Siegel Staying?

[cavalier]

I just cannot understand why Richard Branson did not steal "Dave" , "the smart, young, talented, CEO" to run his new US start up?

Do I hear sarcasm?




I think Dave should and will leave with a little persuasion from big Dave.

It doesn't matter what his track record is in this corporate America of today, he has made himself a name, and good or bad makes no difference anymore. We have come to that point where right and wrong good and bad are blurred.

 

[BoeingBoy]

If I were Dave and had 4.5 mil in hand I'd be tempted to run, not walk, away. As for his paper profit in stock - where is it written that he doesn't take the stock with him?

Jim

 

[ktflyhome]

"To be or not to be, that is the question. Whether tis Nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outracious fortune or to take arms against the Sea of Troubles. And by opposing them to end them. That is the Question. To die, to sleep, to sleep no more, perchance to Dream.

 

[usfliboi]

"To be or not to be, that is the question. Whether tis Nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outracious fortune or to take arms against the Sea of Troubles. And by opposing them to end them. That is the Question. To die, to sleep, to sleep no more, perchance to Dream.

HUH??????

 

[Light Years]

That would be William Shakespeare, usfliboi. One of the most famous quotes of all time.

 

[Just Plane Crazy]

I just cannot understand why Richard Branson did not steal "Dave" , "the smart, young, talented, CEO" to run his new US start up?

Maybe Sir Branson is just a little smater than you think. <_<

Any how, Siegel is going to stay. He still has something up his sleve.

 

[ktflyhome]

You would say HUH????

 

[usfliboi]

yes i would ?

 

[etops1]

i would have to agree with pit on this one. the man is greety but not stupid. he is young and if he leaves and this company goes tits up no one will hire him as an executive in the future. he has alot to lose here. he is to young to go. if he was older like 68 or so i would say he is a goner. but he is i think 41 . so iwould not be surprised if he stays. but who knows.

 

[ktflyhome]

I am sorry everyone, including to the MOD"S, but this is just too weird. I just read Usflyboi and then I read etops 1. Now , everyone, tell me they look the same??????? Maybe I need to get some rest.

 

[morepower]

Wake up and smell the roses people! Dave already has more money than he'll ever spend. Unlike us, another few million isn't going to make any big difference in his lifestyle.

This is about ego. He won't go unless big Dave gives him the boot and I don't see that coming. Of course if the IAM or ALPA offers concessions in return for a change in management......how did the company put it....."everything is on the table."

 

[etops1]

I am sorry everyone, including to the MOD"S, but this is just too weird. I just read Usflyboi and then I read etops 1. Now , everyone, tell me they look the same??????? Maybe I need to get some rest.

i don't know what you are talking about. but i am NOT usfliboy. maybe you do need to get some rest.

 

[MrAeroMan]

Well, it could get worse...Piney Bob for CEO...naaahhh! You'd have to jab both my eyes with hot pokers before I would concede to that.


When Gangwal left in Nov. of 2001, U was not in this position. In fact, Wolf came out Jan. of 2002 in USA Today stating ...... U would probably not need an ATSB loan, we had 1 Billion in cash and that the co. was in the best position it had ever been in.


By April 2002, the revenue picture changed changed dramatically for all airlines. Siegel came on board as a replacment for Gngwal March 2, 2002, and the rest is a friggen history lesson.

Wolf and Gangwal.....hmmmm....isn't that the dynamic duo that blew about a billion bucks on a stock buyback that could've been used to pay down some debt or god forbid put away for a rainy day?? Aren't they 2 parts of the trio that left the company 35 million dollars poorer right before bankruptcy? Weren't they responsible for Parity plus one? I believe they also failed to have a plan if the United merger failed, never hedged any fuel, were extremely short sighted in their purchase of Airbus aircraft without taking into consideration total cost of ownership with mx costs for those planes over their lifetime (or not caring about it knowing they weren't going to be around to have to deal with it)? Let's see...where would they be when that bill came payable? That's right....counting the hundreds of millions of dollars they made and laughing at United asking themselves, "I can't believe they bought it!"
Wasn't Wolf the guy who went before Congress and talked out of both sides of his mouth yet we're supposed to believe what he said in Jan. 2002?

 

[ITRADE]

That one says it all...."We don't have a Plan B." Or how about "We don't believe in hedging."

 

[PITbull]

Wolf and Gangwal.....hmmmm....isn't that the dynamic duo that blew about a billion bucks on a stock buyback that could've been used to pay down some debt or god forbid put away for a rainy day?? Aren't they 2 parts of the trio that left the company 35 million dollars poorer right before bankruptcy? Weren't they responsible for Parity plus one? I believe they also failed to have a plan if the United merger failed, never hedged any fuel, were extremely short sighted in their purchase of Airbus aircraft without taking into consideration total cost of ownership with mx costs for those planes over their lifetime (or not caring about it knowing they weren't going to be around to have to deal with it)? Let's see...where would they be when that bill came payable? That's right....counting the hundreds of millions of dollars they made and laughing at United asking themselves, "I can't believe they bought it!"
Wasn't Wolf the guy who went before Congress and talked out of both sides of his mouth yet we're supposed to believe what he said in Jan. 2002?

AreoMan,

Well, you could say that about anything and anyone in business who made business decisions in the late 90's.

Hindsight is always 20/20 for all of us, isn't it.

If we all just had a crystall ball, we'd made millions in the late 90's and would have known when to sell all our stocks,

SO WE WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN STUCK WITH ANY LOSSES IN 2000 WHEN ALL OF WALLSTREET CAME TUMPLING DOWN FROM THE .COM BUBBLE.