Chip Munn said:
As you know, US Airways and United are incrementally integrating operations and co-locating facilities. For example, on October 1 US Airways took custody of two United gates in Seattle and the Arlington-based airline will do the same thing in Los Angeles and San Francisco after the first of the year.
Is it so unusual for alliance partners to Co-Locate?
If you believe that co-locating facilities is an indicator of UCT, then you must believe that NWA and CAL will merge any day now, as they have several airports with co-located facilities. And, in fact, CAL just moved into DAL's facilites at DFW.
Secondly, what about all the airline mergers which occured without co-located facilities? I can recall many mergers where facilities were dealt with afterwards, including the recent AA-TW merger, where AA had separate facilities at MAJOR airports for a time, including LAX and JFK.
I doubt the company will have a problem obtaining an extension, but it's no secret US Airways is interested in obtaining some United gates at Chicago and Denver. United is going to have a smaller fleet and operation upon emergence and by the company transferring gates to its business partner both airlines can create economies of scale and either code share or merger passenger travel experience benefits.
You name any major airline (except Southwest) and you've just named an airline that wouldn't mind additional facilities in Chicago. I guess there is no chance that USAir is just trying to minimize connecting issues to its alliance partners at their primary hubs. Nothing can be that simple with you.
CO-LOCATION OF FACILITIES DOES NOT PROVE UCT
UCT airport municipal bond litigation
Huh? Can you provide case or docket numbers? Or will you continue to rely on your super secret sources. Somehow, I am sure that in these cases are sealed, or you won't provide the information. That leads me to believe you are just making this one up.
Getting a commitment for a government backed loan where the assets are colateralized is not a big deal. Where's the risk for the financier with the government guaranteeing the loan?
The bigger issue is getting the loan guarantee approved, which could be more difficult.
Duh! Thank you for stating the obvious. My point is that UAL emegence plan currently hinges on the ATSB, as did USAirway's. If the ATSB denies UAL's application, UAL needs a Plan B. Maybe Plan B is equity investment? Maybe its something else, I don't know, and I won't pretend to.
And just to add fuel to the fire, some comments from Ray Neidl, as reported by August Cole from CBS MarketWatch:
"We do not believe that US Airways can survive in its present form," analyst Ray Neidl of Blaylock & Partners wrote in a report earlier this week. He rates the stock "sell" because the company "could be forced to re-enter Chapter 11 as early as next year if the model is not modified."
My guess is that an airline which at least one analyst believes may enter Chapter 11 within months is probably not in a position to go shopping for UAL assets, assuming UAL was planning to sell (which UAL has given no indication of).
FYI, quoting an article as FACT which quotes you internet chatboard speculation, is circular logic. And that doesn't fly.
I have asked repeatedly for sources. Other posters, you tell them that they are "dead wrong", yet you provide no other information. An informed person would be able to say "You are wrong, here is why" yet you do not do that.
You have already flip-flopped on the UCT... First saying it was less likely (after my questioning), then days later, you are back to convincing us the UCT is back on because some UAL and UAIR officials met on business.
Lastly you quote every article on consolidaton as a sign of the imminent UCT. When it is pointed out to you that one of your quoted articles was actually about mergers between US and European airlines by 2010, you do not respond. You always end with
Consolidation is Inevitable. This is a point on which we agree, and the experts have been telling us this since 1978.
Chip, unfortunately, your credibility is non-existant. Your souces are never provided, and your "factual" information always seems tainted. I do not understand your motivations in posting all of this UCT garbage is. As far as I can tell, you are either making it all up, or in violation of SEC disclosure regulations (i.e. Sam Waskal and Martha Stewart), as well as doing your employer a huge disservice by giving inside information to competitors.