is not gong to allow it to happen.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Alias1024
Posted 2009-05-22 21:16:03 and read 5006 times.



Quoting Olympic472 (Reply 31):
I've met quite a few UA pilots and I have to believe that they are not in agreement with their union bosses at ALPA on this one.
They understand that the airline needs to get healthy first in order to compete, and a house divided is not gong to allow it to happen.

I think they all want to see a thriving United, but as the old saying goes "once burned, twice shy".

They thought they had larger RJs under control until management wanted scope relaxation during the bankruptcy. The judge made it clear that management would get what it wanted, so the pilot group was stuck. On came the 70 seat RJs, and down came the furloughs.

Then came the parking of the 737s due to fuel prices. Fuel dropped, but the 737s are still going away while more 70 seat RJ keep popping up and in many cases replacing 737s on those routes. Those furloughees that accepted recall are getting furloughed again.

Then the pilot group wakes up to find that a trans-Atlantic route is being flown from one of their hubs to MAD. Not a huge deal if it's a codeshare, except the airline they are codesharing with isn't flying it either. Aer Lingus provides the airplane, UA sells the tickets, and a new low paid pilot group flies it. Meanwhile, pilots at United and Aer Lingus get to extract the knives in their backs from management.

I can't say I blame UA pilots for wanting more time to check this out and find all the potential ways to get screwed before signing off on the deal. Management has shown they will exploit all of those ways.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2009-05-22 21:27:48 and read 4994 times.



Quoting Bluesky02 (Reply 28):
Star Alliance brings traffic to our network, just as we bring traffic to our partners. In March 2009, our partners put 593,465 passengers on our flights - enough to fill 75 B777s each day.

* Our alliance partners generated $2.4 billion in annual revenue for United in the twelve months ended March 2009, approximately 14% of the company’s total passenger revenue for the same period. Over half of this revenue is from international flying on United flights.

Soma amazing revenue benefits the alliance has produced.

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 32):
UA pilots for wanting more time to check this out and find all the potential ways to get screwed before signing off on the dea

 Confused Pilots are in no means a party to the deal to review or sign anything.

As with John Doe on the street, the MEC is free to comment as they have on the public record, thats all.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Olympic472
Posted 2009-05-22 21:35:51 and read 4989 times.

Yes, IAD-MAD got me wondering.
Regarding scope, airlines cannot continue to fly empty seats around regardless of fuel prices. (The 735 are also getting long.) Therefore a 70 seat or 50 seat CRJ is still a RJ.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Shamrock604
Posted 2009-05-22 21:44:59 and read 4972 times.



Quoting Olympic472 (Reply 34):
Regarding scope, airlines cannot continue to fly empty seats around regardless of fuel prices. (The 735 are also getting long.) Therefore a 70 seat or 50 seat CRJ is still a RJ.

Good point. Fuel prices arent the only reason for the 737's being phased out. There is also the age factor to consider.

I dont think it would be respomnsible on management's part to replace the 737's with anything other than the most effiecient, correctly sized aircraft for the mission.

If that so happens to be the RJ's, and if they cannot be operated profitably with the mainline's cost stucture, then what exactly is the alternative?

Pull the routes? And thus starve the mainline operation of it's feed?

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Alias1024
Posted 2009-05-22 22:15:02 and read 4941 times.



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 33):
Pilots are in no means a party to the deal to review or sign anything.

That would depend on the exact wording of the scope section of their collective bargaining agreement. Just because the government doesn't have anti-competitive issues doesn't mean it it is within the bounds of the CBA. Asking for a delay on the implementation while researching the issue makes sense from ALPA's position because they know how difficult it is to get the genie back into the bottle.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2009-05-22 22:45:55 and read 4933 times.



Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 36):
That would depend on the exact wording of the scope section of their collective bargaining agreement. Just because the government doesn't have anti-competitive issues doesn't mean it it is within the bounds of the CBA. Asking for a delay on the implementation while researching the issue makes sense from ALPA's position because they know how difficult it is to get the genie back into the bottle.

I'd be happy to share copies of the CBA with you, however it does not matter one bit as this agreement has zero to do with the pilot group agreeing to anything, nor does the agreement change or impinge any scope clauses.

