In Response To Chip

Bear96

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
2,926
122
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.
 
And Chip I am curious as to how the news about UA lining up $2B in financing may have changed your ICT/UCT/CCT/DCT/whatever theory of UA selling assets to U to raise cash?

I know in another thread you (predictably) focused on the problems UA still faces in actually getting the cash, instead of the ramifications of the news proving your other theories to be full of holes.

But I am wondering if that at least indicates to you that maybe, just maybe (even a little teensy bit), UA is not really focused on selling assets to U to raise cash at the moment, after all?

And don't you think right now U should be focusing its resources on combating the SWA PHL threat, instead of salivating after purchasing UA assets that don't even appear to be for sale?

I know it is more fun to dream about a new hub somewhere out West or pretty new long-haul aircraft and layovers than it is to talk about slogging it out with WN in the low-fare domestic market but... reality bites sometimes.
 
Its amazing how much control Chip has over some of the readers minds. Enough to spark this much writing . Wow! If enough people spent as much time as Chip does on investigating asking questions and for the most part being positive, imagine what our morale would be like today. Hey its a free country Bear >......... talk on!
 
usfliboi said:
Its amazing how much control Chip has over some of the readers minds. Enough to spark this much writing . Wow! If enough people spent as much time as Chip does on investigating asking questions and for the most part being positive, imagine what our morale would be like today. Hey its a free country Bear >......... talk on!
True Fliboi. And imagine how our morale would be if we had a CEO with the leadership and airline-running skills of Bethune, Kelleher or Neeleman.

Siegel just pointed out his opinion that there would be 3 or 4 airlines left and asked if we wanted to be one of them. Bethune would have pointed out there would be 3 or 4 airlines left and we WOULD be one of them. And CAL probably will. Unless this BOD dismisses Siegel and the "team" we won't.

fliboi, its not the employees that are the problem. It is Siegel.

mr
 
"Unless this BOD dismisses Siegel and the "team" we won't. "

The Chairman of the Board has already promised the board's complete support for Dave's leadership.
 
Blue:

Let me point out something that glared at me from Bronners statement. He stated the "board has complete confidence in Siegel and his team".

There are 4 seats on that board that are owned by ALPA, CWA, IAM, and the TWU. How he states "complete" support is baffling. No, it is a lie. The BOD does not have complete support for Siegel. And those 4 votes can turn into a majority as the case moves forward. The fiduciary responsibility of the BOD system has recently been brought to light with the Enron and various other scandals. As the 4 union board seats make their case for the dismissal of an inept CEO and his team 4 votes could turn into a majority in a heartbeat. Why do you suppose Siegel is not allowing ALPA acesss to finanical records?

Bronner knows his investment is in deep do-do. The employees have much more to lose here than Bronner and Siegel. His taking us into oblivion with plan A, then plan A1, and now a developing plan B which shows a distinct lack of understanding of this business and how to run it. We want him gone. And we will present to the BOD members who support him the evidence of his lack of ablilty to run this company. Then they will do the job they are legally tasked with doing. Finding a CEO who can run this company.

mr
 
mrplanes said:
Blue:

Let me point out something that glared at me from Bronners statement. He stated the "board has complete confidence in Siegel and his team".

There are 4 seats on that board that are owned by ALPA, CWA, IAM, and the TWU. How he states "complete" support is baffling. No, it is a lie. The BOD does not have complete support for Siegel. And those 4 votes can turn into a majority as the case moves forward. The fiduciary responsibility of the BOD system has recently been brought to light with the Enron and various other scandals. As the 4 union board seats make their case for the dismissal of an inept CEO and his team 4 votes could turn into a majority in a heartbeat. Why do you suppose Siegel is not allowing ALPA acesss to finanical records?

Bronner knows his investment is in deep do-do. The employees have much more to lose here than Bronner and Siegel. His taking us into oblivion with plan A, then plan A1, and now a developing plan B which shows a distinct lack of understanding of this business and how to run it. We want him gone. And we will present to the BOD members who support him the evidence of his lack of ablilty to run this company. Then they will do the job they are legally tasked with doing. Finding a CEO who can run this company.

mr
And in the meantime I feel ALL the labor groups should get together on this by becoming a very solid labor coalition to make the BOD that much more convinced that removing this team is the only wise decision, and that it makes perfect business sense especially since labor refuses to work with this team any longer.
 
Well it didn't take long for THIS thread to get off topic too...

