Mutual Support: The Paradigm

[funguy2]

Funguy2, did you miss this piece of "public" information?

So now I am confused. Do you have inside information or not?

Can't you make up your mind?

The article referenced RSA, but said nothing of the executive suite and attributed the RSA speculation to no one other than the author.

USA320Pilot comments: I recently asked Bruce Lakefield that question personally. Bruce said RSA was evaluating that decision indicating RSA would wait to make the decision until other parts of the POR were complete, presumably other equity investors coming forward. Lakfield said he and David Bronner speak every other day and he is here to protect RSA's investment. I do not have a personal relationship with David Brooner, so I cannot speak to his thoughts or comments.

The question was not who Lakefield speaks to everyother day, or anything else. The question was do you think RSA will make an investment.

Your refusal to answer a YES or NO question proves UVN's point. You will not commit to an opinion so you can change it later.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

Your refusal to answer a YES or NO question proves UVN's point.  You will not commit to an opinion so you can change it later.

[post="256274"][/post]​

Thank You Thank You Finally someone understands the game he plays.

Opinion or even his so called insider information calls.

 

[funguy2]

Blue Ridge:

It's my understanding there would be to many shares to buy and the labor contracts in itself, not to mention the new equity investors, makes it to expensive.

For example, the new ALPA deal gives the pilots 8.5% of the company alone.

The content of the labor agreements has no impact on whether the company is publicly or privately owned, that I know of. Is there some kind of clause which indicates that the contract is null if the company goes private or ALPA sells its stake?

I presume all shareholders can be bought out for the right price... that's capitalism.

Taking large public companies private is generally a very expensive thing, and usually requires a premium to be paid relative the the value of the stock. Of course, US Airways stock is just about worthless, and likely to be cancelled... So I don't know how taking a company private in BK would work... Presumably it would be difficult, since probably one person would have to become the sole creditor, presumably by paying off the other creditors in order to accumulate all the unpaid liabilities, thus become a sole owner up BK emergence... Or something like that.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Funguy2:

Funguy2 said: "Your refusal to answer a YES or NO question proves UVN's point. You will not commit to an opinion so you can change it later."

USA320Pilot comments: I do not know one way or another and to my knowldege nor does the "exeuctive suite". If I had a relationship with RSA or some other information indicating how David Bronner felt than I would voice my opinion.

For me to make a comment would be speculation instead of providing information, thus it would serve no useful purpose.

What do your "public" information sources indicate?

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

Anyone contact you yet 320?

 

[funguy2]

Funguy2:

Funguy2 said: "Your refusal to answer a YES or NO question proves UVN's point.  You will not commit to an opinion so you can change it later."

USA320Pilot comments: I do not know one way or another and to my knowldege nor does the "exeuctive suite". If I had a relationship with RSA or some other  information indicating how David Bronner felt than I would voice my opinion. Because the answer will be: Not USA320Pilot. He does not have a relationship with Dr. Bronner, thus cannot ask him his intentions.

For me to make a comment would be speculation instead of providing information, thus it would serve no useful purpose.

What do your "public" information sources indicate?

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="256286"][/post]​

A few points:

1. I was not asking you to repeat what Bronner, Lakefield, or anyone else tells you. I asked you for your own opinion. Apparently you do not have one. We will have to remember this when RSA decides to make an investment and you ask the question, "Who first told you that RSA would add additional equity to US Airways?"

2. You have explicitly stated in this thread that you know more than is reported. I guess you don't. Everyone knows that RSA COULD invest more. The question is will they. For someone with such a vast amount of insider information, I would expect you to at least know which way they are leaning.

3. Obviously the "public" record indicates that the jury is out. The public record should not say anything else. Why would the public record indicate that RSA will or will not, when according to you, even Bronner doesn't know?

 

[funguy2]

By the way... My opinion is that RSA will not invest more. I suspect RSA will not want to get burned again, and that Bronner has other better investments to focus on... Also, if RSA wanted to be involved, I suspect they would have said so by now. But I really don't know.

 

[Bear96]

For me to make a comment would be speculation instead of providing information, thus it would serve no useful purpose.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="256286"][/post]​

So, let me see if I am understanding you.

If your only comment on an issue would be "speculation," you don't comment on it?