If you would read the MEC submittal to the DOT they themselves do not even claim so or mention a word about it being against any portion of their contract, they simply are trying to appeal to some higher nationalist cause and claim labor damage from such ATI agreements.


The MEC letter is actualy rather short. Here it is in entirety;

Dear Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Secretary,

Over the past few months we have been in contact with Congressional members concerning the issue of Anti-Trust Immunity [ATI] filings and more specifically, the Joint Application of United Airlines [UAUA] and Continental Airlines [CAL], docketed at the Department of Transportation

In December, the United Pilots Political Action Committee (UPPAC) determined that it would seek to convince the DOT to not move quickly to pass upon this application. In our view there was a critical need to allow the Obama Administration to carefully look at this filing and to make a decision that benefits all parties concerned - the carriers, government, consumers and labor.

Fortunately our efforts were answered with a letter dated 19 December 2008 to Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and the Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters. This letter was authored by members of the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust (Senators Kohl and Hatch) and the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Senators Leahy and Specter). A copy of the letter is attached.

UPPAC and the United Airlines Pilots still believe that neither this application nor the tentative approval granted it by the Department of Transportation in its Show Cause Order dated April 7, 2009 fully explains the ATI relationship between United and Continental in those markets that are not currently “Open Skies.” There is no reference to labor in those documents and in its present form, that relationship likely will cost American jobs if this ATI is approved without modification.
The application states that “…Continental, in conjunction with United and Other Star Alliance ATI Carriers Will Pursue Integrational Efficiencies on a Global Basis in Order to Reduce Costs…” in both Latin America and in the Asia/Pacific region (pages 47/48 of public application).

Many of the countries in these regions currently do not have open skies agreements with the
United States and approval in this form has the clear potential of disadvantaging the American workers of each labor group at each carrier. Neither carrier fully explains what cost savings they envision. If this ATI application is approved, both carriers will then have the potential to whipsaw their respective employee groups against each other.
Congressman Dan Lipinsky, IL, addressed the use of this practice by the management of USAir/America West in a letter to the Department of Transportation in 2008. A copy of the letter is included.

The managements of United Airlines and Continental Airlines clearly are on a fast track for
approval of their application. It is our view, however, that enough questions have been raised that this application should be given a full and public hearing. The new Administration needs to fully view, with input from labor, the ramifications of such an approval.

We simply ask that all come to the table to find that solution. This issue is about American job protection. We have had eight years of a dismantling of our industry. The Obama Administration, Department of Transportation and Congress must ask the question “Why does this Anti-Trust Immunity need to be on such a fast track?” Congressman Jim Oberstar, Chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, believes this to be an issue important enough to move cautiously. We are only asking for a level playing field.
Please use all resources to include language in this Anti-Trust Immunity filing that clearly
protects American jobs. Otherwise, we are making a strong recommendation to not approve the United Airlines ATI filing until ALPA has had the opportunity to address all issues concerning American workers and American jobs.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: UAORD2000
Posted 2009-05-23 10:12:17 and read 4788 times.



Quoting Apodino (Reply 27):
I could easily see UA pulling out of EWR altogether

Spot on my friend. It has already started. LAX-EWR has already been axed.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: GreenArc
Posted 2009-05-24 12:40:35 and read 4561 times.



Quoting Bluesky02 (Reply 28):
Here is what United had to say about this whole thing:

And here are the (sad) facts:

Quote:


An Open Letter to John Tague and All United Employees

May 22, 2009

Dear John,

I have just read the May 21, 2009 letter to your “fellow employees” and feel compelled to respond to the blatant mischaracterizations and outright falsehoods contained therein. Your letter is an affront to every United employee and it’s clear that you fail to “get it.”

You obviously have problems grasping the facts. First and foremost, ALPA has never said we were against United’s application for Antitrust Immunity. Instead, what we have made clear is that we are against any action by this Company’s management that does not have its employees’ interests and the United Airlines enterprise in mind. Despite your assertions to the contrary, aspects of this filing have the potential to do exactly that: harm the employees and destroy the enterprise. Let’s discuss facts from the employees’ view.

