Mda Pilot Class & Ted

[767jetz]

I heard from a reliable source today that UA will be getting new Airbus aircraft (ie. 320's & 321's) upon emergence from BK. This flies in the face of another posters speculation that UA assets including TED's 320s are up for sale due to a need for cash and unrealistic fuel assumptions. (What a rookie! For Goodness sake, our CEO is a former OIL exec. Get with the program man!)

The only way the "TED sale" rumor could have any slight connection to the truth is if UA decides to sell some 320s and replace them with a "sweetheart deal" lease from Airbus. Obviously this kind of sale would not require a transfer of personnel because the net gain in epuipment.

Also look for the possibility of UA getting 747 frieghters via purchase, aquisition, or merger in the future. (Atlas and Polar Air Cargo come to mind )

 

[USA320Pilot]

767jetz,

Two points:

If the TED report has no merit than why are wasting so much of your time trying to dispute it? Why even bother? Don't you more important thing to think about like how to get out of bankruptcy.

Separately, this forum is about US Airways, and since Bruce Lakefield chose America West as partner over United, a discussion of what United is doing belongs on the United forum.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[Fly]

Then why did you post it?

So you say AW chose US over UAL, right? Then isn't it true that AW is the aquiring airline and YOU should be getting the giant staple?

 

[Cosmo]

If the TED report has no merit than why are wasting so much of your time trying to dispute it? Why even bother?

As I posted seven pages ago:

Well, I guess anything is "possible." But you haven't provided any evidence that such a transaction is likely. And you never responded to a comment I made on this topic a few days ago in the "Unprecedented Change" thread, as quoted below:

Second, on top of everything else, the "sale" of TED (ignoring for the moment that there is nothing to "sell" other than individual A320 aircraft or the rights to the name "TED") by United to the "new" US Airways doesn't make any business sense. If US Airways were going to use TED to continue serving its current routes feeding United's hubs, which can be the only basis for your claim that United would continue to receive incremental revenue, there would be no added benefit to the US Airways system to justify draining some portion of the carrier's precious cash holdings with this purchase. On the other hand, if US Airways were to move the TED flights away from feeding United's hubs, there would then be no incremental revenues for United to receive. Thus, as I said above, this deal makes no business sense and is exceedingly unlikely to happen.

Why do YOU bother?

 

[BoeingBoy]

Gee, Cosmo, haven't you figured it out yet?

If anybody disagrees, it's proof that it's true.

If nobody disagrees, it's proof that it's accepted as true.

Simple really......

Jim

 

[Cosmo]

BoeingBoy:

Thanks for the clear explanation of USA320Pilot's "Heads-I-Win, Tails-You-Lose" discussion philosophy.

And one other comment:

Separately, this forum is about US Airways, and since Bruce Lakefield chose America West as partner over United, a discussion of what United is doing belongs on the United forum.

But YOU keep maintaining that United is discussing the sale of its TED operation to the "new" US Airways, which makes it a topic for this forum as long as YOU continue to post YOUR unsubstantiated rumors here. Do YOU understand now?

 

[TheLarkAscending]

Do YOU understand now?

You're using logic! Try to remember :blink: for whom :blink: you are applying this logic and then your level of frustration should diminish exponentially.

 

[767jetz]

If the TED report has no merit than why are wasting so much of your time trying to dispute it? Why even bother? Don't you more important thing to think about like how to get out of bankruptcy.

Separately, this forum is about US Airways, and since Bruce Lakefield chose America West as partner over United, a discussion of what United is doing belongs on the United forum.

[post="307079"][/post]​

Enough people have blown you right out of the water with last few post, (ouch! the truth hurts, doesn't it?) but what the heck... I'll add my 2 cents.

I'll try to go slow so you can keep up. OK?

1. I'm really not wasting that much time. With wireless technology it's pretty easy to kill a few minutes between flights, or even at the poolside in Maui! Besides, it really doesn't require much brain power to dispute you. You make that pretty easy. Thanks.

