Airline Executives Meet

[funguy2]

Bear96:

Bear96 asked: "If you think that UA has a less than 50% chance of survival, I am curious what you think are the odds of U surviving?"

USA320Pilot: 50-50. The difference between US Airways and United is that US Airways has more control over its destiny, where United does not.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

Your assertion that US Airways has things under control is absolutely ludicrous. UAL has shown remarkable control and cooperation with the BK court throughout its bankruptcy. While there are things which it cannot control (i.e. Pension relief, ATSB board, etc), it is not "out of control".

Compare this to US Airways, who had to rush through BK to meet its credit card processors demands. US Airways has a CEO who cannot rally the troops, and needs to call in the Chairman to run his meetings. US Airways has not been able to abide by the agreements it made to secure the ATSB loan, and was forced to pre-pay. US Airways has a "going-concern" clause even though it is not in bankruptcy and is in jeopardy of losing financing for its new regional jet aircraft, which by their very nature will raise CASM. US Airways is being attacked by Southwest in its most profitable hub, and has no defense strategy. US Airways has retained an investment bank to shop around its assets in order to raise short-term cash. US Airways is in very real jeopardy of being back in bankruptcy later this year.

Sorry USA320Pilot, sounds like US Airways is "out of control". This is something a pilot should know about, I believe its called a spin. Oh, you know all about spin.

P.S. Among the things US Airways cannot seem to control: A "rogue" pilot "reporter" who never names sources, an is generally either "publishing" sensitive information which should not be shared outside the company, or misleading and inaccurate speculations.

 

[mweiss]

Although it has recently become permissable to state that the numbers used to calculate the unemployment rate are "bogus" we must all remember that they were acceptable when we all wanted to know what the definition of "is" is.

Perhaps you considered them acceptable back then. Not me. The numbers are meaningless without understanding the meaning behind them.

What really matters is how many people want to be working, but aren't. That number is bigger now than during the Clinton administration (though in neither case can one directly attribute the situation to the man in the White House). You don't need a government publication to tell you that.

 

[jimntx]

Although it has recently become permissable to state that the numbers used to calculate the unemployment rate are "bogus" we must all remember that they were acceptable when we all wanted to know what the definition of "is" is.

Oh, Boomer, your paper must have gotten wet the day they announced that Clinton was no longer President. It happened. A guy named Bush is now the President. Let's move on.

AND, if you will read any of my posts you will find that I never, ever said or implied that unemployment figures from a Dem administration were any more believable than the current ones. I worked for the state agency in Texas which generates the Texas numbers for the U.S. Labor Department which reports the numbers. I know how the numbers are put together. They get massaged in Austin, and then massaged again in D.C. Moreover, you are talking about a national average. There's little comfort to be had from a 5.6% average when the unemployment rate in your community is 12%. Nor is it a reason to discount the numbers just because the unemployment rate in your community is 2%. It's just a fact of life that the current administration is Republican, and I like to live in the present.

Piece of history, during the Great Depression of the 1930's (FDR, Democratic administration), the official unemployment rate was never more than 18-20% because there were even more rules for excluding people from the numbers than there are now. For instance,
1. No woman without a job was "unemployed" because no woman could be a "head of household" by IRS rules in effect at the time. She could be the sole support for a family of ten, but she wasn't a head of household.
2. If an adult male had to move back in with his parents for financial reasons after losing his job, he ceased to be unemployed because he was not the head of the household where he resided.
3. Unemployed minorities were not always counted. Particularly, if one had never been employed for wages before. Day labor didn't count as "real" work.

So, dont start getting your knickers in a twist every time you suspect Republican-bashing. P.S. I don't accept the statements of any publication with an agenda--such as the National Review or the New Republic--as the final word on anything other than its agenda. Neither Liberals nor Conservatives are possessors of revealed truth. It's about power--the getting and the holding--for both of them.

 

[767jetz]

Consider the source and FEEL SORRY FOR US because we have to work with USA320Pilot.

Point taken. And you do have my sincerest sympathy. Every airline I've ever worked for has had what we called the "That 1%." This "1%-er" of yours is particularly abrasive, persistent, and annoying. I do feel sorry for those of you that actually work with him.

 

[Taipan]

By the way A320pilot you need to get down to IAH to learn how to fly your new ride, the EMB170 is down for testing and I have not seen you down for your orientation.

 

[TheLarkAscending]

By the way A320pilot you need to get down to IAH to learn how to fly your new ride, the EMB170 is down for testing and I have not seen you down for your orientation.

Ouch

 

[iflyjetz]

Come on. I get tired of pilots and non-pilots acting as if the only jobs they are qualified for out in the REAL WORLD are fast food or The Home Depot. There are tons of jobs out there; all you have to do is work hard and show up to work on time. The uemployment rate is at historical lows (irrespectful of what election year candidates are saying). If you do that, you will be head and shoulders above most employees and WILL advance rapidly. And face it, if MAA pay rates become the norm, what do you have to lose?

Ahhh, I see that once again my quirky sense of humor translated poorly into the written word.

I am currently serving in the AF and will be able to complete a 20 year career before returning to UAL, so I'm not worried about my future or finances.
As for being qualified for other jobs, I had considered several other options other than the military and would not have had too many problems making the transition to a nonflying job. However, in the end, an active duty military retirement was the most logical choice; I had over 15 years active duty time when I was furloughed.

I'll try to use the little smilies a bit more liberally in the future.

 

[Just Plane Crazy]

A320Pilot

I am starting to be convinced that you must hate your job over at U and you are blaming UA for it.

U will be worse off with NW/CO/DL. And as I have said in other threads, U will be crazy to leave STAR. They have the better cards by sticking to UA and STAR.