Reed Richards
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2009
- Messages
- 1,389
- Reaction score
- 1,161
Bingo. RR
Today's Proposed Merger Thoughts
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
Bingo. RR
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
More bullish price action in both the equity and derivative markets.
Insights on Block and Options Trading Activity for US Airways Group
See Story: http://www.avafin.com/articles/1025950.html
jimntx
Veteran
Punish Texas? He wishes. Considering that Texas is a good-sized portion of the business that the "old" AA is bringing to the "new" AA, Parker would be smart to do whatever is necessary to assuage the "hurt feelings" of the government officials in Texas. It's going to be hard enough just competing with WN when the Wright Amendment expires next year. I don't think he wants the state of Texas to be breathing down his neck watching every move he makes.
Don't forget that in addition to WN, the "new" UA (formerly known as the "old" Continental) flies everywhere in Texas that AA flies. There are resources available to travelers other than AA.
Reed Richards
Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2009
- Messages
- 1,389
- Reaction score
- 1,161
As usual Jim your logic is sound. But one link missing is you have little experiece with Doug Parker. You have no idea! RR
jimntx
Veteran
Oh, yeah. In the words of the immortal Emily Latella, "Never mind." 
An interesting analysis and proposed settlement:
http://www.aspireavi...s-merger-flaws/
http://www.aspireavi...s-merger-flaws/
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
PilotAction Merger News for US Airways & American Airlines: September 5, 2013
AMR-US Airways Suit to Block Merger Joined by Michigan
The new government complaint also cuts 29 routes from the list of city pairs that will allegedly have illegally high levels of concentration if the merger
See Story: http://www.bloomberg...html?cmpid=yhoo
Michigan joins antitrust lawsuit challenging the American Airlines-US Airways merger
See Story: http://aviationblog....ys-merger.html/
Michigan joins federal lawsuit to block American-US Airways merger
American and US Airways reiterated their readiness to present the benefits of the merger in court. "The decision of the Attorney General of Michigan to join the Department of Justice does not diminish the strength of our case, nor our determination to complete this transaction and deliver the benefits of the combination to the customers and communities we serve," the carriers said in a joint statement. "Both American Airlines and US Airways want the opportunity to compete together to enhance competition with the largest airlines in the U.S. – United, Delta and Southwest – and a number of fast-growing low-cost carriers. We look forward to our day in court."
See Story: http://blogs.star-te...ays-merger.html
Airline Pricing Power And The DOJ's Case
The DOJ case on the American and US Airways merger is flawed and represents an incomplete understanding of the economic and financial nature of the airline industry
See Story: http://seekingalpha....se?source=yahoo
Weil’s Miller `Confident’ on AMR-US Airways Merger (Audio)
See Story: http://www.bloomberg...html?cmpid=yhoo
S&P Upgrades US Airways To Strong Buy With Price Target Of $26
See Story: http://seekingalpha....26?source=yahoo
US Airways Reports Record August Load Factor
See Story: http://finance.yahoo...-120000537.html
JetBlue on marriage to US Airways: No, thanks
See Story: http://www.bizjourna...airways-no.html
FLAWS FOUND IN US DOJ LAWSUIT AGAINST AMERICAN/US AIRWAYS MERGER
See Story: http://www.aspireavi...s-merger-flaws/
USAPA Merger Committee (United-Continental Seniority Integration Award): September 5, 2013
On September 3, 2013, the arbitration panel hearing the seniority list integration dispute among the pilots of United Air Lines and Continental Airlinesissued its decision. The panel consisted of arbitrators Dana Eischen, Roger Kaplan and Dennis Nolan. Both pilot groups are represented by ALPA, and the proceeding was therefore conducted in accord with the provisions of ALPA Merger Policy that was in effect at the time of the merger.
The Continental Merger Committee was represented by Dan Katz; the United Merger Committee was represented by Jeffrey Freund. As with every seniority list integration arbitration award, this decision reflects that the decision was decided on the unique facts presented. A summary of the panel’s finding follows.
History and condition of the Airlines
The panel reviewed the history of both Continental and United and particularly focused on their performance over the last decade. The panel noted that Continental was profitable throughout the decade and that United incurred substantial losses in the earlier part of the decade but earned substantially higher profits than Continental in the past several years. The arbitrators ultimately concluded that neither airline was in a superior financial position over the other and noted that both airlines had determined a merger was necessary for their futures.
