USA320Pilot said:
How about you it must suck to suck up to everything that USAirways says they gonna to do all they while ready to wet your pants if anyone doesn't agree.
Mutual Support: The Paradigm
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
How about you it must suck to suck up to everything that USAirways says they gonna to do all they while ready to wet your pants if anyone doesn't agree.
- Thread Starter
- #17
Just one more point, which is being discussed in the "exeuctive suite", after all of the additional equity investors have reached an agreement with US Airways and the "fee for service" contracts are affirmed, rejected, or renegotiated, do not be surpirsed if RSA increases its stake in the Arlington-based airline to protect its investment.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
Regards,
USA320Pilot
USA320Pilot said:
Here we go again you are right if it happens or right if it doesn't happen. Toss it in barrel it is getting full you should be able to hit one any day now.
UVN: So you point here is that if it happens USA320Pilot gets to claim that he is right and knows everything. And if he's wrong, he can say, "well, it was just being discussed, but anything can happen..."
So let's ask USA320Pilot a very telling question:
USA320Pilot, in you opinion and with you vast knowledge and experience including your statement above, will RSA invest more cash into US Airways?
YES or NO.
So let's ask USA320Pilot a very telling question:
USA320Pilot, in you opinion and with you vast knowledge and experience including your statement above, will RSA invest more cash into US Airways?
YES or NO.
- Thread Starter
- #20
Funguy2:
Funguy2 asked: USA320Pilot, in you opinion and with you vast knowledge and experience including your statement above, will RSA invest more cash into US Airways? YES or NO.
USA320Pilot comments: I recently asked Bruce Lakefield that question personally. Bruce said RSA was evaluating that decision indicating RSA would wait to make the decision until other parts of the POR were complete, presumably other equity investors coming forward. Lakfield said he and David Bronner speak every other day and he is here to protect RSA's investment. I do not have a personal relationship with David Brooner, so I cannot speak to his thoughts or comments.
One point I will make, with the new Eastshore/Air Wisconsin & Wexford/Republic deals; coupled with the new labor agreements and their equity provisions, it would be too expensive for RSA to take the company private, according to senior management.
Meanwhile today the USA Today said, "Retirement Systems of Alabama, which rescued the airline from an earlier bankruptcy, could increase its stake to protect its investment."
See Story
Funguy2, did you miss this piece of "public" information?
Regards,
USA320Pilot
Funguy2 asked: USA320Pilot, in you opinion and with you vast knowledge and experience including your statement above, will RSA invest more cash into US Airways? YES or NO.
USA320Pilot comments: I recently asked Bruce Lakefield that question personally. Bruce said RSA was evaluating that decision indicating RSA would wait to make the decision until other parts of the POR were complete, presumably other equity investors coming forward. Lakfield said he and David Bronner speak every other day and he is here to protect RSA's investment. I do not have a personal relationship with David Brooner, so I cannot speak to his thoughts or comments.
One point I will make, with the new Eastshore/Air Wisconsin & Wexford/Republic deals; coupled with the new labor agreements and their equity provisions, it would be too expensive for RSA to take the company private, according to senior management.
Meanwhile today the USA Today said, "Retirement Systems of Alabama, which rescued the airline from an earlier bankruptcy, could increase its stake to protect its investment."
See Story
Funguy2, did you miss this piece of "public" information?
Regards,
USA320Pilot
Well Funguy did you get your answer you were looking for? Or the one I predicted you would? By the way there is a email out to Mr. Lakefield about 320 now too. To see if he is aware that his blabbermouth friend is spewing their private talks on the internet.
- Thread Starter
- #23
UVN:
What is interesting is that your email will now identify you. Hummm....are you a little concerned?
Thanks.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
What is interesting is that your email will now identify you. Hummm....are you a little concerned?
Thanks.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
USA320Pilot said:
I bet you are more concerned then I am.
Actually I don't believe you anyway so probably not worried. At least he will know your name and about your lies.
Any way here's addy [email protected]
My first time trying to post sorry. It seems like taking U private would benefit RSA. Can you give any more insight as to why it would be more expensive?
- Thread Starter
- #27
Blue Ridge:
It's my understanding there would be to many shares to buy and the labor contracts in itself, not to mention the new equity investors, makes it to expensive.
For example, the new ALPA deal gives the pilots 8.5% of the company alone.
As events unfold so will RSA's decision and we will have to see what happens after all of the new affiliate carrier agreements, as well as other vendor contracts, are either affirmed, rejected, or re-negotiated. It's still a fluid situation with discussions on-going.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
It's my understanding there would be to many shares to buy and the labor contracts in itself, not to mention the new equity investors, makes it to expensive.
For example, the new ALPA deal gives the pilots 8.5% of the company alone.
As events unfold so will RSA's decision and we will have to see what happens after all of the new affiliate carrier agreements, as well as other vendor contracts, are either affirmed, rejected, or re-negotiated. It's still a fluid situation with discussions on-going.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
ClueByFour
Veteran
USA320Pilot said:
I find it interesting that every time someone posts factual evidence that there is slant on just about everything you post (and represent as "fact" or a "paradigm") that you attack the poster in leiu of what he or she wrote.
Really? How does cost + 5% for midatlantic flying compare to cost today?
I work for an enterprise (and a division thereof) that is far more profitable than US Airways. Lakefield has to beg regional airlines to subsidize his business plan. Lakefield continues to lie to the media about various things (notably the Christmas meltdown). I'll leave it up to the gentle readers of this BB to decide who carries more credibility.
ClueByFour
Veteran
USA320Pilot said:
I don't really see RSA putting in enough equity (probably in the $250 million or greater) range to maintain majority control. I also see Air Whisky and Republic not approving the POR if this happens, since it's self defeating to put money into US and not get control of the airline in return.
- Thread Starter
- #30
Clue:
You continue to “grind your ax†since US Airways abandoned Pittsburgh, which is o.k., but I believe it’s a miserable way to live.
In regard to the operational meltdown, management did understand the company was running with short-staffing and made a mistake, but why should sick calls spike over Christmas anyway, year-after-year? Is it that sense of union entitlement you seem to support? I do not agree that there should be entitlement and the facts are the percentage of sick calls was higher last Christmas, even though the nubers were the same.
If a person is sick then they should stay home. If they’re healthy and scheduled to work, regardless of the event, and they call in sick they're dishonest.
It is simply called integrity and character.
By the way, what does it matter where your work?
Finally, Bruce Lakefield is a man of integrity, but how would you know since you most likely do not know him.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
P.S. Have you ever thought of taking "venom reduction" medication?
You continue to “grind your ax†since US Airways abandoned Pittsburgh, which is o.k., but I believe it’s a miserable way to live.
In regard to the operational meltdown, management did understand the company was running with short-staffing and made a mistake, but why should sick calls spike over Christmas anyway, year-after-year? Is it that sense of union entitlement you seem to support? I do not agree that there should be entitlement and the facts are the percentage of sick calls was higher last Christmas, even though the nubers were the same.
If a person is sick then they should stay home. If they’re healthy and scheduled to work, regardless of the event, and they call in sick they're dishonest.
It is simply called integrity and character.
By the way, what does it matter where your work?
Finally, Bruce Lakefield is a man of integrity, but how would you know since you most likely do not know him.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
P.S. Have you ever thought of taking "venom reduction" medication?
Similar threads
