PilotNTrng From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 897 posts, RR: 3 Posted (10 years 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 5630 times:
If this has been discussed, I apologize. I just did something I rarely do, I caught a news broadcast from ABC news. I know how ignorant the media is when it comes to reporting on the airline industry, but I am inclined to believe them this time. They reported that UAL has emerged from bankruptcy and to celebrate they cut 30 percent of the workforce and 20 percent of aircraft from service. While doing this they announce a huge bonus program for management. The CEO alone received 15 million dollars in stock alone. Is is it just me or is this complete bull crap? How and the hell can they do this and have a guily free conscious? They are not the ones that make that airline run, its the flight crew and customer service agents that do it. This reaffirms my believe that all airlines are run by circus monkeys.
CTHEWORLD From Mayotte, joined Dec 2004, 478 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 5553 times:
The employees have success sharing, and anyone with a brain can figure out that stock options are success sharing as well. A few things to keep in mind, that the media can't seem to get right:
1) The stock options have a vesting schedule
2) They are stock options, not cash, if the stock does well, which is an executive's job to oversee, then they make lots of money when they sell their options after they have vested, if the stock does poorly, and idication of them doing their job poorly, then their stock, thus cash, suffers as well.
Think about all those stock options ESOP employees, and executives alike had going in to CH.11, worth pennies now, same can be true for these new options. The media like to play in to the "big corporate bully greed" crap, but typical for the media, they never get the full story or report it accurately.
PilotNTrng From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 897 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 5524 times:
So you are saying that the 30 percent that were laid off still have success sharing? No, I didn't think so. Did they have success sharing during the 3 years if bankrupcy? If you think so, thats hilarious.I don't think it's right for a company to screw their employees and then turn around and give the big wigs bonuses. For those of you who read this and respond as the first two here have ( besides myself) Don't take this personal and if you are in UAL management you should take it personal. Look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself was this the right thing to do?
Ill agree with you that pilot salaries had grown out of control somewhat. Paycuts are better than having no job at all. That is the only thing I will agree with management on. On that ABC news program they had a 29 year veteran pilot that was forced to retire due to his age of 60. He had to find another job because he is only recieving 25 percent of his pension? Is that fair? of coarse not. Enjoy that 15 million in stock MR. CEO.
Fdex727 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 5476 times:
The layoffs and paycuts all came during the Ch. 11 process of which I was able to participate in and give part of my pay back. We did remove some aircraft through this process as well, I believe the 767-200's were the only part of the fleet removed entirely. While it was a painful process and I have since left UA I do believe that UA will better be able to compete now for the short to mid-term. As far as long term goes that remains to be seen. The only thing that I wish had been done differently would have been not creating TED. I believe that it just weakens the overall product by confusing customers. Anyway, I do hope this answered part of your question.
Halls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 5417 times:
Quoting PilotNTrng (Thread starter): They reported that UAL has emerged from bankruptcy and to celebrate they cut 30 percent of the workforce and 20 percent of aircraft from service. While doing this they announce a huge bonus program for management. The CEO alone received 15 million dollars in stock alone. Is is it just me or is this complete bull crap?
Welcome to capitalism. You don't like it? Move somewhere where it isn't practiced.
There was no "celebration" in cutting the workforce. It was necessary to save the jobs of the employees who remain.
And why do you care about the aircraft removed from service? Do you think they got their feelings hurt?
PhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 5373 times:
Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 9): Yes though by no means did it help matters. Please the pilots were no angels by any stretch of the imagination.
Ok, so you do realize that all the employees could have worked for nothing and the company would still lose money? Management has most, if not all the blame to shoulder. Look at their unrealistic growth projections, their unrealistic fleet plan, their unrealistic route system. Tell me how the pilots or for that fact any employee group has any blame in that?
This bull***t about labor being the issue is just stupid. When you have any industry pricing their product below cost that doesn't make sense.
What does Chapter 11 have to do with "capitalism"?
For better or worse, it's part of our version of capitalism.
I always marvel at people who bitch about the salaries of CEO's. At least the CEO is hopefully creating jobs. So Glenn Tilton is going to get 15 million? Sounds like a bargain, when you consider current salaries for sports and entertainment figures - who generally don't create a significant number of new jobs for the economy.
Aa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3350 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 5306 times:
Quoting PilotNTrng (Reply 4): So you are saying that the 30 percent that were laid off still have success sharing?
So should you keep that 30% on and end up screwing 100% when the airline goes Chapter 7?
Quoting PilotNTrng (Reply 6): On that ABC news program they had a 29 year veteran pilot that was forced to retire due to his age of 60.
