Hello All - thank you for your kind responses to the last posting - "United 685." I hope some of you found it helpful and worth the read.
It seems the games still want to be played by United management and make you all think that the United AFA is not playing fair. I have not seen the whole document, but I did hear about Mr. McKeen's letter to Greg Davidovitch. From the information I received, Mr. McKeen feels that sUA Flight Attendants have had every opportunity to keep their job with United. Its just that you are expected to "cross-over" to sCO and work under the agreement negotiated with the former Continental Flight Attendants. Mr. McKeen does not mention in his memo that the "cross-over" comes with a significant cost - the loss of seniority for bidding. Most of the "685" Flight Attendants have worked with the Company for 6 and 7 years, some more. That is a decent amount of time to build up some seniority, and those 685 were faced with a very difficult decision. It was all very convenient for management to decide to focus on retiring older planes on the sUA side. It opened a way for them to begin funneling Flight Attendants into working under an agreement that management favors. That way they can avoid the messy talks still to come about integrating the three flight attendant groups, in particular, the tough issue of how to handle seniority. For my non UA readers, I will write more later about how important seniority is in this business.
What I wanted for this post was to focus on the upcoming opportunity for you all to have your voices heard by management. In about a month, UAL will be putting out its Proxy Notice for the 2014 Annual Shareholders' Meeting to be held in June. This Proxy Notice is going to have Proposals that allow shareholders to vote "For" or Against any member of the Board of Directors, and to vote "For" or "Against" the "Executive Compensation Program."
This is the time for Shareholders who do not like what is happening at United to express their "lack of confidence" in its leadership. It does not take a majority of "Against" votes to drive change. Back in the 80's, when Disney shareholders were asked to approve Michael Eisner to remain Chairman of the Board, that vote received 40% "Against;" not enough to pass, but it was enough to get the attention of the Board of Directors and he was asked to resign.
A lot of you may still be holding shares in UAL, probably in your 401-K accounts. When you get the Proxy Notice next month, don't just set it aside. Take the time to cast your vote whether it is "For" or "Against." What some of you may not realize is that if you do not vote, you automatically turn your proxy over to management to vote for you. That is why you see so many Proposals passing in favor of management.
For those of you that do not have any shares in UAL, consider buying some. It is not a bad investment now, but more importantly, it gives you a right to stand up to management without reprisal. Even if it is only one share, that one share can get you admittance the Shareholders meeting, and that one share gives you the right to question management decisions. Don't waste this opportunity to be heard.
To be able to vote on the Proposals on the agenda for the Annual Meeting, you must own your shares as of the date the Proxy notice comes out. I expect it to come out between April 7 and April 18. Act now or you will miss this chance to be heard.
What may not be on the Proxy notice you receive in April is a Shareholder Proposal that I submitted that was delivered to Brett Hart at World Headquarters today. If the Proposal is accepted, it will be on the agenda for the Annual Meeting and you will be able to vote on it. There are ways that management can have the Proposal excluded, but I do intend on challenging any requests they make to the SEC for such exclusion. I have thought through this Proposal very carefully. Assuming it does make it on the agenda, I will be able to have my voice heard at the Annual Meeting. I will update you when I have confirmation that the Proposal is on the agenda. The text of the Proposal is added below. If you like what you read, then please share this with as many of your friends and associates that you can. My thanks to you for reading it, and my sincere gratitude for making the effort to cast your vote. Your feedback is always welcome. Keep scrolling down to read the full Proposal --
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James
T. Anderson, 17738
Superior Street #20 , Northridge , California
Proposal
That the shareholders of United Continental Holdings,
Inc. (the “Company”) be allowed to enter into the Company records a vote “For” or
“Against” the continued leadership by Jeffery A. Smisek as President and CEO of
the Company and all related subsidiaries.
Results of this vote are only intended
to communicate to the Board of Directors any lack of confidence that the shareholders
may have in Mr. Smisek, and in his ability to be an effective leader for the
long-term benefit of the Company, its shareholders, employees and customers.
Supporting Statement
Merger Costs - As of December 31, 2013 , “Merger and Integration-Related Costs” have reached
$2.025 billion. For comparison, with the
Delta-Northwest combination, reported “Merger-Related” costs totaled just under
$1.5 billion.
Operational Performance – When looking at four key operational performance
measures - Yield, PRASM, CASM, and On-Time performance, and comparing them to
results published for Delta Air Lines, United lags well behind in all of them. For the Company, the percentage increase in
unit costs (CASM) exceeds that for unit Revenue measures (Yield and PRASM). On-time
performance at United is off over five percentage points from 2010 to 2013.
Stock
Performance – From January of 2011 to
March of 2014, the market value for UAL shares has increased nearly 81%; however, that increase is fueled only
by momentum behind Delta stock which has gone up 169% for the same period. Delta, the smaller carrier in terms of
traffic, has a market capitalization that is 170% more than that for UAL .
Market Share
and Customer Satisfaction - Comparing
2011 to 2013, RPM ’s (Revenue Passenger Miles) flown at Delta have
increased while capacity (ASM’s) decreased.
