So, you read the original post how many days ago, didn't have the nads to post then but you DID spend the energy to bookmark the thread just so you could today congratulate yourselves upon your cleverness!
First of all, I wasn't the one that posted the question today. And this person hardly had to "dig" to find this. Go look at the United Airlines page. The last post on this thread prior to today was 2/7. It would have easily been found within the top 8. I would agree it was digging if it was on like page 2.
And..."no" isn't a form of debate. It's an answer to what Segue posted. He asked a question, I replied with the correct answer.
My references to debate were clearly refering to Synchro's post of last week.
Why so sensitive all-of-the sudden? Even if someone "dug" this thread out - don't you think the brazeness of your post deserves to be called out as incorrect? If you're going to be so bold as to predict major actions, decisions, or outcomes without any tangible back-up or support - you need to be prepared to admit that you were wrong in your assertion if it proves incorrect. Just as your assertion in this post proved incorrect. Feb. 8th passed with no repo occuring.
As for a repo, I don't think it will happen until things get REALLY bad - like just before liquidation where UA can't pay the bills for fuel. Treasury is in constant contact with the lessors. There is a lot of historical goodwill in the relationships UA has with lessors - there is no reason at this point for lessors to engage in such behavior.