Siegel Staying?

[D M G]

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.

How much can he be worth now? I thought 4.5m would be a decent amount of money for him.

I think he'll stay, unfortunately.

 

[MrAeroMan]

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.

Well I guess you could say that about any business but fortunately there are few that have track records like Wolf and Gangwal. You want to talk about corporate greed? Those two would be in the running with all the corporate crooks of the past half century to be that poster boy(s). I'll give you a parallel to put some insight on their perfomance. They're just like Icahn and Lorenzo in their damage to the airline industry.
I don't understand why those two always get a free pass when looking back at their track record. You're willing to give them a pass because they didn't have a crystal ball yet you blame the Daves for not making accurate forecasts about revenue during arguably one of the most tumultuous times in any industry? Don't get me wrong, the Daves have bumbled a lot when dealing with this whole situation but they can't be blamed for not forcasting what has happened. Even the so called Wall Street experts missed that one. <_<

 

[funguy2]

Well... I think Dave takes the money and runs. If US Airways fails, which looks more and more likely everyday, Dave will be unemployable as a CEO whether he goes down with the ship or not. The difference is that if he leaves in April, he gets $4.5mil to invest in the markets, or in a new business venture, or something where he still gets to be the boss, just not of a major company.

If Dave stays, that means he feels there is a 50/50 shot (or better) that US Airways becomes a successful company. Dave's only way to ensure his "employability" is for US Airways to be reinvented.

If Gordon Bethune's plan for CAL failed and CAL continued to flounder into oblivion, as its course clearly was at the time, he would be just as unemployable as the several CAL CEO's before him, all of whom made no change to the company's continued deteriorization during that period. Same thing with Dave at UAIR. He will be just as employable as the "failed" UAIR CEO's before him if UAIR fails. Dave's belief on this company's future will determine his action.

 

[mweiss]

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

I think it's the e.e.cummings way you both type. (i.e., no caps)

 

[mweiss]

I don't understand why those two [Wolf and Gangwal] always get a free pass when looking back at their track record.

I think it's because they weren't as high-profile, rub-the-world's-nose-in-it about their work.

 

[Iflyem]

Siegel staying or leaving?
It does not matter.......the good old boys network will take care of each other one way or another!

 

[EyeInTheSky]

I can hear Siegel's old lady now, "The airline is a shander David! Take the money! I wanna go to MYAMEEEE!"

 

[Art at ISP]

For what it's worth I do not think Dave is going anywhere unless pushed. Someone else thinks that if he leaves labor might come back to the table. Dave by himself is not the problem (although a big part). I think there are other executives who would have to leave along with him (no imagination required) in order to make the employees comfortable enough to come back to the table.

On the other hand, if he or they did leave, who would you get to replace him? I can't think of anyone who is available (or would take the job) who could pull this off by sheer strength of leadership.

There is nothing I want more than to see this company survive and become great again, but until the management comes to the conclusion that the employee is not the enemy here, I don't know how they can learn to work together and fix what needs to be fixed. And believe me there is plenty that needs to be fixed BEFORE they should ask labor back to the table.

My best to you all........

 

[Art at ISP]

I can hear Siegel's old lady now, "The airline is a shander David! Take the money! I wanna go to MYAMEEEE!"

With all due respect, Eye,

I believe the last remark was uncalled for. Ethnicity has nothing whatsoever to do with this situation.

I believe you're on thin ice with that comment.

 

[EyeInTheSky]

Art at ISP, give me a break. Even Seinfeld joked about "MYAMEEE". I guess we look at the world differently.

 

[Art at ISP]

Eye,

I am giving you a break--it may be funny, but it could be offensive to some (not to me).

Just a comment--nothing more nothing less.

Let's end it here and move on....

Thanks

 

[EyeInTheSky]

Art at ISP, no problem.

 

[PITbull]

I blame the Daves for what they have done to labor. Gangwal never would have done it this way. Never would he bring labor to the brink of poverty, take away benefits, destroy the morale and the quality of life of the employees, and violate all contracts along the way. No way. He told me so.

 

[2BorNot2B]

I thought it was "2B, or not 2B..."

Maybe I've been flying too much.

Hey!!!! ..... watch it!!!!!!

 

[diogenes]

Well, Bob, I like your plan a damsite better than anything else I've heard.

You need some help packing?