What parts of UAL will end up with USAir?

[Cosmo]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/26/2003 7:34:24 PM PITbull wrote:

When you refer to 1)"some employees still being in denial about UA's current financial condition", you need to ask how much is that "self induced" cash burn. Pilots are the highest paid in the Industry, how else do you get concessions that obviously must be forced as no one readily steps up to the gilloteen just because. And NO airline can do this by having a major "cash" position.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Are you suggesting that UA agreed to the pilots' contract in 2000 with the sole intent of draining most of its cash and then declaring Chapter 11 bankruptcy? If so, that's simply absurd!

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/26/2003 7:34:24 PM PITbull wrote:

2) You say that US Labor unions were acting the same way 6 months ago. especially with the "union busting" with mangement, and still going on with the US pilots.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Don't put words in my mouth (or in my posts). The "union busting" is YOUR conspiracy theory, not mine!

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/26/2003 7:34:24 PM PITbull wrote:

Quite the opposite of what you say. I know this for a fact. Pilots in the summer had no retorhic of "union busting". Only a few AFA union Presidents took note of this. The rest of U labor was in denial. Only because of Round #2 and the recent pension issue has Labor "opened their eyes". Especially watching all the other Majors starting to implement the same "plan".
----------------
[/blockquote]
Re-read my post -- that's exactly what I said, minus the "union busting" part.

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/26/2003 7:34:24 PM PITbull wrote:

You can't be serious when you imply that all this is all created by a soft revenue climate. SW and Jet Blue are not sharing this concept. THIS IS ALL ABOUT LABOR AND LABOR COSTS. Everyone of these majors has a "do or die; off the cliff into oblivion" scenerio, UNLESS, of course, Labor concedes...THEN and only then will they be able to "come into the light".
----------------
[/blockquote]
I didn't say or even imply any such thing in my post, although now that you mention it, a "soft revenue climate" is indeed part of the problem facing the major airlines today. Still, if you want to set up an argument with yourself, please don't use parts of my post to do so.

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/26/2003 7:34:24 PM PITbull wrote:

On this point, you have not been paying keen attention to the covertness of the "plan", but only keeping pace with the obvious. IMO.
----------------
[/blockquote]
And IMHO you seem to have a blind spot to any airline issue that is not labor-related. Also, I see a changed revenue environment where you see a "union busting conspiracy theory". And while there is probably some truth to the argument that some airline managements are not upset that the unions may be taking a hit, I don't believe that is the primary driver of the problems facing the airline industry today. But on the broader point, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

And finally PITbull, in the future I would very much appreciate it if you would either quote my posts accurately or not at all.

 

[chipmunn]

Cosmo:

Cosmo said: "But IMHO what's not OK is ignoring facts that might be inconvenient to one's pre-conceived notions, which is something that I believe Chip does with regularity. For instance, somebody as "in touch" with the airline industry as Chip claims to be clearly should understand that a January cash burn projection made just after UA declared bankruptcy (more than 2 months ago in mid-December) would be reduced by subsequent employee salary decreases and reported positive revenue results stemming from some fare changes."

Chip comments: With all due respect, I disagree with your comments. First, since UA made the mid-December comments, the Chicago-based airline initiated a dramatic fare decrease that US CFO Neal Cohen told the bankruptcy court on Monday was "delusionary" and has cost revenues; during the last 45 days oil has jumped to $38 per barrel, there has been adverse weather, and bookings are off.

I suspect these factors are depressing UA revenue and cash flows and have offset much of the UA employee W-2 cuts.

In regard to Argento's comments about UA labor, today the UA flight attendants outlined a cost savings plan. According to news reports, which Bear96 does not like me posting, the F/A plan will save $1 billion over 6 years.

That's $168 million per year, which is a start, but management said it needs to $2.56 billion per year in labor cuts for its POR.

Cosmo, I believe that leaves along way to go with war on the horizon. In fact, that's only $2.392 billion per year to go and the company is set. What's your opinion? Moreover, do you believe my comment is once again slanting my post?

I believe the AFA position supports Argento's comments of "In fact, quite a respectable body of financial opinion has now concluded that UAL's current condition is so fragile that the airline's failure may well be imminent. Yet UAL's labor unions continue to joust with UAL management (as if UAL management was its enemy), refusing to confront reality."

Finally, I take great exception to you accusing me of being dishonest especially with you hiding behind a PC while you do so. If you're going to take a shot at me, at least have the courage to identify yourself.

Chip

 

[Slam&Click]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/26/2003 928 PM chipmunn wrote:

Finally, I take great exception to you accusing me of being dishonest especially with you hiding behind a PC while you do so. If you're going to take a shot at me, at least have the courage to identify yourself.

