Ual For Sale

[Ukridge]

In this I have to follow Wittgenstein's famous dictum of "About that which we cannot speak we must remain silent." That having been said however, I do find the interplay of deductive and inductive reasoning rather interesting, although for me, it always seems to come back to the question of just how much any one government is deciding to intervene. It certainly appears that it does, even if in a passive manner. The only way it could not, would be if there were unlimited runway and airport space. The free market seems to be able to ration these resources to a cetain extent but not perhaps rapidly enough - one look no further than Heathrow to see what happens when intervention comes a begging. Sure the winnowing will occur, but at what cost in delay and saturation before it occurs - and then of course, how long before a new cycle starts? Is the goal to serve just the consumer or rather the economy (and in turn the consumer) in toto?
Also, is not Phoenix served by both the Crown and the Bund? I used to hear radio promos from BA touting a trip to the West.
Cheers

 

[mrfish3726]

It's time the government allowed the legacy carriers to compete with the protected and subsidized LCC's.

And you say it's Airbus? What of UniTEDS fleet of how many hundred airbus aircraft? So UniTED isn't susidized by Airbus to?????? What protection does SWA, JB, AIRTRAN, F9, ATA, FYI, OR ATA have and FROM whom??? They compete with you everyday, and threaten your legacies more and more everyday!!!!

Post all your proof that ANY LCC is getting government help? That any LCC is reaping the rewards for picking Airbus as their primary fleet aircraft? So if SWA is only flying Boeing and kicking everyones in the profit game does that mean maybe Boeing is giving handouts to SWA??? Or is it that SWA actually has some focus on what they want to do stay competitive and thrive, unlike UniTED management!

You guys at UniTED will try to blame all the legacy carriers ills on the LCC's when in reality its your own management and YOUR ultimate greed that has put UniTED in jeopardy. You fricking folks over at UniTED are AMAZING!!!!

 

[WorldTraveler]

UK,
I too surely didn't want to jump into the middle of this little fray but I have to ask driver where he thinks UAL is going to get a fleet of anywhere close to 500 new technology aircraft for $6B in debt? And remember that the way you have used debt for DAL and AMR includes leases. Also, AMR and DAL both have regional carrier debt and ownership on their balance sheets - no such luck for UAL.
Finally, no one seems to want to consider Mike Palumbo's statement (he is the CFO at DL and "did time" at Pan Am, TWA, and Western as I recall) that terminating pensions has not delivered anywhere close to the cost savings at any of those airlines that was predicted. Further, a trip to bankruptcy is certain to wipe out tax carry forwards which are worth billions of dollars. DL says it is worth staying out of bankruptcy to protect its tax benefits. He essentially says he would rather pay pensions for his employees and not pay taxes. I bet his employees prefer that approach. Even if he is at a competitor, his approach certainly requires consideration.
What say you?

 

[Busdrvr]

'Further, a trip to bankruptcy is certain to wipe out tax carry forwards which are worth billions of dollars. DL says it is worth staying out of bankruptcy to protect its tax benefits.'

Then apparently Mr. Palumbo is an idiot. IRS code Section 382 makes certain conditions for NOL carry-over, and UAL has been very careful to protect them.

(he is the CFO at DL and "did time" at Pan Am, TWA, and Western as I recall)

Oh wait, never mind, that proves it....

that terminating pensions has not delivered anywhere close to the cost savings at any of those airlines that was predicted.

it's not the 'cost savings', it's the CASH savings.

I too surely didn't want to jump into the middle of this little fray but I have to ask driver where he thinks UAL is going to get a fleet of anywhere close to 500 new technology aircraft for $6B in debt?

I'm thinking from the same place an airline with $20 billion in debt goes to get aircraft. :blink:

Also, AMR and DAL both have regional carrier debt and ownership on their balance sheets - no such luck for UAL.

Luck? being forced to use the highest cost regional carriers in the US because you own them is somehow a benefit? GMAFB. If UAL wanted to own a regional, they'd just create one, give them the 'contract', and wallah. BTW, U owns a whole bunch of it's on regional lift also...

 

[Busdrvr]

Well, should AMR and UAL be the only ones allowed at ORD?

Just razzing you, but as I mentioned earlier, between the two of you, AA and UAL, you have how many percentage wise of the flights, control how many of the gates?

