Us Airways And United "fight Over Air Wisconsin"

[USA320Pilot]

BoeingBoy:

BoeingBoy said: "No answer yet, huh? I'll give it a little more time then tell you why....."

USA320Pilot comments: I'm going to a reliable source to answer the question versus offering an opinion. How about you?

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[BoeingBoy]

All I ever offer is opinion, but at least it's mine.....

Jim

 

[700UW]

Absolutely, but it was not my theory it was a plan talked about in the news media by US Airways' chairman of the board, who controls over $25 million in a retirement fund.
Regards,
USA320Pilot

[post="255785"][/post]​

How about Billion there sparky.

 

[USA320Pilot]

BoeingBoy, when I offer my opinion I use a phrase like "I believe" or "In my opinion" to separate opinion from fact.

700UW, thanks for the correction, you're right and I made a typing mistake.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[jack mama]

Why would UAL be mad at either deal? Don't they want their partner airline to be strong?

I guess the UAL/US consolidation is looking bleak again, or this all may be a concerted effort by all parties involved.

US for regional feed/caribbean, UAL for international....

 

[whatkindoffreshhell]

Spend a buck and read the story in today's WSJ for the simple truth.

Also noted was the fact that there are far fewer airplanes parked in the desert.

The lessors (including GE) are sending the planes to China. Which makes the creditors less inclined to deal with bankrupt airlines.

And the fat lady is a-hummin....

 

[BoeingBoy]

My take without all the hyperbole....

UAL has an interest in knowing if a vendor is giving someone else a better deal than they're getting, as well as in knowing if there's anything that would affect their current agreement with that vendor adversely. Both could affect their decisions regarding AirWis.

U has an interest in keeping the nitty-gritty details of the agreements secret for competitive reasons.

Hence the "fight over Air Wisconsin".

Jim

 

[EyeInTheSky]

My take without all the hyperbole....

UAL has an interest in knowing if a vendor is giving someone else a better deal than they're getting, as well as in knowing if there's anything that would affect their current agreement with that vendor adversely. Both could affect their decisions regarding AirWis.

U has an interest in keeping the nitty-gritty details of the agreements secret for competitive reasons.

Hence the "fight over Air Wisconsin".

Jim

[post="255856"][/post]​

Jim, you've entered the USA320Pilot-ZONE.... Keep in mind, your source is just common sense unlike you-know-who, who likes to burn time on the phone and the pilot gossip hotline.

Now, for you, USA320Pilot, was it your "hypothesis" that United & US Airways would "hook up" and make one big happy airline? Now, I don't know about you, but this little dispute doesn't help your 'theory.' Care to give us some real facts instead of pulling rabbits out of hats? We want sources....not some "heard from someone in the know" crap.

Fondly Your Neighbor,
Eye

 

[Phoenix]

UVN:

With all due respect, in my opinion, you’re a disgruntled malcontent and antagonistic person who deserves none of my time on this message board. It must be miserable being angry all the time.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="255786"][/post]​

"none of your time"? But you provided your time?

Still posting contradictions I see... but usually they are not in the same post. It must be miserable being right all the time when so few people see it.

Regards,

Phoenix

 

[USA320Pilot]

Eye:

I accurately predicted almost everything about the 2000 merger attempt before it occurred and guess what, I do not have ESP. If I reveal a source in confidence they will never tell me anything again and I will not lack character.

I will not destroy trust and confidence for you or anybody else. Believe what you want, I personally do not care...

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[Phoenix]

Eye:

I accurately predicted almost everything about the 2000 merger attempt before it occurred and guess what, I do not have ESP. If I reveal a source in confidence they will never tell me anything again and I will not lack character.

I will not destroy trust and confidence for you or anybody else. Believe what you want, I personally do not care...

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="255872"][/post]​

Really? Is that so?

Regards,

Phoenix

 

[funguy2]

If I reveal a source in confidence they will never tell me anything again and I will not lack character.

I will not destroy trust and confidence for you or anybody else. Believe what you want, I personally do not care...

There is the difference between revealing the confidential information (or making predictions based on confidential information, then saying "I have confidential infotmation") and revealing the source of confidential information.

If I gave you confidential information, which you leaked, I would no longer give you confidential informaiton, regardless of whether or not you identified me as a source.

I guess my point is this: Leaking the source of your confidential information is less important to the company's viability than leaking the information itself. You defend yourself on the basis of not revealing the source when the real issue is that you should not reveal the information. Your defense on this position is absolutely shameless.

 

[funguy2]

My take without all the hyperbole....

UAL has an interest in knowing if a vendor is giving someone else a better deal than they're getting, as well as in knowing if there's anything that would affect their current agreement with that vendor adversely. Both could affect their decisions regarding AirWis.

U has an interest in keeping the nitty-gritty details of the agreements secret for competitive reasons.

Hence the "fight over Air Wisconsin".

Jim

[post="255856"][/post]​

I agree... but let's remember, UAL has absolutely no "right" to know what deals its vendors strike with other customers.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Funguy2:

With all due respect, many times people provide a person with information and then say, "but you did not get this from me." It happens all the time...

You have the right to believe what you want.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

 

[funguy2]

Funguy2:

With all due respect, many times people provide a person with information and then say, "but you did not get this from me." It happens all the time...

You have the right to believe what you want.

Regards,

USA320Pilot

[post="255915"][/post]​

I challenge you to prove that.

You either have me confused with another poster, or you are making facts up.

I actually use only publicly available documents, widely available reports, and a little bit of knowledge on accounting principles and economics. Furthermore, sometimes I actually post the math in my post (like 8cent RASM x 10 ASMs = 80cents revenue). I will often state something to the effect of, "But since I don't have any inside information, I really do not know."

So you can go and try to find a quote of me saying, "but you didn't get it from me". I can't wait to see it.