Ual Lobby‘s For Industry Consolidation

[Cosmo]

according to the 10Q's, UAL owes the Dippers 727 million at the end of Q3, down from 764 million at the end of Q2. Silly management, paying down Dip when they don't have to and when they will surely have to sell everything to get out of BK.....

Excellent point, Busdrvr!

 

[Cosmo]

Cosmo, United's economist (not Chip Munn) publicly said, "The most feasible solution to the situation is consolidation in the domestic airline industry." I believe that should hold some merit in this discussion, when your company says the most feasable solution is consolidation.

Chip:

As I've mentioned numerous times in the past, I do not work for United, or any other airline for that matter. But given the nature of my job, I do have a pretty good understanding of the economics of airline operations. And I also fly on United as a passenger once or twice a month on average since the carrier's IAD hub is only about 15 miles from my home.

 

[USA320Pilot]

What I find interesting is if my posts are inaccurate than why dispute them of the US Airways board?

The United employees barely post on their board, but yet they come over to the US Airways board whenever I post. If I am wrong than why would the United employees waste their time?

Regardless, another very real possibility is for an Air France- KLM type of deal, where the companies would keep their brands and identities for a set period of time and incrementally integrate to drive down unit costs, create economies of scale, and revenue improvements.

Then when market conditions permit the parties could complete the consolidation and merge. More on this later...off to work.

Regards,

Chip

P.S. I say black, the United employees say white, regardless of the subject. Hummm...something to think about.

 

[deltawatch]

Station Manager said tonight to look for a MAJOR announcement within 2 weeks and he stress MAJOR. I don't think he knows any more than that....I'v never heard him make a statement like that before.

 

[Busdrvr]

Chip, we reply on the US board only because you choose to discuss UAL on the U board.

DALwatch,
What station and what airline?

 

[scot]

:cop: :cop:

This will be the first and only warning. We've been thru the UA/US board posts and the reasons why posts are where they are ad naseum. No need to discuss that again. I will leave the thread open to see if anything NEW is added. If not, it will be closed. If anyone wants to rehash old discussions, please look them up in past posts and reminisce there. Thanks.

 

[767jetz]

:cop: :cop:

I will leave the thread open to see if anything NEW is added. If not, it will be closed. If anyone wants to rehash old discussions, please look them up in past posts and reminisce there. Thanks.

Excuse me scot, but this thread was pretty much dead until I posted some new news about UA's announcment of potential exit lenders. So there is new news being discussed.

Chip, we post here because you talk about our airline here. Pretty simple concept I think. If you want a soap box to preach from without any responses, start your own web site.

 

[Cosmo]

What I find interesting is if my posts are inaccurate than why dispute them of the US Airways board?

Chip:

Two answers:

1.) This is where the thread is located (Duh!).
2.) What intelligent person would want to leave inaccurate information uncorrected; hence, the responses that you seem to deplore. BTW, didn't you previously say that you post thought-provoking ideas? Well, then you need to be prepared to accept the fact that the thoughts you provoke in other folks might not always agree with your ideas.

And to the extent that this comment was directed at me, I would point out that I simply showed why the actual numbers from United's and US Airways' 3rd quarter 2003 reports did not support your merger premise from United's standpoint. In other words, the merger that you are such a proponent of just doesn't make economic sense for United. There's those inconvenient facts again.

Regardless, another very real possibility is for an Air France- KLM type of deal, where the companies would keep their brands and identities for a set period of time and incrementally integrate to drive down unit costs, create economies of scale, and revenue improvements.

Then when market conditions permit the parties could complete the consolidation and merge.

Yet again, the question arises -- can you provide any support for the above statement, or is this just your opinion?