Cosmo
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 840
- 0
Retired1:
First, I never advocated banning Chip or anyone else from the United board (or specific threads on that board), despite the disagreements that Chip and I had over United's future. Similarly, I don't agree with such bans on this board either. But USaviation.com rules apparently allow it, so I'll have to live with it. No big deal.
Second, Chip posted something on this thread based on "reliable reports" (regarding US Airways' PIT hub negotiations being dragged out because of United's bankruptcy proceeding and the potential to move US Airways aircraft -- mainline and Express -- westward) that I believed merited a question or two, so I asked. It's as simple as that. But, as usual, Chip didn't like the questions so he changed the subject (you'll note that there's no mention of PIT in his reply to me), and he did so in another thread where I can't take part in the discussion. However, as I said, those are the rules and I'll abide by them.
So perhaps you can ask Chip the following questions in the new thread (although I'm sure he will actually read them here):
How can US Airways benefit from dragging out the PIT hub discussions (supposedly due to potential United replacement flying at DEN and elsewhere) when a resolution of that issue must, by definition, be reached by no later than January 5, 2004, at least two full months before United must file its POR with the bankruptcy court? And if United actually was planning to drop most or all of its DEN flying, why would it announce that its new LCO service will start there in February 2004?
IMHO, Chip's claims, based on those "reliable reports", simply don't make any logical sense.
And one last comment. Chip continues to play "fast and loose" with some of the facts about United's future. To give just one example, Chip claimed (or at least implied) that United received the 5-month extension to file its POR over the objections of the creditors committee. But according to today's issue of Aviation Daily (as reliable a "source" as any of Chip's), "United on Friday reached a deal with its creditors committee and the consortium of airports on a motion to extend the exclusivity period for filing its Chapter 11 reorganization plan for five months." That means United faces no creditor POR or airport evictions until at least March 6, 2004. Not quite what Chip implied, is it?
First, I never advocated banning Chip or anyone else from the United board (or specific threads on that board), despite the disagreements that Chip and I had over United's future. Similarly, I don't agree with such bans on this board either. But USaviation.com rules apparently allow it, so I'll have to live with it. No big deal.
Second, Chip posted something on this thread based on "reliable reports" (regarding US Airways' PIT hub negotiations being dragged out because of United's bankruptcy proceeding and the potential to move US Airways aircraft -- mainline and Express -- westward) that I believed merited a question or two, so I asked. It's as simple as that. But, as usual, Chip didn't like the questions so he changed the subject (you'll note that there's no mention of PIT in his reply to me), and he did so in another thread where I can't take part in the discussion. However, as I said, those are the rules and I'll abide by them.
So perhaps you can ask Chip the following questions in the new thread (although I'm sure he will actually read them here):
How can US Airways benefit from dragging out the PIT hub discussions (supposedly due to potential United replacement flying at DEN and elsewhere) when a resolution of that issue must, by definition, be reached by no later than January 5, 2004, at least two full months before United must file its POR with the bankruptcy court? And if United actually was planning to drop most or all of its DEN flying, why would it announce that its new LCO service will start there in February 2004?
IMHO, Chip's claims, based on those "reliable reports", simply don't make any logical sense.
And one last comment. Chip continues to play "fast and loose" with some of the facts about United's future. To give just one example, Chip claimed (or at least implied) that United received the 5-month extension to file its POR over the objections of the creditors committee. But according to today's issue of Aviation Daily (as reliable a "source" as any of Chip's), "United on Friday reached a deal with its creditors committee and the consortium of airports on a motion to extend the exclusivity period for filing its Chapter 11 reorganization plan for five months." That means United faces no creditor POR or airport evictions until at least March 6, 2004. Not quite what Chip implied, is it?