The panel noted the differences in the carriers’ operations, including that United had a larger long-haul international operation and a substantially larger wide-body fleet than Continental. The arbitrators noted, however, that Continental’s fleet was more technologically advanced than United’s older wide-body fleet.
Positions of the pilot groups
Concerning the two collective bargaining agreements, the panel observed that Continental had superior pay but United had more favorable work rules. The panel also noted that the larger United pilot group had more pilots on furlough and that United pilots had more longevity than the Continental pilots. United also had more captains and first officers per aircraft than Continental, due in part to staffing requirements for United’s international operations.
The parties’ proposals
The arbitrators summarized the Continental proposal as premised entirely on status (captain or first officer) and excluded category and longevity entirely from consideration. The Continental proposal also adjusted the population of captains and first officers at United based on an assertion that United’s operations were overstaffed. The Continental merger committee also adopted assumptions that reduced the number of United captains to the number of Continental captains assumed in the CAL proposal. The Continental committee also discounted all furloughed United pilots and placed them at the bottom of the integrated seniority list. The Continental proposal relied on conditions and restrictions to satisfy career expectations rather than through construction of the integrated list.
The United proposal reflected a “hybrid” model that combined longevity and status and category in constructing a list. The United committee initially constructed two preliminary lists, one utilizing solely longevity and the other utilizing just status and category. It then created a single integrated list from these two lists using a 50/50 weighting assumption for longevity vs. status and category.
The United proposal did not give Continental pilots any credit for longevity purposes for any time spent in service at Continental Express carriers. Thus, except for pilots whose seniority was merged by an integrated seniority list (ISL) arbitration, Continental pilots who came from a regional airline (such as Continental Express) were credited with longevity only from the date they began training to fly mainline aircraft for Continental mainline.
The United proposal included longevity in its methodology. In particular, United asserted that it would be contrary to ALPA Merger Policy, which explicitly lists “longevity” as one factor that “shall” be included in constructing “a fair and equitable integrated seniority list,” to staple the 1445 furloughed UAL pilots at the bottom of the ISL as proposed by the Continental committee. The United proposal therefore included these furloughed pilots in its overall proposal, but protected active Continental pilots from displacement through a standard “no bump/no flush” condition and restriction.
April 2009 Revised ALPA Merger Policy
As required under the ALPA Constitution, the arbitrators applied ALPA Merger Policy that was in effect at the time of the merger. In so doing, they explicitly addressed the amendments to ALPA merger policy which occurred following the Nicolau Award. The panel noted that “the most important amendment to Merger Policy that emerged from this process replaced the list of five goals that negotiators, mediators, and arbitrators were required to weigh in integrating seniority lists with three quite specific factors – longevity[,] status and category, and career expectations – which arbitrators are now required to consider.” In particular, the panel noted:
The most significant change in the policy, particularly in light of the decision that prompted the revision, was the express addition of “longevity.” We need not get into questions of what the committee members said during their deliberations. The words of the revised Merger Policy, when read in light of the context that gave rise to the change, plainly speak for themselves.
The panel explained that the “decision” and the “context that gave rise to the change” is the Nicolau Award and the dispute that followed it.
The arbitrators concluded they were required to use all three factors in constructing an integrated seniority list unless the particular case before them gave good reason for excluding a factor. They held that “all three listed factors are relevant, important and necessary to produce a fair and equitable ISL in this case.”
Conclusions about the parties’ proposals
The panel rejected the Continental proposal because in their view the proposal did not satisfy ALPA Merger Policy. The panel stated, “The primary failing of the CAL proposal's use of only status, to the virtual exclusion of all other Merger Policy factors, is that it unfairly, inequitably and disproportionately benefits one pilot group to the consequent detriment of the other.”
Concerning the Continental committee’s rejection of longevity as a basis for constructing an integrated list, and its proposal to staple United furloughees to the bottom of the integrated list, the panel stated, “United’s furloughees, in the main, had significantly greater longevity than the Continental furloughees. Those UAL furloughees brought substantial longevity to the merger, compared to the CAL pilots at the bottom of the CAL list. A proposal that completely ignores sweat equity longevity cannot be a plank in our ISL platform . . . . [T]otal disregard of the longevity factor cannot possibly be justified in the factual circumstances of this case.”