When the STAR Alliance was created in 1997, United had 575 aircraft with orders for more and had 90,000 employees. By the end of this year, United will have 396 aircraft and 46,000 employees. Where did those 44,000 jobs go? Meanwhile, United Express has grown to 280 aircraft and Lufthansa, our primary Alliance partner, has become the world’s über-international carrier. Are these the “United jobs” you were talking about?

You state that the Alliance gives us enough passengers to fill 75 B-777s a day. Unfortunately, United only operates 52 B-777s with no wide-body aircraft on order. Where are the passengers going that would fill those additional 23 B-777s? Are those aircraft operated and serviced by United employees?

We agree that the Alliance brings revenue to the UAL Corporation, but certainly not to the employees or to United Airlines. Instead, revenues from the Alliance are used to offset $1.1 billion in bad fuel hedges, pay management bonuses, retire cheap debt in exchange for more expensive debt, pay premiums to loosen debt covenants or pay shareholder dividends. Where are the new, fuel efficient airplanes that our competitors seem to be able to purchase with their “alliance” revenues?

You also claimed in your letter that “pilots at Continental…have supported [United’s] application because they recognize the need to meet the competitive threat posed by Delta-Air France-KLM.” I find this interesting, considering my counterpart at the Continental pilots’ MEC has openly expressed his pilot group’s unwavering support for our attempts to seek labor input in the ATI process. In a letter, dated March 11, 2009 to congressional leaders and Secretary LaHood, they stated the following:

“We agree with our fellow pilots at United that their management has shown disdain for pilots… In fact, the actions of United’s management threaten all airline employees, not just those of United, and we will continue to work hard to support the United pilots.”

ALPA is not opposed to the Alliance in and of itself. What we object to is that there are no provisions contained in the current application which protect American jobs, specifically United jobs. To the contrary, should the DOT grant full global antitrust immunity, as United desires, it is ALPA’s belief that this management will use that immunity to whipsaw employee groups against each other as well as export flying to Alliance partners. One only has to look at United’s recent announcement of a joint venture with Aer Lingus for a primer on how this management intends to operate in the future. As has been stated publicly, at its fruition, both companies intend to form a separate airline staffed with employees from neither United nor Aer Lingus. If that’s not “outsourcing” then I fail to grasp the definition of the term.

The airline scrap heap is full of the carcasses of carriers whose managements failed to learn one fundamental lesson: you cannot shrink to profitability. Yet you and this management team continue to pursue a course of just that. United has made the deepest capacity cuts in the industry but has yet to see a corresponding stabilization of its unit revenues. To the contrary: for Q1 2009 United’s year-over-year PRASM decline far exceeded the industry average PRASM decline despite United’s more aggressive reduction in ASMs. Management’s plan to shed capacity in order to stabilize the business is clearly not working and the request for global antitrust immunity is just one more example of a desire to shrink the airline even more. The employees see the course this management team is on and will not stand on the sidelines. ALPA will use all resources to stop United’s slide into oblivion.

Again, John, we are not against the Alliance, nor of some aspects of United’s recent application. Instead, we are pursuing protections for our pilots and other employees to ensure that United’s management does not continue down the path it is on — the pure shrinking and systematic dismantling of our airline. We want a management that will operate aggressively within the Alliance, preserving our relative share of the market. Despite having one of the best route structures in the world and a franchise that most analysts believe to be the best of any, this management has failed and continues to fail miserably to meet that challenge.

In Unity,

Captain Steve Wallach, Chairman
United Air Lines Master Executive Council

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Par13del
Posted 2009-05-24 12:53:20 and read 4538 times.



Quoting DescendVia (Reply 19):
This "thing" would allow UA and CO to operate a lot of flights as "only one airline" and that means the flying would likely go to CO, especially with all the cuts going on as we speak. Hence why United ALPA brought this up and not CO

Question, would this allow other alliance partners to fly the international routes while the other flies mostly domestic? Example, most say US airlines service is below international airlines, so have the international partner fly the long haul routes, this would save the US carriers money as long haul crew earn more and have more perks than their domestic bretheren, certainely would be a money saver, and since the pax would still fly on an CO or UA ticket and the alliance sorts out the profits, would be a win win for all.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: STT757
Posted 2009-05-24 13:16:59 and read 4534 times.



