To continue the off-topic discussion from the "Pit res to close" thread...
Chip said: "The "AA carve out" to the last merger attempt was UA selling its gates in LGA & BOS to AA, AA buying the US B757s, F-110s, & MD-80s from UA post merger, and the joint shuttle plan."
Bear96 sez: Oh, I get it. Yet ANOTHER Chip prediction that didn't end up happening. Last I heard US still had 757s and DL and US were still operating the Shuttle. So one could say you were... DEAD WRONG, no?
Chip said: "In regard to the UCT, if you remember I said in March 2002 the revenue umbrella would be the US-UA domestic and the Star alliance."
Bear96 sez: Frankly, I don't remember exactly what you said or when a year and a half ago or when you said it. You make so many predictions, they kinda blur together. And I suppose you operate on the volume (quantity not quality) theory-- spout enough predictions, and maybe one is right once in a while. The alternative theory you employ is to call the blindingly obvious and then take credit for it.
Here's my prediction: U management will be seeking more concessions from U employees in the coming months. If I am right will you tell me how brilliant I am and give me some sort of award?
Chip said: "Who first broke the 60 aircraft news on this website last night."
Bear96 sez: Is this another prediction that will be untrue? I guess you have a different idea of 'breaking news' than the rest of us, because it seems to just be rumor so far. But I know you have a problem distinguishing 'news' from 'rumor.'
Chip said: "Can you now say DCT...or will it be UCT...or the ICT."
Bear96 sez: There you go again. As I mentioned before, if you make enough predictions, or hedge yourself enough, or revise or backtrack enough, or change some acronyms around, you once in a while might come up with something kinda sorta close to resembling actual events in the real world. Very smart... you have now very nicely covered yourself with several theories, so most likely whatever happens may resemble in some vague way, shape, or form enough so that you will be back on here crowing how you said it first.
Chip said: "Regardless, Siegel told management today at the Crystal City meeting that he strongly believes that like the steel industry, the industry will go from 6 or 7 big competitors to 3 or 4 and the question is whether we want to be one of the 3 or 4."
Bear96 sez: I think Seigel is right. Unfortunately, I don't think U will be one of the 3 or 4. (Another prediction, I might add, and one I make reluctantly and with great empathy for what U employees are going through. Just remember to give me due credit if it becomes true.)
Chip said: "Furthermore, with US and UA continuing their incremental consolidation a deal will never proceed, right...."
Bear96 sez: I have never said a US/UA consolidation deal would never happen. In fact if you go through my past postings I have consistently said I have no idea and nothing would surprise me anymore in this industry. I have also been consistent that my only beef is how you present your opinions as fact; never admit when you are wrong; and consistently twist the news about UA into something as negative as possible (see below) while completely ignoring what is going on a U and focusing on pipe dreams. As far as U and UA consolidating into one entity at some point in the future, who knows? Not I, and CERTAINLY not you.
Chip said: "How much did the TSA $300 million grant adjust the calculus? Without this surpirse gift, in light of UAL's bankruptcy attorney saying the company nearly defaulted, would UAL have violated its DIP terms?"
Bear96 sez: Would've, should've, but for, if only, blah blah blah. The fact remains, legally and as far as the financial world is concerned, to date UA has NOT VIOLATED THE TERMS OF ITS DIP COVENANTS. Twist it around however you want to. But to any objective observer, once again you are... DEAD WRONG.
Chip said: "The "AA carve out" to the last merger attempt was UA selling its gates in LGA & BOS to AA, AA buying the US B757s, F-110s, & MD-80s from UA post merger, and the joint shuttle plan."
Bear96 sez: Oh, I get it. Yet ANOTHER Chip prediction that didn't end up happening. Last I heard US still had 757s and DL and US were still operating the Shuttle. So one could say you were... DEAD WRONG, no?
Chip said: "In regard to the UCT, if you remember I said in March 2002 the revenue umbrella would be the US-UA domestic and the Star alliance."
Bear96 sez: Frankly, I don't remember exactly what you said or when a year and a half ago or when you said it. You make so many predictions, they kinda blur together. And I suppose you operate on the volume (quantity not quality) theory-- spout enough predictions, and maybe one is right once in a while. The alternative theory you employ is to call the blindingly obvious and then take credit for it.
Here's my prediction: U management will be seeking more concessions from U employees in the coming months. If I am right will you tell me how brilliant I am and give me some sort of award?
Chip said: "Who first broke the 60 aircraft news on this website last night."
Bear96 sez: Is this another prediction that will be untrue? I guess you have a different idea of 'breaking news' than the rest of us, because it seems to just be rumor so far. But I know you have a problem distinguishing 'news' from 'rumor.'
Chip said: "Can you now say DCT...or will it be UCT...or the ICT."
Bear96 sez: There you go again. As I mentioned before, if you make enough predictions, or hedge yourself enough, or revise or backtrack enough, or change some acronyms around, you once in a while might come up with something kinda sorta close to resembling actual events in the real world. Very smart... you have now very nicely covered yourself with several theories, so most likely whatever happens may resemble in some vague way, shape, or form enough so that you will be back on here crowing how you said it first.
Chip said: "Regardless, Siegel told management today at the Crystal City meeting that he strongly believes that like the steel industry, the industry will go from 6 or 7 big competitors to 3 or 4 and the question is whether we want to be one of the 3 or 4."
Bear96 sez: I think Seigel is right. Unfortunately, I don't think U will be one of the 3 or 4. (Another prediction, I might add, and one I make reluctantly and with great empathy for what U employees are going through. Just remember to give me due credit if it becomes true.)
Chip said: "Furthermore, with US and UA continuing their incremental consolidation a deal will never proceed, right...."
Bear96 sez: I have never said a US/UA consolidation deal would never happen. In fact if you go through my past postings I have consistently said I have no idea and nothing would surprise me anymore in this industry. I have also been consistent that my only beef is how you present your opinions as fact; never admit when you are wrong; and consistently twist the news about UA into something as negative as possible (see below) while completely ignoring what is going on a U and focusing on pipe dreams. As far as U and UA consolidating into one entity at some point in the future, who knows? Not I, and CERTAINLY not you.
Chip said: "How much did the TSA $300 million grant adjust the calculus? Without this surpirse gift, in light of UAL's bankruptcy attorney saying the company nearly defaulted, would UAL have violated its DIP terms?"
Bear96 sez: Would've, should've, but for, if only, blah blah blah. The fact remains, legally and as far as the financial world is concerned, to date UA has NOT VIOLATED THE TERMS OF ITS DIP COVENANTS. Twist it around however you want to. But to any objective observer, once again you are... DEAD WRONG.