By contrast, the panel concluded that United’s hybrid proposal properly incorporated all three principles of ALPA Merger Policy and it adopted the UAL proposal with certain modifications to the weight accorded longevity vs. status and category, and with adjustments to the certified seniority lists used in constructing the integrated list.
The panel’s award
The panel adopted a “hybrid” approach to constructing an integrated list in which longevity, status and category, and career expectations were all accorded what the panel considered was appropriate weight. (Click here to read the award.) It modified the United proposal to give equal (50-50) weight to status and category vs. longevity to 65% for status and category and 35% for longevity. It concluded that only incorporating all principles of ALPA Merger Policy produced a fair and equitable list.
On the dispute concerning service at regional express affiliates of Continental, the panel rejected any period of service at an express carrier as counting toward mainline longevity. It concluded that Continental and Continental Express were separate companies for ALPA Merger Policy purposes, so only time in service at Continental would be counted in the integration. It counted only a date of hire at Continental for purposes of establishing a pilot’s date of hire. And it determined any furlough time from Continental be subtracted from length of service, even if the pilot flew at an express carrier during that time.
The panel rejected what it considered complicated or elaborate conditions and restrictions. It concluded that “arbitral attempts to ameliorate the inevitable career expectation distortions of an ISL based solely on one or the other method (date of hire or status and category) by means of elaborate and lengthy Conditions and Restrictions have proven counterproductive and only served to perpetuate the pre-merger disputes.” The panel adopted limited conditions, including a five-year widebody aircraft fence (that would sunset sooner with the delivery of the 25th B787) applicable to B747, A350 and B787 aircraft, that no pilot on furlough at the time the ISL is implemented may bump or displace any active pilot, and that new hires shall be junior to pilots on the ISL. The panel did not include any general fence, stating that “our Award seeks to achieve its goals of fairness and equity primarily through the construction and creation of the ISL itself, while awarding only standard and necessary conditions and restrictions of limited reach and duration.”
USAPA Merger Committee
AMR-US Airways Suit to Block Merger Joined by Michigan
The new government complaint also cuts 29 routes from the list of city pairs that will allegedly have illegally high levels of concentration if the merger
See Story: http://www.bloomberg...html?cmpid=yhoo
Michigan joins antitrust lawsuit challenging the American Airlines-US Airways merger
See Story: http://aviationblog....ys-merger.html/
Michigan joins federal lawsuit to block American-US Airways merger
American and US Airways reiterated their readiness to present the benefits of the merger in court. "The decision of the Attorney General of Michigan to join the Department of Justice does not diminish the strength of our case, nor our determination to complete this transaction and deliver the benefits of the combination to the customers and communities we serve," the carriers said in a joint statement. "Both American Airlines and US Airways want the opportunity to compete together to enhance competition with the largest airlines in the U.S. – United, Delta and Southwest – and a number of fast-growing low-cost carriers. We look forward to our day in court."
See Story: http://blogs.star-te...ays-merger.html
Airline Pricing Power And The DOJ's Case
The DOJ case on the American and US Airways merger is flawed and represents an incomplete understanding of the economic and financial nature of the airline industry
See Story: http://seekingalpha....se?source=yahoo
Weil’s Miller `Confident’ on AMR-US Airways Merger (Audio)
See Story: http://www.bloomberg...html?cmpid=yhoo
S&P Upgrades US Airways To Strong Buy With Price Target Of $26
See Story: http://seekingalpha....26?source=yahoo
US Airways Reports Record August Load Factor
See Story: http://finance.yahoo...-120000537.html
JetBlue on marriage to US Airways: No, thanks
See Story: http://www.bizjourna...airways-no.html
FLAWS FOUND IN US DOJ LAWSUIT AGAINST AMERICAN/US AIRWAYS MERGER
See Story: http://www.aspireavi...s-merger-flaws/
USAPA Merger Committee (United-Continental Seniority Integration Award): September 5, 2013
On September 3, 2013, the arbitration panel hearing the seniority list integration dispute among the pilots of United Air Lines and Continental Airlinesissued its decision. The panel consisted of arbitrators Dana Eischen, Roger Kaplan and Dennis Nolan. Both pilot groups are represented by ALPA, and the proceeding was therefore conducted in accord with the provisions of ALPA Merger Policy that was in effect at the time of the merger.
