Piecing Together The Us Airways Puzzle

[funguy2]

Pollock is definitely not running the show (if evidenced by nothing else than the pilots keep getting hammered), but USA320Pilot is correct that Siegel was fired.  I know this to be fact, and besides how else do you explain his rapid departure?

[post="252096"][/post]​

Failing company, lost credibility, $4.5mil incentive.

Edit: Actually $6.3mil incentive, if everything in the recent reports is true.

 

[DCAflyer]

Failing company, lost credibility, $4.5mil incentive.

[post="252100"][/post]​

Failing company and lost credibility were the primary reasons he was replaced.

 

[funguy2]

Failing company and lost credibility were the primary reasons he was replaced.

[post="252102"][/post]​

I thought Seigel was the primary person behind the Transformation Plan now being carried out by Lakefield?

If Seigel's plan was so bad, I would have expected to see Lakefield spend time coming up with a different solution. He did not, he implemented Seigel's plan... That tells me there is more than meets the eye.

Siegel became an ineffective leader. Giving more concessions to him had become impossible... That is why he was replaced. I think "fired" is a strong term. My recollection seems to indicate it was a technical firing, but the conversation between Bronner and Seigel was more of a "we both know what needs to happen"

At any rate, getting back to the point... USA320Pilot uses old references of people actively running the company to "prove" that US Airways will be the survivor in a merger. As I said earlier, if I were running the show, I would say the same thing. Since these guys are no longer running the show, there is no reason to believe their claims are still true. The fact that they are gone (BBB more so than Seigel, and lots of middle managers) indicates that those in charge of US Airways don't expect to be in charge of it for a long period of time and combined with better opportunities for many, they move on.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Siegel was fired.

[post="252096"][/post]​

I'm not disagreeing - it just always amuses me that the folks in the upper reaches of corporate America are never fired. It's always presented as "they resigned for personal reasons" or "to seek other opportunities".

Jim

 

[mweiss]

I'm not disagreeing - it just always amuses me that the folks in the upper reaches of corporate America are never fired. It's always presented as "they resigned for personal reasons" or "to seek other opportunities".

[post="252105"][/post]​

Just for the benefit of those who aren't already aware...

What typically happens is that the upper managers are told that they must choose between resigning now or being fired later. If they are fired, they generally lose a good chunk of their contractual benefits. Naturally, they will almost always choose to "resign."

It's one of the uglier elements of corporate upper management.

 

[BoeingBoy]

It's one of the uglier elements of corporate upper management.

[post="252107"][/post]​

I guess "ugly" is in the eye of the beholder - an ordinary employee who has outlived their usefulness seldom gets that option.....

Jim

 

[mweiss]

I guess "ugly" is in the eye of the beholder - an ordinary employee who has outlived their usefulness seldom gets that option.....

[post="252112"][/post]​

That's the ugly part...the inconsistent application.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Got it - just a little slow on the take today.....

😀

Jim

 

[USA320Pilot]

Funguy2:

Funguy2 said: "At any rate, getting back to the point... USA320Pilot uses old references of people actively running the company to "prove" that US Airways will be the survivor in a merger. As I said earlier, if I were running the show, I would say the same thing. Since these guys are no longer running the show, there is no reason to believe their claims are still true. The fact that they are gone (BBB more so than Seigel, and lots of middle managers) indicates that those in charge of US Airways don't expect to be in charge of it for a long period of time and combined with better opportunities for many, they move on."

USA320Pilot comments: I quoted Siegel and Baldanza becasue now they're no longer at the company. There are other's that say US Airways could be the surviving business entity too, but I cannot and will not breach their confidence in their current positions.

The issue is that this is a dynamic business and both companies are "in play". US Airways is now entertaining multiple exit financing options and it's unclear until the process clears how this will unfold.

As time goes on factors can change. However, we all know this: Siegel and Baldanza both commented that they were trying to acquire UAL assets and Bronner said in four separate interviews that he was interested in using RSA funds to buy United assets for US Airways. I did not occur because SARS and the Iraqi War both ended too soon.

Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see how this sorts out and with energy prices at new 4-month highs, this could happen sooner-than-later.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[mweiss]

"Surviving entity" can be slippery to define at times.

For example, in 2000 (?), NationsBank and Bank of America merged. Prior to the merger, Nations was headquartered in Charlotte. Bank of America was headquartered in San Francisco. The resultant company is called BankAmerica. Its headquarters is Charlotte. Its CEO used to be the CEO of Nations. All branches of the bank have signs out front that say "Bank of America." If you go to www.nationsbank.com, you are redirected to www.bankofamerica.com.

Who was the surviving entity?

 

[BoeingBoy]

"Bronner said in four separate interviews that he was interested in using RSA funds to buy United assets for US Airways."

If we're going to use Bronner's public statements as a guage of future events, maybe we need to consider what he has said more recently than almost a year ago.....

Bronner mentioned "liquidation" as recently as last fall/winter - that would seem to be more relevant than what he said in early 2004.

Bronner mentioned using select US assets to start "Bama Air" last fall - that would also seem to be more relevant than those much older remarks (especially as we are shedding assets)

Of course, all his remarks could be viewed in another context - negotiating ploys and nothing else.....

Jim

 

[savyinvestor]

USA 320 always spins in ways favorable to U and therfore, favorable to him. In addition, the end result is ALWAYS unfavorable to UAL. Why is that? Savy

 

[funguy2]

There are other's that say US Airways could be the surviving business entity too, but I cannot and will not breach their confidence in their current positions.

And the sky "could be" red, too. - Just because it is possible (in pure scientific terms, nothing is impossible), does not make it probable.

In fact, given all of the REAL facts, like the $200mil unrestricted cash loss in JANUARY, the requested amount of exit financing, the probable post-BK ATSB guaranteed loan covenents, etc, it is much more probable that US Airways will have trouble exiting BK than US Airways will acquire anything more than a stick of gum.

Furthermore, any effort US Airways makes to acquire other companies or parts thereof, is effort not expended at fixing its own problems.

 

[tug_slug]

(BTW I am no longer "involved with" UA so I am now just enjoying the freak show from the sidelines. )

[post="251251"][/post]​

Bear, it is a nice feeling isnt it?
BTW, IMO freak show is an understatement.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

I find this comment by Bob quite amazing.

Let the flame's begin  🙂

[post="252089"][/post]​

Um were you sticking up for me?