Just of of curiosity, since you seem to know: How many flights was UAL forced to give up and how many new flights have been added by others?

[post="251879"][/post]​

No, they just shouldn't be the only ones forced to CUT flights out of ORD. I'm not sure on the exact numbers, but they were proportional to total share of departures, so UAL took a higher number hit than AMR.

 

[Busdrvr]

It's time the government allowed the legacy carriers to compete with the protected and subsidized LCC's.

And you say it's Airbus? What of UniTEDS fleet of how many hundred airbus aircraft? So UniTED isn't susidized by Airbus to?????? What protection does SWA, JB, AIRTRAN, F9, ATA, FYI, OR ATA have and FROM whom??? They compete with you everyday, and threaten your legacies more and more everyday!!!!

Post all your proof that ANY LCC is getting government help? That any LCC is reaping the rewards for picking Airbus as their primary fleet aircraft? So if SWA is only flying Boeing and kicking everyones in the profit game does that mean maybe Boeing is giving handouts to SWA??? Or is it that SWA actually has some focus on what they want to do stay competitive and thrive, unlike UniTED management!

You guys at UniTED will try to blame all the legacy carriers ills on the LCC's when in reality its your own management and YOUR ultimate greed that has put UniTED in jeopardy. You fricking folks over at UniTED are AMAZING!!!!

[post="251917"][/post]​

Fish, thanks again for confirming my contention that the residents of Denver are far from smart. Just WTH are you talking about? :blink: :huh:

 

[jimntx]

No, they just shouldn't be the only ones forced to CUT flights out of ORD. I'm not sure on the exact numbers, but they were proportional to total share of departures, so UAL took a higher number hit than AMR.

[post="251974"][/post]​

I couldn't agree with you more! I can't imagine what benefit the FAA expected to accrue to the delay problem at ORD when they allowed everyone except AA and UAL to increase flights.

I am afraid that if the FAA decides to get serious about fixing the problem at ORD, they will look at the AA/UAL dominance there, decide that only we have to cut flights, but not allow others to increase flights. (IMHO, this scenario is the reason AA keeps STL as a hub. If flights are banned from ORD, we will have a place to put them without major disruption to schedules.)

 

[Busdrvr]

I couldn't agree with you more! I can't imagine what benefit the FAA expected to accrue to the delay problem at ORD when they allowed everyone except AA and UAL to increase flights.

I am afraid that if the FAA decides to get serious about fixing the problem at ORD, they will look at the AA/UAL dominance there, decide that only we have to cut flights, but not allow others to increase flights. (IMHO, this scenario is the reason AA keeps STL as a hub. If flights are banned from ORD, we will have a place to put them without major disruption to schedules.)

[post="251991"][/post]​

Jim, please, two times in agreement with a AMR employee and F/A in only one string... stop it!! people will talk!! . thanks for the info on ATL, I remember all the hoopla when it was built. Getting the rest of the story was rather interesting. Back when UAL was to buy U, I figured AMR was looking to move operations to STL. More money to be made as 1# there than #2 elsewhere (look at UAL in MIA....)

 

[jimntx]

Back when UAL was to buy U, I figured AMR was looking to move operations to STL. More money to be made as 1# there than #2 elsewhere (look at UAL in MIA....)

[post="251992"][/post]​

Oh if only the reason had been that business-like. If you ask me, the reason AA bought TWA was because one D. Carty couldn't stand the idea that a UAL-U merger would have resulted in an airline bigger than AA. And, TWA was the largest airline at the time that was possibly for sale. I believe the Graduate School of Business technical explanation is that it became a p*ssin' contest.

 

[Busdrvr]

Oh if only the reason had been that business-like. If you ask me, the reason AA bought TWA was because one D. Carty couldn't stand the idea that a UAL-U merger would have resulted in an airline bigger than AA. And, TWA was the largest airline at the time that was possibly for sale. I believe the Graduate School of Business technical explanation is that it became a p*ssin' contest.

[post="251998"][/post]​

Oh, but don't forget, the agreement called for UAL to remain "slightly' larger than AMR, and yes, that is the correct term...

 

[mweiss]

In this I have to follow Wittgenstein's famous dictum of "About that which we cannot speak we must remain silent."

And, apparently, busdrvr has decided he cannot speak about anything more with me. Anyway...