The Continental Merger Committee was represented by Dan Katz; the United Merger Committee was represented by Jeffrey Freund. As with every seniority list integration arbitration award, this decision reflects that the decision was decided on the unique facts presented. A summary of the panel’s finding follows.
History and condition of the Airlines
The panel reviewed the history of both Continental and United and particularly focused on their performance over the last decade. The panel noted that Continental was profitable throughout the decade and that United incurred substantial losses in the earlier part of the decade but earned substantially higher profits than Continental in the past several years. The arbitrators ultimately concluded that neither airline was in a superior financial position over the other and noted that both airlines had determined a merger was necessary for their futures.
The panel noted the differences in the carriers’ operations, including that United had a larger long-haul international operation and a substantially larger wide-body fleet than Continental. The arbitrators noted, however, that Continental’s fleet was more technologically advanced than United’s older wide-body fleet.
Positions of the pilot groups
Concerning the two collective bargaining agreements, the panel observed that Continental had superior pay but United had more favorable work rules. The panel also noted that the larger United pilot group had more pilots on furlough and that United pilots had more longevity than the Continental pilots. United also had more captains and first officers per aircraft than Continental, due in part to staffing requirements for United’s international operations.
The parties’ proposals
The arbitrators summarized the Continental proposal as premised entirely on status (captain or first officer) and excluded category and longevity entirely from consideration. The Continental proposal also adjusted the population of captains and first officers at United based on an assertion that United’s operations were overstaffed. The Continental merger committee also adopted assumptions that reduced the number of United captains to the number of Continental captains assumed in the CAL proposal. The Continental committee also discounted all furloughed United pilots and placed them at the bottom of the integrated seniority list. The Continental proposal relied on conditions and restrictions to satisfy career expectations rather than through construction of the integrated list.
The United proposal reflected a “hybrid” model that combined longevity and status and category in constructing a list. The United committee initially constructed two preliminary lists, one utilizing solely longevity and the other utilizing just status and category. It then created a single integrated list from these two lists using a 50/50 weighting assumption for longevity vs. status and category.
The United proposal did not give Continental pilots any credit for longevity purposes for any time spent in service at Continental Express carriers. Thus, except for pilots whose seniority was merged by an integrated seniority list (ISL) arbitration, Continental pilots who came from a regional airline (such as Continental Express) were credited with longevity only from the date they began training to fly mainline aircraft for Continental mainline.
The United proposal included longevity in its methodology. In particular, United asserted that it would be contrary to ALPA Merger Policy, which explicitly lists “longevity” as one factor that “shall” be included in constructing “a fair and equitable integrated seniority list,” to staple the 1445 furloughed UAL pilots at the bottom of the ISL as proposed by the Continental committee. The United proposal therefore included these furloughed pilots in its overall proposal, but protected active Continental pilots from displacement through a standard “no bump/no flush” condition and restriction.
April 2009 Revised ALPA Merger Policy
As required under the ALPA Constitution, the arbitrators applied ALPA Merger Policy that was in effect at the time of the merger. In so doing, they explicitly addressed the amendments to ALPA merger policy which occurred following the Nicolau Award. The panel noted that “the most important amendment to Merger Policy that emerged from this process replaced the list of five goals that negotiators, mediators, and arbitrators were required to weigh in integrating seniority lists with three quite specific factors – longevity[,] status and category, and career expectations – which arbitrators are now required to consider.” In particular, the panel noted:
The most significant change in the policy, particularly in light of the decision that prompted the revision, was the express addition of “longevity.” We need not get into questions of what the committee members said during their deliberations. The words of the revised Merger Policy, when read in light of the context that gave rise to the change, plainly speak for themselves.
The panel explained that the “decision” and the “context that gave rise to the change” is the Nicolau Award and the dispute that followed it.
The arbitrators concluded they were required to use all three factors in constructing an integrated seniority list unless the particular case before them gave good reason for excluding a factor. They held that “all three listed factors are relevant, important and necessary to produce a fair and equitable ISL in this case.”