2. This thread has TED in the title, which pretty much makes it fair game. Even you should be able to comprehend that.

3. Why do YOU waste so much time posting unsubstantiated claims? Would you like to compare who posts the most crap WRT United Airlines? Go ahead... I double-dog-dare you.

4. If you are so sure that your speculations and rumors are valid, why do you bother debating it. Why not just let people dispute your claims and sit back and let it all unfold? Why do you waste so much time disputing those who dispute you?

You see... people who are misinformed and insecure get very nervous and very defensive when others present opposing facts or opinions. That's because discussion and debate may reveal their true self, and that can be very scarey. So why are you so defensive?? tsk, tsk, tsk... what a shame. (Don't worry. I understand your dilema quite well. )

 

[USA320Pilot]

All the points listed above do not matter because United is shopping around assets. This is not the first time United ahs been in asset divestiture discussions and it's not the first time US Airways & United have held corporate transaction discussions. Thus, why be surprised or emotional...it's just business.

Again, if my comments have no value then why all of the emotion by the United employees? If it's not going to happen then why waste the bandwidth and time? After all, there is going to be no deal, right?

Will a deal happen? I do not know. Is it being discussed? I have been told by informed people yes.

In my opinion, this has more to do with US Airways' stated intention to grow the Midwest. Prior to leaving US Airways, Bruce Ashby told the ALPA MEC that a Midwest hub located between the pre-merger America West and US Airways principal operations would create 3 to 4 passenger connecting opportunities per day and cause a revenue shift from other carrier's.

Following much of the merger integration, I believe the Midwest will see expansion and possibly a Hub/Focus City. I have been told with a lot of money that operation could be in ORD or DEN, assuming assets are obtained from another company or if not then STL is an option. In my opinion, a better option for US Airways than United would be Frontier in a couple of years.

What I find interesting is that the Untied employees come out of the woodwork every time I announce a corporate transaction occur, such as when I first posted the 2000 merger was going to be announced, or the AMR carve out, or the UCT, or Project Minnow (the ICT), etc.

Meanwhile, earlier this week ALPA MEC chairman attended the Wings luncheon in New York City where Doug Parker was the guest speaker. Following the luncheon Bill came to the ALPA LGA LEC meeting and said that the new US Airways is the third best capitalized airline in the world. In addition, Doug Parker was in BOS earlier this month and told Shuttle personnel he was in town seeking a significant amount of additional money.

My question is why is Parker seeking more funds?

Regards,

USA320Pilot




Regards

 

[ebwgs]

My reliable sources tell me that the UCT US Airways was negotiating was not labeled "Project Minnow" but that it was in fact the USS Minnow. US had designs on turning the island into a major hub for conducting their revamped version of the three hour tour. Those plans however were permanently sidetracked by the untimely death of that mighty sailor man. May Gilligan and "Project USS Minnow" rest in peace.

 

[FWAAA]

In addition, Doug Parker was in BOS earlier this month and told Shuttle personnel he was in town seeking a significant amount of additional money.

My question is why is Parker seeking more funds?

[post="307388"][/post]​

Probably because $2/gallon JetA is likely to bankrupt the new USAirways within a few short months unless the price drops substantially or unless LCC can attract a few hundred million to pay for gas.

It's not so LCC can buy UAL's A320s. That's for certain.

 

[ClueByFour]

Probably because $2/gallon JetA is likely to bankrupt the new USAirways within a few short months unless the price drops substantially or unless LCC can attract a few hundred million to pay for gas.

It's not so LCC can buy UAL's A320s. That's for certain.

[post="307395"][/post]​

FWAAA,

Your commens are accurate.

 

[BoeingBoy]

In addition, Doug Parker was in BOS earlier this month and told Shuttle personnel he was in town seeking a significant amount of additional money.

[post="307388"][/post]​

The stock offering and senior note placement were finalized earlier this week - coincidence?

On the fuel, I see AMR is cutting 15 roundtrips from their schedule in October due to high fuel prices. CAL is "studying the October schedule" and has increased fares $10 due to fuel.

With fuel being where it is, a lot more money is going out the tailpipe than forecast just a short month ago.....

Jim

 

[Cosmo]

All the points listed above do not matter because United is shopping around assets.