Quoting Apodino (Reply 27):
UA would probably operate most of the IAD traffic I would think, since CO has a presence in DCA. I suspect CO would operate more of the DEN flights than UA because of the MX facility.



Quoting UAORD2000 (Reply 38):
Spot on my friend. It has already started. LAX-EWR has already been axed.

CO has already dropped IAH-IAD, it's UA now with A319s and ERJ-170s. When the ATI is approved perhaps UA will boost the IAD-IAH frequencies.

As for EWR the UA passengers to LAX will benefit from ATI by having more choices and better service on CO from EWR-LAX, same with EWR-SFO. CO offers complimentary meals, 7 daily flights plus AVOD/Livetv. I don't see UA dropping EWR-ORD, that's a huge business route.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2009-05-24 14:14:17 and read 4461 times.



Quoting Par13del (Reply 40):
would be a win win for all.

 thumbsup  Absolutely.

One of the great benefits of any alliances is to allow for the individual strenghts of each partner to be used for the collective benefit of the group.

There is zero need for overlap whether its staffing at the airport, or multiple airlines running same city-pair flights when one partner can do it better, cheaper or easier then another.

It truly is a win-win by being able to reallocate resources to where they provide for the greatest return for the collective venture.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: MMEPHX
Posted 2009-05-24 14:30:56 and read 4438 times.



Quoting GreenArc (Reply 39):
And here are the (sad) facts:

Quote:


An Open Letter to John Tague and All United Employees

May 22, 2009

Dear John,

I have just read the May 21, 2009 letter to your “fellow employees” and feel compelled to respond to the blatant mischaracterizations and outright falsehoods contained therein. Your letter is an affront to every United employee and it’s clear that you fail to “get it.”

Oh, well. All a bit childish this spat between Union and Management. Can't help but think this might all end up looking like Eastern.

ALPA quotes UAL reducing from 575 aircraft and 90,000 employees to 396 aircraft and 46,000 employees. This might just be because UAL was previously grossly inefficient. There are many reasons WN has been successful for so long, one of those is fleet and employee efficiency, 537 aircraft with 35,500 employees. UAL are no WN with different service levels but maybe ALPA should look at helping deliver an efficient company that preserves as many jobs as possible but not every job through whatever means they can which ultimately leads to an inefficient airline that cannot compete.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: UAORD2000
Posted 2009-05-24 15:12:04 and read 4398 times.



Quoting MMEPHX (Reply 43):
ALPA quotes UAL reducing from 575 aircraft and 90,000 employees to 396 aircraft and 46,000 employees. This might just be because UAL was previously grossly inefficient. There are many reasons WN has been successful for so long, one of those is fleet and employee efficiency, 537 aircraft with 35,500 employees. UAL are no WN with different service levels but maybe ALPA should look at helping deliver an efficient company that preserves as many jobs as possible but not every job through whatever means they can which ultimately leads to an inefficient airline that cannot compete.

Come on now. You should know better than trying to compare apples to oranges. WN operates a single fleet type. 737. UA operates 737/747/757/767/777/319/320. UA's fleet consists of 396 planes which includes 97 jumbos and most of the others larger than a 737; therefore, WN's fleet does not require near as many employees to operate.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: United1
Posted 2009-05-24 20:25:38 and read 4272 times.



Quoting GreenArc (Reply 39):
And here are the (sad) facts:

Facts no....Union point of view absolutely. The truth is, as always, somewhere in the middle.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Ocracoke
Posted 2009-05-25 22:14:09 and read 4044 times.



Quoting STT757 (Reply 41):
CO has already dropped IAH-IAD, it's UA now with A319s and ERJ-170s. When the ATI is approved perhaps UA will boost the IAD-IAH frequencies.

As for EWR the UA passengers to LAX will benefit from ATI by having more choices and better service on CO from EWR-LAX, same with EWR-SFO. CO offers complimentary meals, 7 daily flights plus AVOD/Livetv. I don't see UA dropping EWR-ORD, that's a huge business route.