...for me, it always seems to come back to the question of just how much any one government is deciding to intervene. It certainly appears that it does, even if in a passive manner.

No doubt. This is the point to which I find myself returning often, that the rules are often laid out with no intention of inequities, yet inevitably they hurt some more than others.

Also, is not Phoenix served by both the Crown and the Bund? I used to hear radio promos from BA touting a trip to the West.
Cheers

[post="251898"][/post]​

Indeed they are, or at least they were the last time I paid any attention to it. My favorite destination for BA remains SAN. With their unique runway and approach configuration, it must be quite a sight to see those BA jumbos landing there.

 

[casual rat]

It's time the government allowed the legacy carriers to compete with the protected and subsidized LCC's.

And you say it's Airbus? What of UniTEDS fleet of how many hundred airbus aircraft? So UniTED isn't susidized by Airbus to?????? What protection does SWA, JB, AIRTRAN, F9, ATA, FYI, OR ATA have and FROM whom??? They compete with you everyday, and threaten your legacies more and more everyday!!!!

Post all your proof that ANY LCC is getting government help? That any LCC is reaping the rewards for picking Airbus as their primary fleet aircraft? So if SWA is only flying Boeing and kicking everyones in the profit game does that mean maybe Boeing is giving handouts to SWA??? Or is it that SWA actually has some focus on what they want to do stay competitive and thrive, unlike UniTED management!

You guys at UniTED will try to blame all the legacy carriers ills on the LCC's when in reality its your own management and YOUR ultimate greed that has put UniTED in jeopardy. You fricking folks over at UniTED are AMAZING!!!!

[post="251917"][/post]​

Chum, SW has fuel hedging advantages, otherwise their profits would have been substantially less. It has nothing to do with Boeing. The fact of the matter is: LCCs have lower costs, since their workforces are younger/less experienced (as a rule). The LCCs don't have as many layers of Mngmt, their Maintenance Costs are less (because their Fleet is younger). So, instead of Marketing the differences between points A and B, the legacies try to match fares of companies with lower cost structures. The LCCs take less in profits in order to cripple older carriers (their plan seems to be working). The Legacies respond by asking employees for concessions (placing a band-aid on the wound, demoralizing the workplace), and go into BK in order to adjust their costs to compete with the LCCs.
As soon as a couple of carriers fail, the LCCs will raise their fares, still maintain low costs, and service will be less than the past brought to the customer. It's predatory pricing in reverse. The LCCs are just as greedy as anyone else. As a matter of fact, some of the LCCs are going to be in hot water as well, since their profit margins aren't enough to pay for their costs either.
I still think an F9 merger with UA makes sense--spelling/grammar tests a prerequisite! Sorry for being redundant!

 

[Busdrvr]

"And, apparently, busdrvr has decided he cannot speak about anything more with me. Anyway..."

Sorry, i don't have the time or inclination to do here what you were willing to do over on the AMR board, and that's to continue to explain over and over again to someone unwilling to understand a very basic concept to the toon of around 20 pages in one string....

But I'll give you insight on your last reply:

Oy. Talk about revisionism! They entered the market because capacity opened up when EA ceased operations. Atlanta was a rapidly growing city back before 1978, when the CAB decided where you flew.

Back at the time, you didn't need a hub carrier to have flights to more locations. now you do. As Jim pointed out, the airport was a primary driver of ATL growth. If you need someone to explain that MSP benefits GREATLY from NWA, then I'll also need to explain that the sky is blue.

So if it's a legacy, it's the cause of prosperity, but if it's an LCC, it's the result of prosperity? That's one amazingly hypocritical argument.

Typically, the lagacy was around to drive the growth, while the LCC came after the growth. The exceptions are vacation destinations that rely on people coming there, not going other places for business.

I didn't run an economic regression model. I took two minutes on Google. You don't have that kind of time? Then you probably don't have the time to learn whether or not your beliefs are matched by reality.

Wow, it took you only two minutes to discover that PHX is growing due to more affluent old people moving to suncity to Beotch about the noise from F-16's that were there long before DelWebb? I'm impressed... I'll bet Tehran had great population growth also. doesn't make them a "business center"..

PDX isn't a hub for anyone. Intel also has a huge presence in Sacramento.


However both also offer excellent hub connectivity (as does COS). It is not a problem to rely on SFO for international travel from Sacramento.

