Breath_of_Fresh_USAirways
Advanced
- Aug 27, 2005
- 233
- 0
Wow! Talk about defensive!
I was trying to have a rational conversation about the merits of fuel hedging, I never assumed you were stupid, just trying to point out some other considerations and to get a better understanding of why you feel the way you do.
I too had my HP stock convert to LCC stock and continue to buy on a regular basis outside the 401K plan. I suppose that I should've asked you that if you did "buy LCC stock" = fuel hedging, then why didn't you buy more? So, I guess that that makes me an underpaid west employee, as well. So, contrary to the assumptions you have made (and back-handed insults to our east brethren) I do know what WE make.
Also, I never called you stupid. If I asked probing questions it was only to make you and the readers here think a little bit more deeply about what you read in the media and to try to see the big picture, financially, of the airline. I am by no means defending nor endorsing what US has done or not done with fuel hedges. As I stated, I too wish they had done more hedging. I was merely trying to point out the fact that they have made some pretty good, albeit conservative moves, so far, in regards to fuel. Since neither one of us has all the facts, or knows the whole financial picture, I hesitate to rush to criticize. Also, by keeping fuel an issue, and not trying to do everything only by hedging, it forces US to work on other ways to reduce fuel expenses and keeps us LEAN and competative.
Look at this chart:
http://www.wtrg.com/daily/crudeoilprice.html
A year ago, oil was around the then unbelievable price of $60 a barrel. Within a month, it was nearing $70, and then within 2 months, it was back to $60. Then it was up again and down again in a matter 4 months. Only since May of this year has it REMAINED above the $70 a barrel price. So, maybe, just maybe, that's why we didn't hedge at $70 a barrel a year ago as it would have partially been a losing proposition. Not to mention that as US and other airlines reduce their flying, that reduces the demand for jet fuel and in turn, drives down the price.
The rest of that 8 Jul article goes on to state that US has increased it's 3rd quarter hedge from 40 to 44 % and 4th quarter from 33 to 37 percent. Looks like we're heading in the right direction.
But now I see that you are paranoid about management coming to labor for "cost savings." From a fellow HP employee who believed in AWA and continues to believe in this merged airline, I apologize if I made you feel stupid. That wasn't my intention. It's so easy to read one article and draw one conclusion and well, all I was hoping was for someone to look at the bigger picture.
Right now, we need to focus on doing a better job of taking care of our customers -- we're doing ok financially -- and we've been doing better for our customers, we just have a long way to go. And, please, I am not insinuating anything personally, just a broad statement about what we really should be worrying about as an airline, in whole.
I was trying to have a rational conversation about the merits of fuel hedging, I never assumed you were stupid, just trying to point out some other considerations and to get a better understanding of why you feel the way you do.
I too had my HP stock convert to LCC stock and continue to buy on a regular basis outside the 401K plan. I suppose that I should've asked you that if you did "buy LCC stock" = fuel hedging, then why didn't you buy more? So, I guess that that makes me an underpaid west employee, as well. So, contrary to the assumptions you have made (and back-handed insults to our east brethren) I do know what WE make.
Also, I never called you stupid. If I asked probing questions it was only to make you and the readers here think a little bit more deeply about what you read in the media and to try to see the big picture, financially, of the airline. I am by no means defending nor endorsing what US has done or not done with fuel hedges. As I stated, I too wish they had done more hedging. I was merely trying to point out the fact that they have made some pretty good, albeit conservative moves, so far, in regards to fuel. Since neither one of us has all the facts, or knows the whole financial picture, I hesitate to rush to criticize. Also, by keeping fuel an issue, and not trying to do everything only by hedging, it forces US to work on other ways to reduce fuel expenses and keeps us LEAN and competative.
Look at this chart:
http://www.wtrg.com/daily/crudeoilprice.html
A year ago, oil was around the then unbelievable price of $60 a barrel. Within a month, it was nearing $70, and then within 2 months, it was back to $60. Then it was up again and down again in a matter 4 months. Only since May of this year has it REMAINED above the $70 a barrel price. So, maybe, just maybe, that's why we didn't hedge at $70 a barrel a year ago as it would have partially been a losing proposition. Not to mention that as US and other airlines reduce their flying, that reduces the demand for jet fuel and in turn, drives down the price.
The rest of that 8 Jul article goes on to state that US has increased it's 3rd quarter hedge from 40 to 44 % and 4th quarter from 33 to 37 percent. Looks like we're heading in the right direction.
But now I see that you are paranoid about management coming to labor for "cost savings." From a fellow HP employee who believed in AWA and continues to believe in this merged airline, I apologize if I made you feel stupid. That wasn't my intention. It's so easy to read one article and draw one conclusion and well, all I was hoping was for someone to look at the bigger picture.
Right now, we need to focus on doing a better job of taking care of our customers -- we're doing ok financially -- and we've been doing better for our customers, we just have a long way to go. And, please, I am not insinuating anything personally, just a broad statement about what we really should be worrying about as an airline, in whole.