USA320Pilot:

The smug, "know-it-all" attitude of this statement is simply breathtaking. Beyond that, it is merely another in a continuing series of unsubstantiated rumors that you've posted.

Again, if my comments have no value then why all of the emotion by the United employees? If it's not going to happen then why waste the bandwidth and time?

Precisely because your comments have no value beyond stating your opinion, and others are responding to that. And in case you haven't noticed, most of the people responding to your posts are not United employees. BTW, where are all of the posts by people supporting your position?

After all, there is going to be no deal, right?

IMHO, you've finally gotten something right!

Will a deal happen? I do not know. Is it being discussed? I have been told by informed people yes.

This is actually the part I like best (and why I view this back-and-forth "discussion" as entertainment).

Essentially, you're telling everyone else to defer to your judgement regarding the veracity of the information given to you by these "informed people" (assuming that they exist at all, which is a whole other "fantasy-football-in-the-air" subject). But you have given no explanation whatsoever detailing why these "informed people" would pass along such information to somebody like you that has a well-known (and well-earned) reputation of leaking virtually any supposed inside information, real or not, that you obtain. Thus, we can only conclude that these "informed people", if they exist at all, are informed enough to know your modus operandi and are therefore feeding you disinformation, and you don't know enough (or care enough) to realize it.

This conclusion is supported by two observations:

1. This information has appeared in no other publication anywhere else on the planet, and it doesn't pass the "smell" test that you, a mere line pilot, would be the only person in the entire world that would receive such leaked information. For you to claim otherwise would be laughable.

2. You haven't done a "perp walk" in handcuffs courtesy of the SEC's Enforcement Division for publicly divulging actual insider information. Based on this fact, your "information" cannot possibly be true.

Of course, there is one other possibility -- that you're simply making this all up as you go. Which is it?

So to use your favorite fractured syntax, when would now be a good time to drop this subject?

 

[767jetz]

All the points listed above do not matter because...

[post="307388"][/post]​

Translation 1: I don't like your view so I refuse to hear what you are saying. (picture small, spoiled child with hands over ears.)

Translation 2: I know you are, but what am I?

Either way you are being child-like.

Again, if my comments have no value then why all of the emotion by the United employees? If it's not going to happen then why waste the bandwidth and time? After all, there is going to be no deal, right?

[post="307388"][/post]​

This is a common tactic used by narcissists or otherwise abusive people. (ie: bullies) It is refered to as redirecting, and consists of accusing your target of the exact behavior you are guilty of. (Look it up in any psychology text book or even on the web.)

Once again, you are accusing others of being emotional and wasting time, when in fact it is you who is emotional and wasting time. If your claims are factual, why waste the time or bandwidth debating it. Just state it once and let people dispute it all day long. Doesn't matter what we say because it's going to happen anyway, right? And if not, you can always claim that circumstances changed but it was being discussed at the time, right?

In my opinion, a better option for US Airways than United would be Frontier in a couple of years.

[post="307388"][/post]​

You can say that again! Finally something I agree with.

What I find interesting is that the Untied employees come out of the woodwork every time I announce a corporate transaction occur, such as when I first posted the 2000 merger was going to be announced, or the AMR carve out, or the UCT, or Project Minnow (the ICT), etc.

[post="307388"][/post]​

Nobody is coming out of the woodwork. Just like you, there are many people on this forum who have an intertest in aviation (hence the name of theis web site). Just like you, many people have opinions and speculations based in part on rumor, logic, experience, knowledge, etc. Just as you claim, (or I should say, unlike you) many people even have sources and connections far beyond what you can comprehend or imagine.

But it is flattering that you find us all so important as to debate us so obsessively, and that you seem to need our approval of what you claim, in order to feel important too.

My question is why is Parker seeking more funds?

[post="307388"][/post]​

Hmmmmmm. Could it be that Parker's assumption of fuel costs just a few weeks ago has now proven to be unrealistic? Could it be that he knows that the real challenge in the coming months will be employee integration, and he must keep moral up by implying a grandious future even in the face of adversity?