 

[mweiss]

Sorry, i don't have the time or inclination to do here what you were willing to do over on the AMR board

With your busy life, it's a wonder you learn anything at all.

Back at the time, you didn't need a hub carrier to have flights to more locations.  now you do.

Um, no. Then, as now, you could get to pretty much any location in the world by making connections. Hubbing has reduced it to a single connection in most cases, but even in 1977 it was rare to have to make two connections to get to a destination.

As Jim pointed out, the airport was a primary driver of ATL growth.

And, last time I checked, Hartsfield is not an airline.

If you need someone to explain that MSP benefits GREATLY from NWA, then I'll also need to explain that the sky is blue.

If you need someone to explain that MSP costs the residents greatly, then I'll also need to explain that the sky is blue.

I'm not arguing that having a hub doesn't provide benefits. I'm arguing that having a hub also results in higher costs. I'm asking you to prove that the benefits outweigh the costs, and you keep coming back with statements outlining the benefits.

Typically, the lagacy was around to drive the growth, while the LCC came after the growth.

Which is why the fastest growing cities in the country became the fastest growing cities after the LCCs showed up? Something's faulty in that logic.

The exceptions are vacation destinations that rely on people coming there, not going other places for business.

San Francisco's largest industry is not technology. It's tourism, by far.

Wow, it took you only two minutes to discover that PHX is growing due to more affluent old people moving to suncity to Beotch about the noise from F-16's that were there long before DelWebb?  I'm impressed...  I'll bet Tehran had great population growth also.  doesn't make them a "business center"..

Hmmm...people must be retiring at a much younger age these days; the median age in Phoenix in 2002 was 33. The biggest segment of employment is not leisure/hospitality. It's trade/transportation/utilities, followed by professional/business services, government, and education. Remember your mining comment a couple of days back? That's just over 1% of labor there.

Nevada and Arizona are the number one and two states, respectively, in terms of non-agricultural economic growth over the past decade. Their job growth is about 50% higher than the national average. Colorado isn't in the top 10% of states in job growth.

Two more minutes of research. Gee, maybe you could find better things to do with your time...

PDX isn't a hub for anyone. Intel also has a huge presence in Sacramento.
However both also offer excellent hub connectivity (as does COS).  It is not a problem to rely on SFO for international travel from Sacramento.

[post="252079"][/post]​

Of course they do. Which is why the argument of having a local hub is specious.

 

[Busdrvr]

With your busy life, it's a wonder you learn anything at all.

No need to learn, I already know it all.....

If you need someone to explain that MSP costs the residents greatly, then I'll also need to explain that the sky is blue.

I'm not arguing that having a hub doesn't provide benefits. I'm arguing that having a hub also results in higher costs. I'm asking you to prove that the benefits outweigh the costs, and you keep coming back with statements outlining the benefits

In 2000 per capita income
PHX $27,617
DEN $36,058
MSP $35,250

What is the cost? There isn't one.

But I found another one of your arguments particularly troubling. You cited the median age in PHX as "proof" of a lack of reliance on near-deads in the economy. In your making this case, I'm left assuming one of two things, that you were intentionally trying to mislead, or even worse, you don't understand the basic statistical notion that the median age in no way determines the distribution.

A few FACTS.

In 2000 the median age in DEN was HIGHER than in PHX
HOWEVER:
for the population groups over 62 and over 65, PHX percentage was over 30% HIGHER than DEN's
Additionally, PHX had a higher percent of citizens UNDER 18, meaning DEN has attracted a higher number of WORKERS than PHX. Which goes back to my premise.
Additionally, I'd venture to guess that the census numbers don't fully count the population impact of the "snowbirds"

in 2000 10.3% of homes in PHX were vacant vs. 3.8% for DEN. In PHX 4.6% of all homes were vacant because they were 'vacation' or seasonal homes vs 0.6% for DEN. See a trend?


I agree the world does NOT revolve around DEN. DEN SUCKS. PHX is a MUCH nicer city IMHO. Why would businesses move here? It ain't for the mental giant natives. Most folks in my neighborhood MOVED here for jobs, NOT the other way around. Matter of fact, I'm having trouble thinking of a single "native" I know. Something attracked businesses here, and while it wasn't entirely the hub, it definately had something to do with it.