Conclusions about the parties’ proposals
The panel rejected the Continental proposal because in their view the proposal did not satisfy ALPA Merger Policy. The panel stated, “The primary failing of the CAL proposal's use of only status, to the virtual exclusion of all other Merger Policy factors, is that it unfairly, inequitably and disproportionately benefits one pilot group to the consequent detriment of the other.”
Concerning the Continental committee’s rejection of longevity as a basis for constructing an integrated list, and its proposal to staple United furloughees to the bottom of the integrated list, the panel stated, “United’s furloughees, in the main, had significantly greater longevity than the Continental furloughees. Those UAL furloughees brought substantial longevity to the merger, compared to the CAL pilots at the bottom of the CAL list. A proposal that completely ignores sweat equity longevity cannot be a plank in our ISL platform . . . . [T]otal disregard of the longevity factor cannot possibly be justified in the factual circumstances of this case.”
By contrast, the panel concluded that United’s hybrid proposal properly incorporated all three principles of ALPA Merger Policy and it adopted the UAL proposal with certain modifications to the weight accorded longevity vs. status and category, and with adjustments to the certified seniority lists used in constructing the integrated list.
The panel’s award
The panel adopted a “hybrid” approach to constructing an integrated list in which longevity, status and category, and career expectations were all accorded what the panel considered was appropriate weight. (Click here to read the award.) It modified the United proposal to give equal (50-50) weight to status and category vs. longevity to 65% for status and category and 35% for longevity. It concluded that only incorporating all principles of ALPA Merger Policy produced a fair and equitable list.
On the dispute concerning service at regional express affiliates of Continental, the panel rejected any period of service at an express carrier as counting toward mainline longevity. It concluded that Continental and Continental Express were separate companies for ALPA Merger Policy purposes, so only time in service at Continental would be counted in the integration. It counted only a date of hire at Continental for purposes of establishing a pilot’s date of hire. And it determined any furlough time from Continental be subtracted from length of service, even if the pilot flew at an express carrier during that time.
The panel rejected what it considered complicated or elaborate conditions and restrictions. It concluded that “arbitral attempts to ameliorate the inevitable career expectation distortions of an ISL based solely on one or the other method (date of hire or status and category) by means of elaborate and lengthy Conditions and Restrictions have proven counterproductive and only served to perpetuate the pre-merger disputes.” The panel adopted limited conditions, including a five-year widebody aircraft fence (that would sunset sooner with the delivery of the 25th B787) applicable to B747, A350 and B787 aircraft, that no pilot on furlough at the time the ISL is implemented may bump or displace any active pilot, and that new hires shall be junior to pilots on the ISL. The panel did not include any general fence, stating that “our Award seeks to achieve its goals of fairness and equity primarily through the construction and creation of the ISL itself, while awarding only standard and necessary conditions and restrictions of limited reach and duration.”
USAPA Merger Committee
robbedagain
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2003
- Messages
- 11,125
- Reaction score
- 2,676
usa someone had already posted your link to the aspire aviat article relating to the flaws in the doj how soon do you think they and the airlines will come to a settlement
cltrat
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,481
- Reaction score
- 3,051
interesting article, no doubt one of our resident merger "experts" will be along shortly to tell us how the article is a pos and that company clueless....lol
cltrat
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,481
- Reaction score
- 3,051
though I don't know why they would want on B con part time in CLT when they could have the A con gates that Eagle currently has there.
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- Joined
- May 18, 2003
- Messages
- 8,175
- Reaction score
- 1,539
The DOJ filed their amended complaint in district court earlier today. Michigan joined six other states and the District of Columbia in the DOJ's. antitrust lawsuit seeking to block the merger from proceeding. In addition, Justice provided a concession by cutting 29 routes from the list of city pairs that allegedly have too high of levels of concentration if the merger proceeds
In response American and US Airways reiterated their readiness to present the benefits of the merger in court. "The decision of the Attorney General of Michigan to join the Department of Justice does not diminish the strength of our case, nor our determination to complete this transaction and deliver the benefits of the combination to the customers and communities we serve," the carriers said in a joint statement. "Both American Airlines and US Airways want the opportunity to compete together to enhance competition with the largest airlines in the U.S. – United, Delta and Southwest – and a number of fast-growing low-cost carriers. We look forward to our day in court."
