Weekly Update From Lax Chief Pilot

[scot]

I suggest we all click the "Report" button on each of Fishy's objective posts to make sure the moderators know what is going on.

It is quite sad they are letting this site degenerate into another Yahoo board.

[post="295223"][/post]​

Thanks for ALL of the messages I got to sift thru this evening.
We are not on the boards moderating 24/7. Sorry, I got to go to a movie yesterday, sleep in this morning and spend a little time with family before moderating today (after work).

USE THE IGNORE FEATURE AND HE WONT HAVE ANYONE TO PLAY WITH .
I dont see why everyone doesnt use this feature, thats what its there for. You dont like ANY of his posts, so IGNORE him and he disappears! Simple as that. In the meantime, enjoy the short time that he is off the boards before he comes back.

If you have any other posts in the future that you'd like to report please feel free to do so individually. En masse just takes longer for us to accomplish anything.
Thanks.

 

[767jetz]

In the meantime, enjoy the short time that he is off the boards before he comes back.

[post="295342"][/post]​

Hip Hip Hurray!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks scot

 

[Bear96]

Thanks for ALL of the messages I got to sift thru this evening.

[post="295342"][/post]​

Oops -- sorry. :blink: That was not my intent. I was trying to go on the fact that I know you can't be here 24/7, so I was trying to make sure people knew about the Report function.

But as I was just musing on another thread, if the answer is always "Ignore it," what is the point of the posting guidelines? Why not just let everyone have a free-for-all and those that don't like it can just "ignore"?

What kind of community do we (well, more specifically, the moderators) want this to be? One that appeals to and tolerates the lowest common denominator, or perhaps one that is a bit more constructive and enjoyable? :unsure:

 

[767jetz]

what is the point of the posting guidelines? Why not just let everyone have a free-for-all and those that don't like it can just "ignore"?

What kind of community do we (well, more specifically, the moderators) want this to be? One that appeals to and tolerates the lowest common denominator, or perhaps one that is a bit more constructive and enjoyable? :unsure:

[post="295536"][/post]​

Good point, Bear96.

 

[Cfm56]

***The willingnes of banks to provide $3 Billion in exit financing says a lot about what we have accomplished and our future!***


Does this $3 billion represent debt and does it represent a future cost to be paid back/dealt with? If so, is that really such good news?

 

[Busdrvr]

***The willingnes of banks to provide $3 Billion in exit financing says a lot about what we have accomplished and our future!***
Does this $3 billion represent debt and does it represent a future cost to be paid back/dealt with? If so, is that really such good news?

[post="295588"][/post]​

It is debt, but consider the alternative. This will allow UAL to be governed somewhat normally. When you find an equity investor, you usually get a person who put up less than a billion and expects to have a mojority of BOD seats as well as "super" shares with enhanced voting rights. This means they could give control of UAL to someone else for a "song"......

 

[FWAAA]

***The willingnes of banks to provide $3 Billion in exit financing says a lot about what we have accomplished and our future!***
Does this $3 billion represent debt and does it represent a future cost to be paid back/dealt with? If so, is that really such good news?

[post="295588"][/post]​

I tend to agree. UAL will have shed billions of debt only to borrow about $3 billion of new debt. Looks like quite a treadmill. Hope everyone can keep up.

Busdrvr makes a good point, however. Equity investors (like RSA, for instance) don't put up much money and usually get control. And nobody's gonna put up $3 billion of equity into the new UAL. Well, maybe that hillbilly lottery winner from WVA would - he'll likely do anything when he's drunk.

 

[ClueByFour]

So.

How long you all been sucking on the public teat?

3 years??

How about paying your bills for a change.

[post="294870"][/post]​

That's an interesting statement. Wrong, but interesting.

In bankruptcy, nobody extends you credit--so instead of paying net 30/90/180, you generally pay net 0 (cash and carry). The big items are what is owed to whom on a prepetition basis.

Nice try, though.

 

[UnitedChicago]

It is debt, but consider the alternative. This will allow UAL to be governed somewhat normally. When you find an equity investor, you usually get a person who put up less than a billion and expects to have a mojority of BOD seats as well as "super" shares with enhanced voting rights. This means they could give control of UAL to someone else for a "song"......

[post="295606"][/post]​

An Equity investory will install their own management - and if you find the right equity person, say with an 2/2 record..say TPG...then you get strong management.

I don't think it's gonna happen at this point but i still strongly feel that TPG would be the best route for the long term success of united.

It's truly time for Tilton and gang to go.

 

[Busdrvr]

An Equity investory will install their own management - and if you find the right equity person, say with an 2/2 record..say TPG...then you get strong management.

I don't think it's gonna happen at this point but i still strongly feel that TPG would be the best route for the long term success of united.

It's truly time for Tilton and gang to go.

[post="295658"][/post]​

Sorry, no thanks. TPG was successful for one reason and one reason only. They had some of the cheapest labor rates in the industry. and even then, they didn't do that well.

 

[Borescope]

Sorry, no thanks. TPG was successful for one reason and one reason only. They had some of the cheapest labor rates in the industry. and even then, they didn't do that well.

[post="295730"][/post]​

And you don't think that is the case now?? In addition TPG doesn't have the "strong management" to place. Most of them have retired or gone elsewhere (Breneman to Burger King). It's an ego thing with these guys and they aren't going to jump into a job that doesn't have some promise.

 

[Busdrvr]

And you don't think that is the case now?? In addition TPG doesn't have the "strong management" to place. Most of them have retired or gone elsewhere (Breneman to Burger King). It's an ego thing with these guys and they aren't going to jump into a job that doesn't have some promise.

[post="295740"][/post]​

Actually, I think the AWA payrates are STILL below UAL's. Maybe UAL's rates are temporary, maybe not, but at CAL and AWA, they have been in the basement for over 10 years.

 

[Cosmo]

It's all a moot point anyway regarding TPG because the have a large equity stake in America West (which will continue, although at a smaller level, with "The New US Airways"), which by all indications they intend to keep. So I doubt that DOT/DOJ would allow them to have major equity holdings in two large U.S. carriers.

 

[Busdrvr]

It's all a moot point anyway regarding TPG because the have a large equity stake in America West (which will continue, although at a smaller level, with "The New US Airways"), which by all indications they intend to keep. So I doubt that DOT/DOJ would allow them to have major equity holdings in two large U.S. carriers.

[post="295857"][/post]​

They let them hold CAL and AWA at the same time didn't they? I'm wondering if mergers and even 'holdings" may be looked upon more liberally now. I'd think an even more compelling reason would be to maintain diversity among the TPG holdings.

 

[Cosmo]

They let them hold CAL and AWA at the same time didn't they?

That's true, but IIRC it was because AWA desperately needed a rescuer at that time while UAL isn't in such a dire position right now (as evidenced by the four major banks' offer of up to $3 billion in debt financing). Plus CAL entered into a codeshare agreement with AWA back then that IMHO I don't think would be replicated between UAL and AWA, mainly due to multiple competing hubs in the west.

I'm wondering if mergers and even 'holdings" may be looked upon more liberally now. I'd think an even more compelling reason would be to maintain diversity among the TPG holdings.

You might be right, although I don't think the U.S. government cares about the diversification of TPG's equity holdings. I guess time will tell.