 

[ClueByFour]

You continue to “grind your axâ€￾ since US Airways abandoned Pittsburgh, which is o.k., but I believe it’s a miserable way to live.

Nope. If you go back and check, I was lambasting CCY before that happened. That having been said, it's no skin from my teeth--I don't habitate in PIT anymore. Besides which, US will be run out of PIT in short order, although I would be suprised if that happens in totality before the liquidation. We'll see.

In regard to the operational meltdown, management did understand the company was running with short-staffing and made a mistake, but why should sick calls spike over Christmas anyway, year-after-year? Is it that sense of union entitlement you seem to support? I do not agree that there should be entitlement and the facts are the percentage of sick calls was higher last Christmas, even though the nubers were the same.

It does not matter why it happens (in an operational sense, anyway). It happens. Very early on at business school, they teach you not to let things like that (short staffing) happen regardless of the reasoning.

If a person is sick then they should stay home. If they’re healthy and scheduled to work, regardless of the event, and they call in sick they're dishonest.

I agree with that, however, there are two things which the pro-CCY crowd always misses:

1. People who are about to be out of a job generally speaking don't care. Regardless of the moral stance, it is going to happen. Failure to plan for it indicates a simple lack of very basic business acumen.

2. It happens year-over-year. I'd imagine that any analyst could have taken a look at the numbers and discovered what was going to happen in about 15 minutes (even keeping in mind #1, although as it turns out the numbers were actually lower.

It is simply called integrity and character.

Coming from a member of a union who is willing to toss it's young under the bus to keep a seat, I'm going to leave that gem alone for the gentle reader to ponder.

By the way, what does it matter where your work?

Lakefield is not running a profitable enterprise. I work at one (that sells things to US, and is in the unique position of not taking a hit if US folds).

Finally, Bruce Lakefield is a man of integrity, but how would you know since you most likely do not know him.

The fact that he lambasted the IAM in front of another labor group (in light of the feds report that it was entirely on CCY's shoulders) indicates a lack of integrity. Indicating that he does not only have no regard for contracts but considers them a "sense of entitlement" indicates both a lack of integrity and a titanic failure of leadership 101.

And kissing booty while he's on the jumpseat does not equate to "knowing" somebody.

P.S. Have you ever thought of taking "venom reduction" medication?

[post="256272"][/post]​

Quoting myself (from earlier in the thread):

I find it interesting that every time someone posts factual evidence that there is slant on just about everything you post (and represent as "fact" or a "paradigm") that you attack the poster in leiu of what he or she wrote.

If you would like, I can take a look at the posts in this thread and check them for the logical fallacies of debate. Sure was fun the last time.

 

[700UW]

A CEO who goes to court to force paycuts on his employees while he earned $1.1 Million and takes no cut, is not someone with integrity and charecter.

You want to see that click on this link:

United Ends Special Executive Retirement

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

So, let me see if I am understanding you.

If your only comment on an issue would be "speculation," you don't comment on it?

[post="256300"][/post]​

The absurdity of 320's statement was unreal. He really lost it today. I wouldn't doubt he is curled in fetal position sucking his thumb and rocking back and forth now. His world was rocked.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

Just one more point, which is being discussed in the "exeuctive suite.
Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="256210"][/post]​

USA320Pilot, you being close to the "executive suite" is about as fictional a scenario as you feeling up Pamela Anderson's deleted. It ain't happening and if it did you'd probably wouldn't know what to do at the ta-ta-top.

 

[jack mama]

I don't know that these deals predict the future shape of the industry. I think these deals are more focused on short term liquidity. US basically gets 250 million in cash in return Republic and Air Wisc get 8 years of flying at cost + 5 %, not a bad deal at all. In the end, US get a little cash to get over the hump, and the express feeders get costs paid plus at little profit.

 

[BoeingBoy]

in return Republic and Air Wisc get 8 years of flying at cost + 5 %

[post="256424"][/post]​

Are you saying you know for a fact that the agreements call for cost + 5%? Just curious since that's been redacted from both agreements.

Jim

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

Are you saying you know for a fact that the agreements call for cost + 5%? Just curious since that's been redacted from both agreements.

Jim

[post="256430"][/post]​

He is saying he knows for a fact jack.