USA320Pilot said:
The corporate intent is to complete a corperate transaction and the stars are aligned for it to be with United, but that could always change.
That may indeed be US Airways' intent (although I'm still not sure how or why
you would know that), but you have
never provided any evidence whatsoever that it is United's intent. In fact, some posters that you disparage have quoted Tilton as saying just the opposite,
i.e., that United neither wants nor needs "a corporate transaction", either within or outside of Chapter 11, with US Airways or anyone else. Why is Tilton's public statement not sufficient for you?
USA320Pilot said:
I find it interesting that certain United posters regularly visit this topic on the US Airways and always post "uninformed" comments disputing the information, even if US Airways’ chairman and CEO publicly discuss it.
To the extent that this comment is directed at me, you're way off base. The fact that Bronner and Siegel discussed
possible asset purchases by US Airways at some undefined point in the future certainly doesn't preclude me from giving
my opinion that any such purchases, if they occur at all, will most likely not involve any of United's assets. Sorry, but you have no more
detailed information about future asset purchases by US Airways than I do, so if my opinion is "uninformed", your's is as well. And frankly, you're the poster boy for "uninformed", as magsau pointed out in his post above regarding the recent United bankruptcy court hearing (referring to your "irritated" comment quoted again below).
USA320Pilot said:
From this observer's perch, I do not want to merge with United because for some reason the United pilots believed they deserve super seniority with a pre-nuptial clause, but their current contract changed that to ALPA Merger Policy, now that there in bankruptcy and could be fragmented.
That's an interesting comment about fragmentation since I think that, as things currently stand, US Airways has a much greater chance of being fragmented than does United. But hey, that's JMHO.
USA320Pilot said:
Each company has financial issues and with reports that United could miss its DIP financing in both February and March, this could become very interesting. Moreover, the bankruptcy court seems a little irritated with United and denied its request for a 4-month POR extension, granting only 1-month, but indicating it could be extended month-to-month.
What reports? Once a month or so you usually trot out this line about "reports that United could miss its DIP financing [sic] in" upcoming months, this time mentioning February and March. In fact, throughout most of last summer, you kept arguing (based on such "reports") that United was likely to miss its DIP financers' EBITDAR targets in October and November 2003. Yet not only were you (and the "reports") wrong but you have
NEVER, EVER provided a source or link to these mysterious "reports", none of which have I ever seen in either the aviation or general media and which I strongly suspect don't actually exist (there's a surprise!). Moreover, and undoubtedly much to your chagrin, United issued a press release today (you can read it
here) saying that it met its DIP EBITDAR requirements again in January 2004 for the 12th consecutive month. But you and these "reports" that you continue to cite have at least been consistent -- consistently
wrong!
USA320Pilot said:
David Bronner told the US AIrways ALPA MEC that provided US Airways had a competitive cost structure, he would then consider buying other airline assets for US Airways. There is much to do for this to occur, but that could happen in the not-so-distant future.
Despite Bronner's repeated quotes about
possible future asset purchases on behalf of US Airways, he has
never (to the best of my knowledge) publicly mentioned purchasing any of United's assets. Did he specifically mention United's assets in the recent meeting he had with your ALPA MEC? If not, you have
no basis to claim that United's assets are the object of Bronner's desire.