Chip
----------------
[/blockquote]

Credibility is suspect when one consistently peppers their statements to appear as factual without providing proof, but rather one intimates, repleat with innuendo, i.e., "a well known (insert corresponding industry) expert" or "trust me" attached to it.

Again, please respond to my questions regarding this courage issue so that it may finally be put to a long overdue rest: How will revealing one's identity on a message board prove courage? I will not go into the serious impact and consequences of theft identity too deeply here again, as I have already provided sources, proof and examples to you personally.

Perhaps we all would better understand why you've chosen to define courage as using one's name on a message board? Do you believe that I would not express the same things if I were to use the name printed on my birth certificate? Were you to stand before me, I would challenge your statements and innuendo, as I've previously done on this forum. My inherent personality traits do not fluctuate from on-line to in-person...what you read is what you get.

IMHO, using one's name will not equate to a person's level of courage. It appears inconsequential to the content of the subjects being tossed about on this forum and remains strictly the private business of the holder of said name. However, if one is going to portend statements and quote unnnamed sources with regularity, credibility -- not courage, does comes into question.

 

[argentomaranello]

COSMO:

Your posts indicate that you read CHIP's views as essentially anti-UAL while you detect union-busting conspiracy theories at the heart of PITBull's comments. Both takes could be correct, of course, but you've gone the additional step of then discounting the ideas expressed simply because they appear to emanate from larger agendae. At the risk of appearing arrogant, I like to caution against such throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater approaches if for no other reason than they authorize the complete failure to address the issues raised by these views and commentary.
For instance, on the UAL matters, CHIP has been out front for a long time, but I've generally found his thoughts grounded in information that I have also uncovered (none of it being that supersecret) and where he has engaged in speculation (as he has just done in his most recent reply to you, suggesting that UAL's implicit claim of recent revenue gains have been illusory), I have found such to be generally reasonable. (Indeed, my own feelings about UAL's daily "cash burn rate" is that it unknowable -- both to us observers and more importantly, to UAL management). Concerning PITbull's apparent pro-labor orientation, the coloration of his views hasn't been hidden and is easily understood as his bias -- but it renders his commentary no less valuable. (From my perspective, PITbull's point of view is proof that too many airline workers are busiy, like the French in 1939, fighting the last war. Airline management hasn't been airline labor's enemy for at least two years; there is no invested capital remaining in the industry for airline management to represent -- only current cash flow to be divided among the various labor groups after payment of operating expenses. The real fight is now between and among airline labor groups for what remains; but when I can still see writing like PITbull's dominating these spaces, it alerts me to the reality of the disconnect within the industry.)

 

[chipmunn]

Slam&click:

Slam&click said: "However, if one is going to portend statements and quote unnnamed sources with regularity, credibility not courage, comes into question."

Chip comments: Slam, it the news media reporters are routinely told information from "inside sources" with the condition of anonymity. It occurs all the time because people do not want their identity revealed, just like you on this message board.

What I take exception to is -- verbal abuse and insults when somebody hides behind their PC. I believe respect is to value somebody's opinion, regardless of their comment, which some people fail to understand the why this is a valued trait.

Chip

 

[Slam&Click]

Chip I'm going to keep this brief because this is getting far afield from the topic at hand.

1) You're not a reporter, you do not have to maintain the anonymity of your sources. By law reporters are protected from having to reveal their sources for protection from potential prosecution. If you are choosing to cross the line of confidentiality and thereby repeating information that perhaps you should not, and doing so without substantiation, it could call into question one's judgement and ethics.

2) You have yet to answer/address the "use of name = courage" issue and it's continued overuse and purpose.

3) A person earns respect, until that occurs they deserve, at minimum, common courtesy.

4) This aviation forum gathers together persons of many talents and varying opinions. Corresponding and opposing views are both fascinating and thought provoking. When differences are expressed that is not necessarily being disrespectful. What you may read as an insult another may interpret as completely insignificant. Anything you've perceived as remotely insulting here should not be permitted to register on the 'radar screen' of your daily life. Words should have no impact unless we, personally, permit them to. Thats entirely your own issue.

I bid you a peaceful good evening and the very best of luck on Friday.

S&C

 

[T-bone]

PITBULL WROTE,
Quite the opposite of what you say. I know this for a fact. Pilots in the summer had no retorhic of "union busting". Only a few AFA union Presidents took note of this. The rest of U labor was in denial. Only because of Round #2 and the recent pension issue has Labor "opened their eyes". Especially watching all the other Majors starting to implement the same "plan".

