Fly said:The only thing Ted is are some A320's and a logo. It's not a seperate company. Nothing really to sell that US Air can't just fly themselves.
[post="301617"][/post]
UALDC737 said:PS on a side note.....on some of our routes to Mexico/Carribean, the application to DOT listed it as TED by United doing the flying....does this mean the route authorities belong to TED ( and thus have to be flown by TED) or can mainline United decide to chnage back to normal 320's/737/757?
[post="301630"][/post]
Hopefully, showing the logical inconsistency of his speculation will nip this idea in the bud, although that hasn't stopped him in the past.Second, on top of everything else, the "sale" of TED (ignoring for the moment that there is nothing to "sell" other than individual A320 aircraft or the rights to the name "TED") by United to the "new" US Airways doesn't make any business sense. If US Airways were going to use TED to continue serving its current routes feeding United's hubs, which can be the only basis for your claim that United would continue to receive incremental revenue, there would be no added benefit to the US Airways system to justify draining some portion of the carrier's precious cash holdings with this purchase. On the other hand, if US Airways were to move the TED flights away from feeding United's hubs, there would then be no incremental revenues for United to receive. Thus, as I said above, this deal makes no business sense and is exceedingly unlikely to happen.
There are alot of pacific routes that will go along with the sale of Ted according to some AWA management folks.hp_fa said:If Newco (HP/US) is downsizing, why would they turn around and buy TED? To overspend and downsize some more?
[post="301639"][/post]
OK, answer me this. Does that make sense to you? Why would United do that?luvthe9 said:There are alot of pacific routes that will go along with the sale of Ted according to some AWA management folks.
[post="301754"][/post]
The first time I saw him spouting this (last week, I think), I attempted to explain that it doesn't make sense too. But, as usual, it does little good to inject facts and common sense into the debate when he is on a roll about the latest "UCT." He'll just repeat the nonsense over and over until people think it MUST be true simply because it's been said so often.Cosmo said:I've made the following comments on two different threads on the US Airways board, without any response (so far) by a certain captain:
...
Hopefully, showing the logical inconsistency of his speculation will nip this idea in the bud, although that hasn't stopped him in the past.
[post="301747"][/post]
Now THAT would be a good deal for UA, if AWA pays a ton of money for all the Pacific routes TED flies...luvthe9 said:There are alot of pacific routes that will go along with the sale of Ted according to some AWA management folks.
[post="301754"][/post]
How bout they need some money real soon, I don't think they can go on with out the sale of some assets, I could be wrong but time will tell. It's ashame we did not hook up years ago, Wolfs first comment to us was what a powerhouse UAL/US would be. You have to agree things are going to change soon alot more mergers.dc3fanatic said:OK, answer me this. Does that make sense to you? Why would United do that?
[post="301793"][/post]
FWAAA said:As fly correctly pointed out, TED is just differently configured/painted A320s on the same operating certificate. It's all United Airlines when you take away the hype.
So the Mexico/Caribbean routes belong to UAL and UAL can fly them with United planes or TED planes or whatever they want to call them. Doesn't matter to the DOT.
Ted (and Song) are nothing more than marketing hype - "Let's create what kinda looks like an LCC and some of our problems will be solved." Dunno how well that's worked out.
[post="301676"][/post]