An ATI/JV will be valid for international routes only, not domestic ones. If UA/CO want to start cooperating on domestic routes, then they will legally have to merge.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Mariner
Posted 2009-05-25 22:37:21 and read 4014 times.



Quoting Ocracoke (Reply 46):
If UA/CO want to start cooperating on domestic routes, then they will legally have to merge.

I never really understood why Continental backed away from that. They seem to be going for some kind of virtual merger - why not go the whole hog?

mariner

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Drerx7
Posted 2009-05-25 22:51:31 and read 3996 times.



Quoting Mariner (Reply 47):

I never really understood why Continental backed away from that. They seem to be going for some kind of virtual merger - why not go the whole hog?

United's finances were not the healthiest to start talking about a merger.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Mariner
Posted 2009-05-25 23:01:35 and read 3988 times.



Quoting Drerx7 (Reply 48):
United's finances were not the healthiest to start talking about a merger.

Perhaps not, but at least the basics of that were known when Continental went into the discussions.

And if they're going to start living together instead of getting married, Continental will - I would guess - become very involved.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2...hi-mon-outlook-airlines-12daydec22

Chicago Tribune: "United, Continental favor living together - Pair forge template for consolidation, not marriage"

I would have thought Continental want some control over those finances.

mariner

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2009-05-25 23:05:25 and read 3988 times.



Quoting Mariner (Reply 47):
I never really understood why Continental backed away from that. They seem to be going for some kind of virtual merger - why not go the whole hog?

My take from having heard quite a bit at the time:

1) CO-UA could not agree on management structure. Basically UA's idea (since they were gonna be the larger half, and the combined company to be called United) wanted to retain much of their own management, and basically payoff CO's team to leave the keys and depart.

2) Labor integration. Battles were forseen with just about every group except pilots which did manage to agree on some protocols.

3) CO BoD felt it was not the best move for them it considering UA's leveraged position and potential hardship the joint larger company could experience with the dark clouds of rising fuel cost and unknown global economic prospects last summer.


However since I hear the UA-CO senior leadership are actively involved in a love-fest, meeting frequently and have speaking highly about each other and the future relationship.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Mariner
Posted 2009-05-25 23:19:55 and read 3966 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 50):
My take from having heard quite a bit at the time:

That mostly makes sense, LAXintl.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 50):
1) CO-UA could not agree on management structure.

Yes, I had heard that.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 50):
2) Labor integration. Battles were forseen with just about every group except pilots which did manage to agree on some protocols.

Ah - that's interesting. I would have thought the pilots were the critical part of the mix.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 50):
3) CO BoD felt it was not the best move for them it considering UA's leveraged position and potential hardship the joint larger company could experience with the dark clouds of rising fuel cost and unknown global economic prospects last summer.

Which is the one that puzzles me. I thought the point of it was to be jointly stronger for the coming battles.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 50):
However since I hear the UA-CO senior leadership are actively involved in a love-fest, meeting frequently and have speaking highly about each other and the future relationship.

The Chi-Trib article seems to suggest that, too. The love-fest part, at least.  

mariner

[Edited 2009-05-25 23:22:11]

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: Brons2
Posted 2009-05-25 23:23:42 and read 3960 times.



Quoting Ocracoke (Reply 46):
An ATI/JV will be valid for international routes only, not domestic ones. If UA/CO want to start cooperating on domestic routes, then they will legally have to merge.

They can still cooperate by codesharing. That doesn't require a JV or ATI. Example, CO stops flying CO metal to IAD but puts a codeshare on UA metal instead.

Topic: RE: UA Pilots Ask For Delay In CO-UA Co-op
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2009-05-25 23:33:07 and read 3945 times.

Yes the labor part was a bit interesting.
Pilots under ALPA guise were able to reach some basic protocols to move forward. Off course whether they would manage reach a common final agreement or end up in arbitration is another question.
But I guess the bigger concern was the remaining labor groups since Continental was mostly non-union (sans FA's) which would force the company to be actively involved with and fight the integration battles which would normally be a union-union battle if all the employees were represented.
It was felt by many that the United groups especially with so many on furlough would not take well to their new CO brethren particularly if it meant more cuts on the UA side, or extending time people were sitting on furlough if CO employees were slotted in higher.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/