Dear PIt,
I think the unions understood the problem. I believe it was the rank and file that where in denial.
This has been the cause of many misunderstandings. The actual relationship between the MEC or E-board or what have you, and the actual feeling of the troop's, has been at times diametrically opposed.
In the case of some union's increased info and better education has provided no boon; their still lost.

 

[T-bone]

Slam&click and cosmo,

Chip wrote,


Slam&click said: "However, if one is going to portend statements and quote unnnamed sources with regularity, credibility not courage, comes into question."

Chip comments: Slam, it the news media reporters are routinely told information from "inside sources" with the condition of anonymity. It occurs all the time because people do not want their identity revealed, just like you on this message board.

What I take exception to is -- verbal abuse and insults when somebody hides behind their PC. I believe respect is to value somebody's opinion, regardless of their comment, which some people fail to understand the why this is a valued trait.

Chip
--------------------------------------------------
What I believe is happening here is Chipster is dropping the gauntlet (challenging you to a duel). He still misses the cogent point. As any news reporter know's, if you don't have a legit source, don't report. Chipster these Dude's are right. It's about credibilty not courge. Any dolt can use his own surname. That doesn't make you tough, it makes you dumb, I.E. ignorant. I personally have been chiding you recently to stop using MEC code a phone, or what ever your secret source's are as fact. Hey if your just trying to stir up some dust, feel free, go nut's but try to stick to facts. These people are serious about the confidence in which they are trying to debate their very difficult circumstances.
Please don't belittle them with (secret) BS.

 

[Slam&Click]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/27/2003 8:22:59 AM argentomaranello wrote:

Can we get back to the subject of this thread -- dissecting UAL's assets and speculating about which, if any, may come over to USAir?
----------------
[/blockquote]

USAirways will not acquire anything unless the Pilot Pension Issue is resolved. Unless and until that comes to a resolution, most may prefer not to circle above in a vulture-like fashion. Presently, circling the wagons for self-preservation seems the focus.

 

[Slam&Click]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/27/2003 8:58:23 AM DCAflyer wrote:

DCAflyer responds:

Well, Duh! Just my two cents!

DCAflyer
----------------
[/blockquote]

 

[usfliboi]

GEEEEEEEES guys chip is doing what we all do speculate or have an opinion LAY OFF already. I have never seen him once attack anyone on here. You guys constantly bash him... i mean come on this is a message board take it for what is it or that he is. Why all the insults.... GROW UP GUYS

 

[DCAflyer]

Argento asked:

Can we get back to the subject of this thread -- dissecting UAL's assets and speculating about which, if any, may come over to USAir?

DCAflyer thanks Argento for bringing this drivel-filled Chip-bashing thread back to topic (oh, yeah, like the rest of the threads aren't Chip-bashers as well)!


Slam & Click surmised:

USAirways will not acquire anything unless the Pilot Pension Issue is resolved. Unless and until that comes to a resolution, most may prefer not to circle above in a vulture-like fashion. Presently, circling the wagons for self-preservation seems the focus.

DCAflyer responds:

Well, Duh! We can't exit BK until the pilot pension issue is resolved and we can't (but RSA can) purchase OAL assets until we emerge From C-11. It's called taking one step at a time. But I can assure you that the folks in CCY are looking at what portions of UAL's network might compliment ours. Why shouldn't we speculate here? My theory of the most plausible scenarios: (1) UAL downsizes DIA and moves significant hub operations from DIA to ORD, and U picks up many of UAL's gates at DIA to set the stage for a mid-continent hub; (2) UAL downsizes ops at LAX (increasing ops at SFO) and U increases ops at that station, including significant RJ flying; (3) UAL downsizes ops at IAD and U increases ops to make IAD an international focus-city for STAR connections and, perhaps, Carribbean feed; (4) UAL dumps So-Am operations and U picks those ops up (hence the switch from 330-300 to -200 series), flying from either PHL, CLT, or IAD. On another note, I would not be at all surprised to see PIT downsized even more to focus RJ ops on a station with greater O&D traffic. PIT would be a maintenance hub more than anything else.

Just my two cents!

DCAflyer

 

[argentomaranello]

Can we get back to the subject of this thread -- dissecting UAL's assets and speculating about which, if any, may come over to USAir?

 

[Retired1]

Cosmo After thinking about it Chip might be a little low. It might be more than 10 million a day.

 

[Cosmo]

Since it took me a while to get around to answering Chip, I missed the return of this thread to its original topic. Sorry to throw another "Chip-bashing" response into the middle of the discussion. But as some have requested, I'll lay off Chip for a while.