According to the Dallas News:
Quoting from the amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that as a result of the merger:
(a) actual and potential competition between US Airways and American Airlines would be eliminated;
(B) competition in general among network airlines would be lessened substantially;
(c) ticket prices and ancillary fees would be higher than they otherwise would;
(d) industry capacity would be lower than it otherwise would;
(e) service would be lessened; and
(f) the availability of slots at Reagan National would be significantly impaired.
UPDATE, 5 p.m.: A quick review of the amended complaint and the original complaint shows little difference. Where we find changes, it is in the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index scores for the merger and for individual routes.
Here’s the lawsuit’s explanation of the HHI:
· Concentration in relevant markets is typically measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (“HHI&rdquo😉.
· Markets in which the HHI exceeds 2,500 points are considered highly concentrated. Post-merger increases in HHI of more than 200 points are considered to be significant increases in concentration.
· In more than 1,000 of the city pair markets in which American and US Airways currently compete head-to-head, the post-merger HHI would exceed 2,500 points and the merger would increase the HHI by more than 200 points. For example, on the Charlotte-Dallas city pair, the post-merger HHI will increase by 4,653 to 9,324 (out of 10,000).
· The original complaint put the change in HHI on the DFW-CLT route at 4,648, climbing to 9,319. Small difference, but a difference.
The amended complaint lists the change in HHI for 1,008 routes. The original complaint listed the change in HHI for 1,0443 routes. Those routes are “city pairs where the merger is presumptively illegal.” The original list included routes that the revised list has dropped. The revised list has routes that the original list did not.
Now we will wait for Rich Parker's response due on or before Tuesday, September 10th.
USA320Pilot
In response American and US Airways reiterated their readiness to present the benefits of the merger in court. "The decision of the Attorney General of Michigan to join the Department of Justice does not diminish the strength of our case, nor our determination to complete this transaction and deliver the benefits of the combination to the customers and communities we serve," the carriers said in a joint statement. "Both American Airlines and US Airways want the opportunity to compete together to enhance competition with the largest airlines in the U.S. – United, Delta and Southwest – and a number of fast-growing low-cost carriers. We look forward to our day in court."
According to the Dallas News:
Quoting from the amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that as a result of the merger:
(a) actual and potential competition between US Airways and American Airlines would be eliminated;
(B) competition in general among network airlines would be lessened substantially;
(c) ticket prices and ancillary fees would be higher than they otherwise would;
(d) industry capacity would be lower than it otherwise would;
(e) service would be lessened; and
(f) the availability of slots at Reagan National would be significantly impaired.
UPDATE, 5 p.m.: A quick review of the amended complaint and the original complaint shows little difference. Where we find changes, it is in the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index scores for the merger and for individual routes.
Here’s the lawsuit’s explanation of the HHI:
· Concentration in relevant markets is typically measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (“HHI&rdquo😉.
· Markets in which the HHI exceeds 2,500 points are considered highly concentrated. Post-merger increases in HHI of more than 200 points are considered to be significant increases in concentration.
· In more than 1,000 of the city pair markets in which American and US Airways currently compete head-to-head, the post-merger HHI would exceed 2,500 points and the merger would increase the HHI by more than 200 points. For example, on the Charlotte-Dallas city pair, the post-merger HHI will increase by 4,653 to 9,324 (out of 10,000).
· The original complaint put the change in HHI on the DFW-CLT route at 4,648, climbing to 9,319. Small difference, but a difference.
The amended complaint lists the change in HHI for 1,008 routes. The original complaint listed the change in HHI for 1,0443 routes. Those routes are “city pairs where the merger is presumptively illegal.” The original list included routes that the revised list has dropped. The revised list has routes that the original list did not.
Now we will wait for Rich Parker's response due on or before Tuesday, September 10th.
USA320Pilot
nycbusdriver
Veteran
The author of this article, Vaughn Cordle, posts this disclaimer:
"Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, but may initiate a long position in UAL, DAL, JBLU, LUV, SAVE, HA, ALK, ALGT over the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. I, Vaughn Cordle, CFA, am the sole author of this premium article. Thanks Vaughn."
That may be true, and the article (at least page one) seems pretty even-handed, which surprised me since Mr. Cordle is well known in aviation circles as CAPTAIN Cordle of UAL 777 note.
Similar threads