Conversely, at United, capacity cuts have led to a decline in RPM ’s, and those cuts, as a percentage, have exceeded any proportional
increase in load factors. This signals a
loss in market share, and that loss translates into an estimated $375 million in
annual passenger revenue going to other carriers. Customer satisfaction at United, as measured
by the DOT, J.D. Power, and other third-party surveys is the lowest among U.S.
Labor
Agreements – After three years, there
are still some employee groups that remain divided among three named working divisions
– United (sUA), Continental (sCO) and Continental Micronesia (sCM). Notable among them are the Flight Attendants
where talks to negotiate a combined contract have been stalled. Management has used this segregation to “urge”
sUA Flight Attendants to either “cross-over” to sCO; thereby losing their
seniority for bidding, or be furloughed.
Conclusion – The Company needs a leader that the customers and employees
can support; a leader with a vision for unity, innovation and expansion; a
leader that truly understands the value behind the brand that is United
Airlines.
"Mr. McKeen does not mention in his memo that the "cross-over" comes with a significant cost - the loss of seniority for bidding. "
ReplyDeleteNobody FORCED anyone to take the charitable FA positions offered over the IVF. You could have opted for "Most Junior" at the local Wal-mart or last in the line to sign up for Unemployment benefits.
Asking S-Co FAs to abrogate their contract and do a bidding DOH insertion of unemployed S-Ua FAs into our ranks is akin to S-Co FAs demanding relative seniority or weighted seniority upon integration. How is it fair to those FAs currently at S-Co who would suffer for losing bidding seniority to accommodate your unemployed FAs by scuttling their contractual protections?
All About Me is a useful tool the United's human resource department provides to aggregate all of an employee's information and tools. It's not meant to be a mantra or a way of life. Try to be grateful for what was given. Many of us would have rather had fresh faces and good attitudes rather than S-Ua's typical bitter entitled forever-the-victim castaways.
Your points are valid; however, you bring up the crux of the problem yourself, finally sitting down and integrating the two work groups. Whether it be date of hire or relative seniority, there are members on both sides that are not going to like the outcome. What is happening to sUA does skirt around their contractual protections and you should be concerned. How are you going to feel after 40 years of service when a loophole is used to knock you down to nothing? Had Mr. Lorenzo not decimated the front-line while he was running Continental and Eastern, you would find yourself with two groups where seniority integration might be easier. Using Lorenzo type tactics now only takes this airline back to a very ugly period for the industry.
ReplyDeleteYes, the sUA FA's are entitled and that is because they have earned it. Since 2001 and before, they have constantly been told that they should be grateful for what they have, even though much was being taken away. This does not mean they are not willing to work together with sCO FA's, because they know working together is the best for the airline. Their experience should continue to count for something. Maybe the pressure should be on MEC leaders on both sides to work out the integration issue and stand together when sitting down with management.
SCO needs to remember this was a merger, not a hostile takeover which is what they don't seem to understand. In a merger, some win and some lose but there is no do over, we must move towards a positive future so we are able to keep all our jobs. Thank you Mr Andersen, will look forward to my proxy papers.
ReplyDeleteMr Anderson,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your continued support and interest in our profession and in our airline; both yours and mine. It's refreshing to know that you have been involved with us for so long and consider us to be your family. I haven't personally meet you but have read many, many accounts of people meeting you and having had the pleasure to do so.
Hopefully it doesn't disrespect your support or blog to address some misinformation stated in one of the responses...
Unfortunately, the responder doesn't understand the magnitude of this involuntary furlough. This isn't simply about not bringing full seniority over for the people FORCED over. Yes, they are forceovers not crossovers. The vast majority of their decisions were not voluntary. (I say vast majority to allow for any folks that truly wanted to crossover.) They were forced to either forceover to remain employed, which is a major violation of our contract, or forced into a voluntary furlough, partnership with another FA or, if none of those worked, forced into the IVF.
It is not practicable or legal under the Railway Labor Act of the U.S. to shift employment terms mid-contract especially when done so arbitrarily.
So, this was forced upon our 685(later amended to 679).
To the responder, neither our collective bargaining agreements nor our employment can be considered charitable causes. We are employed because we uphold the company's expectations and because our labor contracts protect our relationship with our contract. That speaks true to all contracts and employment terms amongst all of the subsidiaries. None of that is charity.
It's unfortunate the responder rightfully believes that her contract should be honored with regards to seniority but our contract is simply a charity open to the whims of our company.
It's sad but laughable the responder brings up "All About Me" in such an interesting manner. Yes, that tool should not be used as a mantra or way of life as the responder seems to be doing. To quickly follow that comment up with misplaced and mean spirited comments contained in their last 2 sentences is appalling and very sad.
Fortunately, I don't believe the responder shares that understanding with the majority of us at any subsidiary. My hope is the forceover people will be met with the warmth that we are known for and the unrest and stress they have been under is quickly mitigated by our friends across the aisle.