This is absurd on UAL's behalf. Who the hell are they to run their airline in accordance to FAA policies?!?! Newsflash. All commerical pilots (121 at least, do 135 pilots follow the same rules?) retire at 60. Frontier, American, United, US Airways, jetBlue, Southwest they all have to retire at 60. Why? Because the FAA says so.
Now, UA management looks at figures they came up with and sees they need to cut down on employees. The decide they need 30% of the employees gone and 20% of the airlines parked. What would you like them to do? Keep the aircraft in the air on unprofitable routes where they are getting their asses kicked by WN and F9? Now they are back to losing money. If they keep their employees on, they end up like a government owned carrier. Or would you like them to do what needs to be done and start trying to get the airline profitable?
The management's responsibility is to the shareholders, not the employees.
Jetdeltamsy From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2987 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 5280 times:
Quoting PilotNTrng (Thread starter): they cut 30 percent of the workforce and 20 percent of aircraft from service. While doing this they announce a huge bonus program for management.
United's management, essentially the same management that led them into bankruptcy in the first place, is an ultra-arrogant group of men and women that should be replaced.
For decades, United had an attitude of "we don't care because we don't have to" due to the fact the company was highly profitable. They have historically treated their customers, employees and even their competition with contempt.
This management team was particularly hard on Continental Airlines in the 80's and 90's. They even allowed their ramp employees in Denver to sport pin on buttons that said "Screw Continental". Much has been said about how American put it to Braniff in their final months in Dallas. United has been equally unethical and unprofessional in how they dealt with Continental.
NOTHING ON EARTH would make me jump for joy any higher than watching the "inferior" Continental absorb United and lay off every single manager in their organization.
United's management ranks are rotten to the core.
Tired of airline bankruptcies....EA/PA/TW and finally DL.
Mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 27335 posts, RR: 81
Reply 19, posted (10 years 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 5257 times:
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 14): For better or worse, it's part of our version of capitalism.
That may be, but I don't know what it has to do with the real thing.
"Capitalism" would deplore the destruction of the owners wealth - the shareholders, both common and, in the case of United, ESOP.
"Capitalism" would disapprove of corporate obligations being off-loaded onto government. At some point, that becomes simple socialism.
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 14): I always marvel at people who bitch about the salaries of CEO's.
Um - sorry, I don't recall mentioning the CEO or his salary. I have enormous respect for Mr. Tilton and what he has done. I understand why the creditors wanted to give him a great deal more than $15 million.
It is the laws that enabled him to do it that I dislike.
Incitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4363 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (10 years 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 5220 times:
Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 8): Ok, so let me get this straight, the pilots put a gun to management's head and made them accept the contract?
Yes indeed. Airlines are very capital intensive. If you cripple the operation, the whole business goes belly up in weeks. What you wrote pretty much describes the action of the pilots in the case of United.
Now how many seats did the pilots have in the board? Three, right? So separating United management from the pilots is rather futile.
Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 8): UAL's problems started long before the pilots got their contract. Suggest you do a little research on that.
No research needed because I also happen to agree with that statement. My original comment started with "Part of United's problem..." but you chose to ignore that.
What does Chapter 11 have to do with "capitalism"?
it actually does to a certain extent......bankruptcy allows the debt holders (the "I.O.U." holders-secure creditors) to get some of their investment money back....shareholders, who are the non-secure creditors lose their investment...
chapter 11 or bankruptcy loseses its value when external forces such as the government (hence tax payer dollars) intervenes.....but if private institutions lose money..ie. such as banks, investment houses, etc. then there is no loss of tax-payer money, thus, the bankruptcy is still under a capitalistic system..
though each individual bankruptcy is a "zero-sum" game, the cumulative effect isn't.........hence, one can see the Goldman Sachs and Merril Lynch's of the world invest in UA because they know even if UA does completely liquidate, they will be able to 1) sell part of UA's assests which UA has pledged to them and to cover a part of their losses in the investment and 2). generate revenues from other sources...which will hopefully more than make up for in the UA loss..which would ....3)thus not require governmental intervention (ie.-tax)
now if a large amount of companies/corporations go bankrupt, then there will be a problem as the capital loss of all the secure/private holders will not be to be sustained, which would result in an extremely skewed situation (such as what happened with the S&L Savings debacle in the 1980's).....thats when the govt. would have to step in, otherwise there would be a national financial catastrophy...and that, the govt. cannot allow...
anway, I hope I made that a bit more clear......:
by the way..hope you like my first F9 photo in the A.net database..
PhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (10 years 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 5137 times:
Quoting Supa7E7 (Reply 17): Fortunately, they paid a price for it. My only objection is that I as a taxpayer will pay a portion of the union's pensions, but they won't pay for my losses in my risky investments. Is that fair?