Question

[Doc]

Thanks for all the feed back ...but why haven't we reported our 3rd quarter?
and if we show a small profit I can't wait to see what the judge says then.


sorry not to be in on the thread all the time but I work day and night to keep up.

 

[BoeingBoy]

UseYourHead,

"Unlike you, I believe the legal and financial advisors, and they shred your idea to bits...thats what I pay dues for. What makes you think your better than them, what qualifications and track record do you have?"

Ok, let's play "Who's right?"...

What did those advisors say about getting an agreement before BK1? Didn't they sat that such an agreement would protect us from further concessions "if" U entered BK?

Advisors - strike 1.

What did the advisors say about about making changes to the DB retirement plan during BK1? Didn't they say such changes would prevent it's termination?

Advisors - strike 2.

What did those advisors say about LOA 91? Didn't they say that GECAS was "nervous" about it's exposure to risk? Didn't they say that GECAS needed to move some of those RJ's elsewhere to mitigate that risk - even to our competitors? Didn't they say that GECAS would pull the financing for those RJ's otherwise? After LOA 91 passed, did GECAS move those RJ's anywhere? Did GECAS pull the financing when the RJ's didn't go elsewhere - like the affiliates? Did GECAS even provide the financing for all the RJ's in the first place?

Advisors - strike 3.

My turn at bat....

In the fall of 2003 were the advisors warning the the POR from BK1 wasn't working - I was (before Siegel said it in public).

One home run...

In the fall of 2003 were the advisors warning that the business model needed changing - I was (before Siegel's "new plan".

Two home runs...

In late 2003 were the advisors warning that we were on track to violate the ATSB-backed loan covenants - I was (before it was revealed that the covenants had been revised in Feb 04 at the cost of $250 million).

Three home runs...

During the winter of 2003-2004 were the advisors talking about the need to increase utilization of the fleet - I was.

Four home runs....

During the winter of 2003 were the advisors talking about the need to depeak the hubs to get the utilization up - I was.

Five home runs...

Did the advisors come up with the "1 cent reduction in CASM from increaded A/C utilization" - I did (and USA320Pilot has conveniently made it a new mantra but neglects two things - that saving is only from the A/C utilization and does not include reductions in CASM due to more efficient utilization of ground personnel and facilities - operate more flights with the same gnd personnel and that labor CASM goes down, operate more flights with the same number of gates and gate cost per seat mile goes down, etc. He also conveniently forgets that the saving is basically the same with recalled pilots and F/A's staffing the extra flying created)

Six home runs....

Is the game over yet????

Jim

ps - I wasn't the top of my high school class (too lazy), I didn't go to Harvard (too expensive), I don't have a lot of letters before or after my name. But as I've said before, this stuff isn't rocket science. All one has to do is dig a little. Or you can be told what to think by those who do have lots of letters in front of or behind their name, but who have nothing to lose one way or the other and a vested interest in making "worst case" predictions. After all, if you're not junior enough to face furlough (say flying international), not old enough to risk losing most of your retirement (say around 50), and not worried about retirement medical coverage (say because you have military medical coverage) you probably don't mind throwing the junior, the older, and those without medical options overboard trying to protect your job.