Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21043 posts, RR: 60 Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7446 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.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Olympic472 From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 407 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7399 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?
DLMD90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 257 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7349 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?
Falcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 7335 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.
MasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 4751 posts, RR: 7 Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7291 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.
United1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5379 posts, RR: 8 Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6991 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.
Aeroman62 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 158 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 22 hours ago) and read 6734 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.
ElmoTheHobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1515 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 22 hours ago) and read 6708 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.
MasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 4751 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 19 hours ago) and read 6411 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.
United1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5379 posts, RR: 8 Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 19 hours ago) and read 6375 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.
DescendVia From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 11 hours ago) and read 4873 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.
Bluesky02 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 4694 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?
Bluesky02 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 4569 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?
Flybyguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1791 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 4559 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.
"Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
DescendVia From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 4509 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.
Luvflng From Costa Rica, joined Nov 2000, 178 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 4509 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.
Bluesky02 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 4426 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?
DescendVia From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 4394 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.
Bluesky02 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (4 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 4341 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.
DescendVia From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 4322 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.
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.
25 DescendVia: 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..
26 Bluesky02: This statement only proves my point.
27 Apodino: 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 lik
28 Bluesky02: Here is what United had to say about this whole thing: Dear fellow employee: Yesterday, Delta, the world’s largest airline and our largest competito
29 ORDflier: 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
30 Shamrock604: 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 agend
31 Olympic472: 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
32 Alias1024: 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 u
33 LAXintl: Soma amazing revenue benefits the alliance has produced. Pilots are in no means a party to the deal to review or sign anything. As with John Doe on t
34 Olympic472: Yes, IAD-MAD got me wondering. Regarding scope, airlines cannot continue to fly empty seats around regardless of fuel prices. (The 735 are also gettin
35 Shamrock604: 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 resp
36 Alias1024: That would depend on the exact wording of the scope section of their collective bargaining agreement. Just because the government doesn't have anti-c
37 LAXintl: 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 t
38 UAORD2000: Spot on my friend. It has already started. LAX-EWR has already been axed.
40 Par13del: Question, would this allow other alliance partners to fly the international routes while the other flies mostly domestic? Example, most say US airlin
41 STT757: 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 E
42 LAXintl: 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
43 MMEPHX: 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
44 UAORD2000: Come on now. You should know better than trying to compare apples to oranges. WN operates a single fleet type. 737. UA operates 737/747/757/767/777/3
45 United1: Facts no....Union point of view absolutely. The truth is, as always, somewhere in the middle.
46 Ocracoke: 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 legal
47 Mariner: 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? ma
48 Drerx7: United's finances were not the healthiest to start talking about a merger.
49 Mariner: 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 ins
50 LAXintl: 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 th
51 Mariner: That mostly makes sense, LAXintl. Yes, I had heard that. Ah - that's interesting. I would have thought the pilots were the critical part of the mix.
52 Brons2: 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
53 LAXintl: 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 wou
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 407 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Costa Rica, joined Nov 2000, 178 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
