$250 Million In Outside Financing To Exit Bk

[deltawatch]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05032/450914.stm

Others

 

[oldiebutgoody]

RSA! Go Tide! (as in, tsunami. You know, the one that wiped out the employees!)

 

[Winglet]

Does anybody actually think that Mr. "Hip" Branson is going to have anything to do with stodgy old and embittered US Airways? ........Mr. Freakshow Seth notwithstanding.

 

[mweiss]

Branson wouldn't buy US for the brand. He'd buy the assets he wants (i.e., the Airbus narrows, gates, slots, and maybe ground equipment), and dump the rest. He might be interested in keeping the line employees, now that the contracts lean so hard toward the employer.

I'd hazard to say that he could do wonders for morale.

 

[insp89]

Branson wouldn't buy US for the brand. He'd buy the assets he wants (i.e., the Airbus narrows, gates, slots, and maybe ground equipment), and dump the rest. He might be interested in keeping the line employees, now that the contracts lean so hard toward the employer.

I'd hazard to say that he could do wonders for morale.

[post="244553"][/post]​

Weiss, Let me borrow your crystal ball when you're done with it,

I need to look up the winning lottery numbers.

 

[DOA@Airport]

I'd hazard to say that he could do wonders for morale.

[post="244553"][/post]​

"Despite such a dazzling career, the business world has always been ambivalent toward Britain's best-known entrepreneur. He launches trendy companies the way Trump builds casinos. But a farsighted innovator like Steve Jobs or Jeff Bezos or even Southwest Airlines' Herb Kelleher he is not. Branson traffics in opportunism. He spots a stodgy, old-line industry, rolls out the Virgin logo, sprinkles some camera-catching glitter, and poof - another moneymaker. While that formula has kept him in champagne and headlines, no Virgin business has ever changed the world."

More on Sir Richard and his "mooning" episode here

Yep, he and Seth ought to get along.

 

[FWAAA]

As if a piddly $250 million credit facility is gonna bankroll this company? If that's management's goal, prepare for Ch 33 by October.

 

[mweiss]

DOA, don't forget that a crumb makes a starving man happy. I doubt that Branson would make WN's employees smile if he were running their show. But I'm talking about US's.

 

[insp89]

DOA, don't forget that a crumb makes a starving man happy. I doubt that Branson would make WN's employees smile if he were running their show. But I'm talking about US's.

[post="244654"][/post]​

Weiss, The smile on WN's employees faces will be disappearing when they too will be asked for concessions due to the continued unraveling of labor costs.

 

[SVQLBA]

Weiss, The smile on WN's employees faces will be disappearing when they too will be asked for concessions due to the continued unraveling of labor costs.

[post="244726"][/post]​

I for one, will eat my hat if they do. WN's management understands that the name of the game is productivity, not wage rates. So long as they continue to have the most productive workers, their total labor costs will be where they need to be. Pick just about any metric you like: turn time, aircraft utilization, gate utilization, flying hrs per month per pilot, etc etc -- WN still has a far more productive business model.

AA and DL are making some progress on the productivity side (rolling hubs, etc.). US less than I would have hoped, given the outlines of the transformation plan laid out several months ago. UA's still clinging to an outdated view of the hub-and-spoke model - there's still a role for hub-and-spoke, but not the way UA is operating it.

 

[insp89]

I for one, will eat my hat if they do. WN's management understands that the name of the game is productivity, not wage rates. So long as they continue to have the most productive workers, their total labor costs will be where they need to be. Pick just about any metric you like: turn time, aircraft utilization, gate utilization, flying hrs per month per pilot, etc etc -- WN still has a far more productive business model.

AA and DL are making some progress on the productivity side (rolling hubs, etc.). US less than I would have hoped, given the outlines of the transformation plan laid out several months ago. UA's still clinging to an outdated view of the hub-and-spoke model - there's still a role for hub-and-spoke, but not the way UA is operating it.

[post="244743"][/post]​

SVQLBA, Have you checked out what a mechanic @ SW brings home vs. US ?

With the latest round of concessions at US [which gutted the contract]pay, WORK RULES, Utility,

I believe the next question you will have to answer is, Do you want mustard or catsup with that hat ?

Once SW's fuel advantage begins to erode and other carriers contracts are gutted, Southwest will find itself a high cost LCC.

 

[usairways_vote_NO]

Once SW's fuel advantage begins to erode and other carriers contracts are gutted, Southwest will find itself  a high cost LCC.

[post="244748"][/post]​

Yes to bad it will be too late for you know who

 

[mweiss]

SVQLBA, Have you checked out what a mechanic @ SW brings home vs. US ?

It's irrelevant on its own, when talking about profitability. As long as they are producing more units of work per dollar, WN will do better than US.

Once SW's fuel advantage begins to erode and other carriers contracts are gutted, Southwest will find itself a high cost LCC.

[post="244748"][/post]​

As I said before, have you looked at the numbers? WN's non-fuel costs are way below that of the legacies. Even with the latest round of concessions.

Yes, WN is a "high cost LCC," insofar as their labor costs per ASM are higher than the other LCCs. Yes, that will be a problem for them at some point in the future. But no, it will not be because of the legacy carriers...at least, not until and unless they truly redesign their operations.

 

[uafa21]

I wonder where they came up with Ua contributing $250M? Ua can't even pay it's own bills. Ua has no money and by the time they gat finished with round 2 of wage cuts and pension cuts they will be asking for round 3.

The cuts we either voted for or were imposed upon were enough to cover one of Ua's losing quarters. Where are they going to come up with the other 3 quarters?

 

[insp89]

It's irrelevant on its own, when talking about profitability. As long as they are producing more units of work per dollar, WN will do better than US.
As I said before, have you looked at the numbers? WN's non-fuel costs are way below that of the legacies. Even with the latest round of concessions.

Yes, WN is a "high cost LCC," insofar as their labor costs per ASM are higher than the other LCCs. Yes, that will be a problem for them at some point in the future. But no, it will not be because of the legacy carriers...at least, not until and unless they truly redesign their operations.

[post="244763"][/post]​

Weiss, What do you mean it's Irrevelant ?? What do you think this last round of concessions did for US concerning "units of work" per dollar??

I would like to see your numbers on SW's vs. US AFTER this last round of concessions !

You see, the COMPANY ITSELF does not have these REAL numbers yet..

I would be more than Happy to look at YOUR numbers if you care to put them on here..