But while we're on the subject, I must say I don't quite understand all the hullaballoo over getting rid of Seigel. We have gone through our little paroxysms at UA too of "Throw the bum out!" And I have always asked of those advocating such a course of action, Who do you have waiting in the wings that would do a better job? Do you think that person would come in and say, "Great job guys-- even though we are losing gobs of money, here is a big raise 'just because' and to 'raise morale'" (that favorite rallying cry of the unions)?

Anyone who comes in will go through the predictable phases of a honeymoon period, soon followed by, as soon as they start talking about what will really be necessary to make the company a viable long-term entity, the cries to get rid of that person too. In the meantime, an atmosphere has been created that only very few people would want to step into because of the vitriol from the unions. So then the only way to attract someone qualified is to offer them an obscene compensation package-- thereby inviting even MORE criticism from the unions.

It is, beyond doubt, reprehensible and indefensible that Seigel chose a course of action to violate the CBAs which were already concessionary. But why do you think a new CEO would do any differently? It's the nature of the CEO beast, with only a few exceptions.

I think there was a very real danger that had Seigel not stepped up and done what he has done so far, U would not even be here today. But obviously his work is not done yet and U is still sick. More drastic measures are necessary.

It's nice to have a scapegoat and all, but do you really think a different CEO would tell you otherwise?
 
usfliboi said:
Its amazing how much control Chip has over some of the readers minds. Enough to spark this much writing . Wow! If enough people spent as much time as Chip does on investigating asking questions and for the most part being positive, imagine what our morale would be like today. Hey its a free country Bear >......... talk on!
what do you mean by that remark about mind control?
 
Bear96 said:
It's nice to have a scapegoat and all, but do you really think a different CEO would tell you otherwise?
So your way of looking at it would be sometime like this: Ok well I know my surgeon messed up my surgery and now I need even more risky procedures and yet again with all the risks that comes with it plus I will need will to heal again. But what I am hoping for in this THIRD surgical procedure is success, and that success is based on blind faith using the same surgeon who bungled the first two attempts.

No this is not surgery, but it affects our lives much in the same way and for my money I want a new surgeon, new CEO before I take the risks again.
 
delldude said:
what do you mean by that remark about mind control?
I'm not sure what he meant by it but it is obvious (except probably to him) that HE is under CHIP's mind control.
 
cavalier said:
So your way of looking at it would be sometime like this: Ok well I know my surgeon messed up my surgery and now I need even more risky procedures and yet again with all the risks that comes with it plus I will need will to heal again. But what I am hoping for in this THIRD surgical procedure is success, and that success is based on blind faith using the same surgeon who bungled the first two attempts.

No this is not surgery, but it affects our lives much in the same way and for my money I want a new surgeon, new CEO before I take the risks again.
Interesting surgeon analogy. But I would look at it a bit differently.

I was, and am, a very sick, high-risk patient. My GP gave up on me, so I found a high-priced specialist. He somehow pulled me out of immediate danger. But complications are to be expected with this type of procedure and now those complications are manifesting themselves and becoming serious. It is easy to blame the surgeon, but perhaps it is short-sighted considering the overall risks and how sick I am.

I suppose if there were another surgeon who I thought would do better, I would go to her. But I can't really think of who that would be. In addition, I am about to run out of insurance (the lenders are giving up), and I am known to be a very difficult patient (the union intransigence we are now seeing) and I complain loudly about my surgeon's compensation. So even if there were a more qualified surgeon out there, which is far from certain, I doubt she would want to take on my case. And even if she did, all the medical experts I have gone to are basically saying the same thing (cut, cut, cut), so I doubt she would follow a course of treatment significantly different from what Dr. Seigel is now doing.

OK sorry for beating that one to death. My main point is, if you know of someone out there willing to take on the job who would do something significantly different than Seigel, great! Go for it!

But I don't see that on the horizon. And just changing for the sake of change is often simply disruptive and distracting and counterproductive, as we have seen at UA with the however many CEOs we had in the months leading up to Tilton taking over.
 
Interesting surgeon analogy. But I would look at it a bit differently.

[/QUOTE]
Since Todd is getting Itchy here...I will agree to disagree on this. I will never believe keeping the incompetence we already have in place will solve anything, hence taking the risk is acceptable.

My diamond hard resolve will not be altered on this issue. :)
 
I might have missed something.... what is DCT and CCT?

UCT = Unique Corp. Transaction
ICT = Interesting Corp. Transaction

The other two I have not seen before... More make-believe stuff I assume, but I just want to keep up on the acronyms...