Rico said:
Why do you have to be so hard on the guy, he afterall was correct about the possible sale of MDA.
You are right rico, USA320Pilot was right. But I also get the impression, and his admission, that he is revealing information (or alluding to information, hence revealing) that is proprietary to USAirways and its partners. Now, I like to hear the rumor as much as anyone else here, but I just think that behavior is wrong. If USA320Pilot said, "My opinion is that X could happen based on my extensive knowledge of the industry and some common sense, supported by this piece of public information," that would be one thing. However, what he says is that, "I have insider information, and I won't reveal the source of the inside information, but here is the inside information." Its hard to respect a guy who posts or alludes to what I perceive as almost every bit of confidential information he is given. Not trying to be harsh here, just explain my thoughts.
I will give him credit, that is a lot tougher to predict what will happen than it is to sit back and just naysay anything that does...
Fact is, that negotiations like the ones behind this deal are fluid, and as such what was "on" one day, is "off" the next.
Yes, and that is partially the point. Any deal has a 50/50 chance at happening. However, USA320Pilot often words his posts as: "This will happen, by the power of God himself" when the reality is probably that its a 50/50 chance, like with any yes/no question. Sure would be nice is the conversation was framed that way.
Also, when one side of the debate reports everything with "rose-colored" glasses, its awfully hard for the otherside to be anything better than a "nay-sayer". I like to think I am balanced, although I'll admit to one bias: The industry cannot survive the way it is today. Something must give way. If oil prices drop to $30/bbl and all the airlines could survive on that, then that would be great. However, it would also be unlikely. Thus something else has to happen for this industry to sustain itself. Most likely - a reduction in capacity, given repeated and failed attempts to materially increase fares, and successful cost reduction programs where the costs reduced - labor - are replaced by new costs - fuel and security. So I think capacity in this industry must be reduced. That is a process that, based on history since 1978, almost always results in the catostrophic failure of at least one industry player. I see nothing to change that trend in this industry downturn than the previous ones (although this industry downturn seems remarkably different... But only time will tell).
So if I have to choose between reading A320's predictions, and your personal attacks, I would rather read what he has to say. Afterall, this is just a discussion board, not the nightly news (so take things with a grain of salt and keep a sense of humor). Unless you are willing to step up with some decent info/reasoned rebuttle to add to the discussion (like say Jim, for example), then why bother posting at all...?
Well... this brings to mind two points:
1. I really like sfb's (I think, if I'm wrong, correct me) tagline, which goes something like: Internet chat rooms are for the exchange of ideas, almost any will do. I actually try to use that notion when I post. I assume if you've found US Aviation.com and taken the time to register for the forums, and have enough interest to read them, then you can probably find most of the news sources which get posted here. In fact, most url's posted here, I've usually read before logging on to US Aviation.com. Therefore, I find the "strategic analysis threads generally good discussion, but also a lot of space, time, and bandwith repeating what others have already said.
2. I would like to think that 8 of 10 times, I have reasoned rebuttle. Also, I believe that credibility is important. But in a debate like forum like this, it is up to the debators to establish their own credibility, and note when others are not credible. Think of a courtroom. The defense has to point out whether or not the prosecution says something that is not credible. Otherwise, it is allowed to stand when it should be.
