Goldman Sachs Comments On Us Airways
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
autofixer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 1,804
- 241
You know Winglet, this whole 2 cent structural cost savings has troubled me for a while. If Dave was going to operate UAIR in the long run why not save the 2cents a year a go?
It is because, "The first objection is never the real objection." Dave has a hidden agenda. Is it because Dave is going to sell the airline and he needs low labor costs? Does Dave know he cannot obtain the low labor costs, thus, the unions can be blamed for the failure of U and then Dave can sell of U assests-possibly the real intent all along? Is MAA to be the real U, to be spun off in an IPO with the majority of the IPO to be premium stock holders and senior management(You know, they must be compensated for their pain and suffering)?
I think the real plan is the latter, but who knows. I have a gut feeling the employees are being manipulated and in most cases their greed and self-preservation has blinded them to the facts. JMHO
It is because, "The first objection is never the real objection." Dave has a hidden agenda. Is it because Dave is going to sell the airline and he needs low labor costs? Does Dave know he cannot obtain the low labor costs, thus, the unions can be blamed for the failure of U and then Dave can sell of U assests-possibly the real intent all along? Is MAA to be the real U, to be spun off in an IPO with the majority of the IPO to be premium stock holders and senior management(You know, they must be compensated for their pain and suffering)?
I think the real plan is the latter, but who knows. I have a gut feeling the employees are being manipulated and in most cases their greed and self-preservation has blinded them to the facts. JMHO
AtlanticBeach
Senior
- Aug 20, 2002
- 341
- 2
Based on side-by-side analysis, if US had hedged identically to WN, fuel expense would have be improved by approximately $45MM in 4Q03.shaka said:
But, the company would have had to tie up a great deal of money that it probably did not have at the time.
BillLumbergh
Veteran
Merging topics here - sorta.
Amazing, How long did it take you to find the loss number [98 mil]? For someone whining about "numbers in detail", due diligence and sound analysis, All you can come up with is the loss number [98 mil] ??? Impressive ! Please check out the post written by Atlantic Beach..Fuel costs not a big deal ???? Right...shaka said:
insp89, shaka was responding to this statement from you
I'm sure you realize that, had fuel been hedged as well at US as at WN, US would have had a loss of $53M. Sounds to me like fuel was not "the only thing that stood in the way of a PROFIT vs. a LOSS last quarter."insp89 said:
Gentlemen,
If we did a side by side analysis of all of the competitors out there we surely could make US Air a thriving and profitable company. Even if you did hedge as Southwest did you still would be losing a hell of lot of money.
The reality is the company has many broken pieces that need to be fixed and fuel is a minor part of this this equation. The first step in fixing the company is having Dave take his 4.5 million and walk.
If we did a side by side analysis of all of the competitors out there we surely could make US Air a thriving and profitable company. Even if you did hedge as Southwest did you still would be losing a hell of lot of money.
The reality is the company has many broken pieces that need to be fixed and fuel is a minor part of this this equation. The first step in fixing the company is having Dave take his 4.5 million and walk.
autofixer-i think you hit it on the head...all along i beleive dave has been extracting what he can from labor for only one goal...to sell/merge.he waves his hand around as if in some magic spell that he wishes to "save the airline" and have us all get onboard once again and once again trust his better judgement only to find down the road,we were "fattened up" for the slaughter.suddenly we awaken and find we are now with "brand x" and they have no need for employees,only assets......you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the timeautofixer said:
does LORENZO LITE FIT?
I am sure that highly sophisticated, intellectual gentlemen such as yourselves realize that corporations in this country have a tremendous amount of leeway when it comes to reporting LOSSES or GAINS..In this particular instance, Usairways is attempting to extract ANOTHER round of concessions from it's employees. In order to prove their case, the company put out their "worse case scenario" numbers. [I'm sure you gentlemen have heard the term "one time charges], and what is stopping companies from paying cash to some of their debtors instead of reporting the cash as a PROFIT ?? mweiss, do you agree with your buddy shaka that fuel price is just a" minor part of this equation" ? I do agree it would be a step in the right direction to see DAVE take his unearned $4.5 mil. and find somewhere else to spread his sunshine.mweiss said:
insp89, first of all shaka is in no way my "buddy." I have never met this person. Secondly, just because shaka was wrong in calling the fuel hedging factor "insignificant" doesn't mean that you're right that it was the sole factor.
As for your suggestion that the books have been cooked, why don't you actually read the Q4 report instead of speculating on its contents?
As for your suggestion that the books have been cooked, why don't you actually read the Q4 report instead of speculating on its contents?
whatkindoffreshhell
Veteran
Same place all those price-gouging fare receipts of the past twenty years.700UW said:
Looks like some folks who are soon going to begin paying for their airfares are not happy.
Welcome to your customer's world.
weiss, Since you read it, Do you agree Usairways has enough leeway to "paint their own picture" or do you believe this company would not stoop to using all the tools available to them to put forth the "picture" in which they want to portray ?mweiss said:
