Mda Pilot Class & Ted

[mlt]

USA320Pilot Posted Today, 07:47 PM

"Would I like to fly a widebody? Yes and since the America West pilots do not have that in their career expectation I’m just a couple of years away from that. "



In the right seat perhaps, certainly not in the left seat.

 

[Rico]

Jeeze, you guys have it all wrong with the purchase of TED rumor.

It is USA3000 that is going to be purchased, thus the identical paint jobs, duh...

 

[Cosmo]

By the way, for people like Fly, Cosmo, Busdrvr and others, if there is not merit to my report than why even waste the time to post a message o the subject?

USA320Pilot:

I have no intention of letting this inane, ego-driven comment go unchallenged!

I and others respond to your "reports" because you like to imply that your super-secret "sources" give you knowledge that others don't have, and thus your facts (or even opinions) are above reproach. Yet in many cases, your posts are nothing more than self-centered, egotistical drivel ("I've been told this ...", "My sources say that ...", "There is reason to believe ...", etc., etc., etc.) with no factual support whatsoever. You actually expect people to believe that real sources would risk jail time to give insider information to a mere line pilot and yet not leak the same information to at least one well-regarded publication from among the WSJ, NYT, FT, FI, AW&ST, ATW and Aviation Daily, not to mention various Wall Street brokerage houses? And at least with regard to United, your "sources" have been wrong far more often than they have been right (I'm still waiting for that UA/US merger or the UCT/ICT). One can only conclude that your "sources", if they really exist at all, are actually using you as part of a disinformation campaign -- and you don't realize it.

Also, I suppose the following conversation ...

US Airways: Can we buy TED?

United: No.

... constitutes discussions between the executive suites.

BTW, using the "logic" in your comment quoted above, the fact that the SEC's Enforcement Division has not made you do a "perp walk" in handcuffs for discussing insider information on a public Internet bulletin board indicates that your statements are false!

 

[FWAAA]

There isn't a chance in hell that TED is for sale, and an even smaller chance that HP/US would be the buyer. It's about as likely as HP/US buying WN or B6. Be forewarned about getting your hopes up. B)

 

[Freighterguynow]

USA320Pilot:

I have no intention of letting this inane, ego-driven comment go unchallenged!


Don't forget retroactively claiming to have "called the shots" in advance.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Cosmo & FWAAA:

I'm not going to debate this with you, but you're wrong. Will TED & its assets sold? I do not know. Is it being offered and discussed by the WHQ executive suite? Yesiree.

It's my understanding the United business plan calls for jet fuel prices equal to oil at $50 per barrel. Each $1 increase in the price of crude oil increases United's fuel bill by about $60 million per year. Thus, with Crude Oil Futures trading at about $67 per barrel, the United business plan needs to come up with over $1 billion per year additional cost cuts and revenue gains. Something has to be done or the creditors may not support the plan of reorganization (POR) and the potential new investors may not provide United with investment capital/exit financing.

As we know all to well at US Airways, in bankruptcy the creditors committee, the debtors-in-possession/equity financiers, and the judge et to participate in decisions made about the POR/disclosure statement, whether we like it or not.

One approach could be to sell off domestic assets and turn over this flying to RJ operators (with EMB-170, EMB-190, and CRJ-900 flying) and its domestic code share partner, the expanded and new US Airways. This approach would keep some of the domestic revenue lost within the United corporate treasury instead of it going to a competitor, if there is one available with any cash to buy assets.

As you know different forms of United divesting of domestic operations has been discussed before with what the company code worded "Project Minnow" according to the news media, and I coined with the acronym UCT and then when the plan changed...called it the ICT.

Meanwhile, on September 27, eight days from now, the new US Airways will have one of the strongest balance sheets in the industry for an airline of its size, which is very important considering current fundamentals.

By the way, if my comment has no merit than why even waste your time and respond. Why not just stay on the United board and comment on United events over there...

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[hp_fa]

By the way, if my comment has no merit than why even waste your time and respond. Why not just stay on the United board and comment on United events over there...

[post="302868"][/post]​

Because if comments by idiots go unchallanged people may believe the unchallanged statement could be correct.

 

[Cosmo]

Cosmo & FWAAA:

I'm not going to debate this with you, ...

USA320Pilot:

And yet, you then proceed to do so.

... but you're wrong.

Answered in your usual pompous but unsupported way!

Will TED & its assets sold? I do not know. Is it being offered and discussed by the WHQ executive suite? Yesiree.

You have not offered even a single shred of evidence that such talks are now taking place -- if this had been reported in any other publication, you would have undoubtedly linked it to one or more of your posts here. Are we expected to believe that you are the only person in the entire world to whom this insider information has been leaked? That simply doesn't pass the "smell" test!

It's my understanding the United business plan calls for jet fuel prices equal to oil at $50 per barrel. Each $1 increase in the price of crude oil increases United's fuel bill by about $60 million per year. Thus, with Crude Oil Futures trading at about $67 per barrel, the United business plan needs to come up with over $1 billion per year additional cost cuts and revenue gains. Something has to be done or the creditors may not support the plan of reorganization (POR) and the potential new investors may not provide United with investment capital/exit financing.

As I have told you previously, I have more confidence in Tilton's ideas about the future price of oil than in your prognostications. After all, he was "only" the CEO of one of the world's largest oil companies prior to his coming to United, and he might still have a contact or two with just a little bit better knowledge of the oil industry than you could ever claim to have.

One approach could be to sell off domestic assets and turn over this flying to RJ operators (with EMB-170, EMB-190, and CRJ-900 flying) and its domestic code share partner, the expanded and new US Airways. This approach would keep some of the domestic revenue lost within the United corporate treasury instead of it going to a competitor, if there is one available with any cash to buy assets.

You continue to avoid the issue here. If US Airways were to acquire the United assets that comprise TED, would it continue to operate the current routes that feed United's hubs? If so, it doesn't make any business sense for US Airways because the current TED routes offer no network synergies to the "new" US Airways' route system. But if not, it doesn't make any business sense for United because -- and I'm going to "shout" this since you seem to be having trouble comprehending this concept -- THERE WOULD BE NO INCREMENTAL REVENUE FOR UNITED TO RETAIN! Thus, much to your chagrin, I'm sure, there will be no such deal between United and the "new" US Airways.

As you know different forms of United divesting of domestic operations has been discussed before with what the company code worded "Project Minnow" according to the news media, and I coined with the acronym UCT and then when the plan changed...called it the ICT.

These were all comments made from the perspective of US Airways. You have offered absolutely no proof that United took part in any of these discussions, much less that they were actually interested in selling any of their assets to US Airways at that time or subsequently.

Meanwhile, on September 27, eight days from now, the new US Airways will have one of the strongest balance sheets in the industry for an airline of its size, which is very important considering current fundamentals.

That's great, but it doesn't mean that United is selling anything!

By the way, if my comment has no merit than why even waste your time and respond. Why not just stay on the United board and comment on United events over there...

Are you really so dense that you can't comprehend why folks who are interested in United's future would respond to your comments about United on this board? And to repeat two quotes that I said to you about this illogical comment in my previous post:

I have no intention of letting this inane, ego-driven comment go unchallenged!

I and others respond to your "reports" because you like to imply that your super-secret "sources" give you knowledge that others don't have, and thus your facts (or even opinions) are above reproach. Yet in many cases, your posts are nothing more than self-centered, egotistical drivel ("I've been told this ...", "My sources say that ...", "There is reason to believe ...", etc., etc., etc.) with no factual support whatsoever. You actually expect people to believe that real sources would risk jail time to give insider information to a mere line pilot and yet not leak the same information to at least one well-regarded publication from among the WSJ, NYT, FT, FI, AW&ST, ATW and Aviation Daily, not to mention various Wall Street brokerage houses? And at least with regard to United, your "sources" have been wrong far more often than they have been right (I'm still waiting for that UA/US merger or the UCT/ICT). One can only conclude that your "sources", if they really exist at all, are actually using you as part of a disinformation campaign -- and you don't realize it.

BTW, using the "logic" in your comment quoted above, the fact that the SEC's Enforcement Division has not made you do a "perp walk" in handcuffs for discussing insider information on a public Internet bulletin board indicates that your statements are false!

And I'll keep repeating them as often as necessary!

 

[BoeingBoy]

As you know different forms of United divesting of domestic operations has been discussed before with what the company code worded "Project Minnow" according to the news media, and I coined with the acronym UCT and then when the plan changed...called it the ICT.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="302868"][/post]​

Apparently Cosmo got the conversation about right, at least if he had been talking about "Project Minnow" instead of Ted....

"He [Siegel] explored several options."

"* Acquire United Airlines, the nation's No. 2 carrier. That option was code-named "Project Minnow," with US Airways as the small fish gobbling the bigger one. "

"United did not have any interest in a deal and was too distracted by its own struggles in bankruptcy."

Shunned by UAL.....

See Story That USA320 Has Quoted Supporting Comments About Project Minnow

Jim

 

[TheLarkAscending]

I'm not going to debate this with you, but you're wrong.

:blink: .....and the laughs just keep on comin'! :blink:

One must keep in mind that the posted speculations are from someone desirous of attention, even negative attention ... if you view it as simply cheap entertainment, entertainment with no substance one can get a good chuckle. I am still hoping to learn the super secret handshake!

 

[USA320Pilot]

Yes, United did not want to proceed with the ICT, which was code worded Project Minnow, but they did come to CCY earlier this year and sought another merger. According to reports from people outside of CCY Bruce Lakefield rejected this latest attempt to merge the two companies and US Airways selected America West as its partner instead.

In regard to Siegel exploring several options, I understand he also talked with America West and Northwest, and for that matter he probably talked with other airlines too.

Nonetheless, I will never reveal a source and break their confidence, but let's put things into perspective.

I first discussed the UCT and then David Bronner publicly said in three separate interviews he was interested in buying United assets if it made sense for US Airways. Remember that? As events changed the two companies continued corporate combination discussions, which I labeled the ICT, and then the news media broke the news the two companies were talking again about US Airways gobbling up United (or some of its assets) in what the carrier's called "Project Minnow". Now they're talking again and I have been told its about the news US Airways buying domestic assets and TED was mentioned. Interestingly, this move would not trigger either companies ALPA 15% fragmentation clause, I have been told.

Will something occur? I do not know. Is it being discussed? Yesiree.

Finally, if I am wrong then why waste the time responding? If I am wrong then who cares? Right???????

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[767jetz]

Also does anyone know if this rumor about TED is true?

[post="301598"][/post]​

Here we go again. No, the Ted rumor is not true. There were 9 ridiculous pages devoted to this subjct in another thread.

Must we go there again?

 

[TheLarkAscending]

Paraphasing inserted here:  I said this, I said that, lather, rinse, repeat, ad nauseum.

No doubt about it, you are your biggest, if not your only fan!

 

[Cosmo]

USA320Pilot:

I'll keep this going as long as you want to talk about it.

Yes, United did not want to proceed with the ICT, which was code worded Project Minnow ...

"Did not want to proceed"????? Are you joking? You have offered absolutely no proof that United even took part in any of these discussions, much less that they were actually interested in selling any of their assets to US Airways at that time or subsequently. But thanks for conceding that "United did not want to proceed with the ICT."

I first discussed the UCT and then David Bronner publicly said in three separate interviews he was interested in buying United assets if it made sense for US Airways. Remember that?

I sure do. But do you remember that those were simply statements of interest by Bronner with absolutely no indication that there were any talks held with United to actually discuss the purchase of any of that carrier's assets by US Airways? And you have never provided any evidence that there were any such talks between the two carriers.

As events changed the two companies continued corporate combination discussions, which I labeled the ICT, and then the news media broke the news the two companies were talking again about US Airways gobbling up United (or some of its assets) in what the carrier's called "Project Minnow".

Sorry, but you're wrong (again). As I said in my previous post:

These were all comments made from the perspective of US Airways. You have offered absolutely no proof that United took part in any of these discussions, much less that they were actually interested in selling any of their assets to US Airways at that time or subsequently.

Now they're talking again and I have been told its about the news US Airways buying domestic assets and TED was mentioned. Interestingly, this move would not trigger either companies ALPA 15% fragmentation clause, I have been told.

Will something occur? I do not know. Is it being discussed? Yesiree.

I can't improve on what I said before (with emphasis added):

You have not offered even a single shred of evidence that such talks are now taking place -- if this had been reported in any other publication, you would have undoubtedly linked it to one or more of your posts here. Are we expected to believe that you are the only person IN THE ENTIRE WORLD to whom this insider information has been leaked? That simply doesn't pass the "smell" test!

Finally, if I am wrong then why waste the time responding? If I am wrong then who cares? Right???????

One more time for the slow learners:

Are you really so dense that you can't comprehend why folks who are interested in United's future would respond to your comments about United on this board? And to repeat two quotes that I said to you about this illogical comment in my previous post:

I have no intention of letting this inane, ego-driven comment go unchallenged!

I and others respond to your "reports" because you like to imply that your super-secret "sources" give you knowledge that others don't have, and thus your facts (or even opinions) are above reproach. Yet in many cases, your posts are nothing more than self-centered, egotistical drivel ("I've been told this ...", "My sources say that ...", "There is reason to believe ...", etc., etc., etc.) with no factual support whatsoever. You actually expect people to believe that real sources would risk jail time to give insider information to a mere line pilot and yet not leak the same information to at least one well-regarded publication from among the WSJ, NYT, FT, FI, AW&ST, ATW and Aviation Daily, not to mention various Wall Street brokerage houses? And at least with regard to United, your "sources" have been wrong far more often than they have been right (I'm still waiting for that UA/US merger or the UCT/ICT). One can only conclude that your "sources", if they really exist at all, are actually using you as part of a disinformation campaign -- and you don't realize it.

BTW, using the "logic" in your comment quoted above, the fact that the SEC's Enforcement Division has not made you do a "perp walk" in handcuffs for discussing insider information on a public Internet bulletin board indicates that your statements are false!

And I'll keep repeating these quotes as often as necessary!

 

[USA320Pilot]

If the report about TED and its assets being sold is not true, then why are the United employees expending so much energy on the US Airways board trying to dispel it? Why waste the time?

By the way, I wonder why US Airways is building its cash position, which will be one of the strongest, if not the strongest in the industry, for an airline of its size?

See Story

Regards,

USA320Pilot