UAL ALPA Confirms Interesting Corporate Transaction

[Cosmo]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/30/2003 2:32:15 PM chipmunn wrote:

Dlflyer, I disagree with your post. If UA elects to fragment the company US is a better suitor because of the code share agreement.

The combined ASMs whether UA remains intact or "spins off" part of its domstic system, to another airline as indicated by Paul Whiteford, would be part of the combined US-UA domestic alliance if the assets went to US. Therefore, UA could keep code share revenue on the "carve out" portion of their present system, versus transferring these ASMs to a competitor.

Interestingly, this could be a crucial part of UA surviving to help the carrier meet its stringent DIP financing commitments.

Chip

----------------
[/blockquote]
That is pure, unadulterated nonsense! According to the UA/US code-sharing agreement, not only would UA receive NO revenue from that part of a passenger's trip that would be on US if it replaced UA on a route, but it would also have the effect of reducing UA's overall yield because UA would no longer get the higher-yielding local traffic on the dropped segment into the hub. And most UA international flights and virtually all UA mainline domestic flights (JFK-SJU, JFK-SEA, SEA-ANC and PHX-TUS are the only exceptions that I can recall) touch a UA hub at one end or the other of the flight. So UA's overall revenues would drop proportionately faster than its expenses, making UA's ability to meet the DIP revenue projections, and thus emerge from bankruptcy protection, more difficult rather than easier.

Also, Chip, why haven't you responded the questions and observations posed by Bear96 and me on the previous page of this thread? Is it too inconvenient to have to address logical arguments which shoot holes in your fanciful theories that are based on nothing more than hearsay, half-truths and outright fabrications?

And since I'm on a roll, why are you the ONLY person publicly claiming to have inside information about "unique" and "interesting" corporate transactions between UA and US while NOBODY in the general press (including investigative reporters at newspapers and news magazines), the aviation press, aviation consultantcies, law firms or Wall Street brokerage houses have said even a single word about such a transaction? In this day and age of 24/7/365 investigative reporting and news leaks to gauge public reaction, how can this be even remotely possible? Repeatedly hiding behind the excuse that "I can't reveal my sources" sounds too much like the discredited Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Frankly, Chip, IMHO it doesn't pass the "smell" test and "there is reason to believe" that you no longer have any credibility on this issue.

 

[real world]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/30/2003 10:55:27 AM chipmunn wrote:
Furthermore, one of the reasons Greg Taylor returned to UA was his in-depth knowledge of both company's and to provide a strategic direction if the deal proceeds.

-----------

Chip,

That is not why Greg Taylor left US Airways, quit trying to imply you have inside information, when you do not.

 

[Slam&Click]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/30/2003 7:31:54 PM BottomFeeder wrote:

RealWorld,

Why should anyone accept your word? WHERE THE BEEF or the facts to support your comments. What are your credentials and your source? Are you a U employee or just an informed person?

----------------
[/blockquote]

Ask yourself this, Bottomfeeder: Considering the content, ethics and validity of all prior posts, whom would you choose to believe?

 

[BottomFeeder]

SlamClick,

Sometimes it is fun to go fishing without any worms on the hook. You don't get many bites but it is relaxing and gives a person time to think.

What kind of a leader would you follow?

 

[BottomFeeder]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/30/2003 7:22:31 PM real world wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/30/2003 10:55:27 AM chipmunn wrote:
Furthermore, one of the reasons Greg Taylor returned to UA was his in-depth knowledge of both company's and to provide a strategic direction if the deal proceeds.

-----------

Chip,

That is not why Greg Taylor left US Airways, quit trying to imply you have inside information, when you do not.
----------------
[/blockquote]

***************************************

RealWorld,


Why should anyone accept your word? "WHERE THE BEEF" or the facts to support your comments. What are your credentials and your source? Are you a U employee or just an informed person?

 

[real world]

[blockquote]
----------------
Chipmunn wrote:

In regard to IT, US obtained a favorable ruling from the bankruptcy court that could abrogate the EDS Sabre contract and then there was the recent announcement of the new arrangement with Galileo. These moves could lead to both UA and US utilizing Apollo as its IT platform and remove a significant obstacle to the companies integrating.

-------------

Again Chip you are wrong here the Galileo deal has nothing to do with a desire on US to change to Apollo, The Galileo deal was a cost issue period, as were the many other deals that have been negotiated under BK.

 

[BottomFeeder]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/30/2003 720 PM Slam&Click wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/30/2003 7:31:54 PM BottomFeeder wrote:




Ask yourself this, Bottomfeeder: Considering the content, ethics and validity of all prior posts, whom would you choose to believe?

**********************************

It was pretty logical back a few weeks ago.


At least he is hooked in to the spinalcord at U.

 

[BottomFeeder]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/30/2003 409 PM magsau wrote:

Bottom Feeder:"That sounds good, except when UAL bought Pan AM assets, they put the Pan Am pilots in a preferential interveiw pool. Seems the same would be a reasonable if the roles are reversed. I have quite a few friends who ended up on the street because of the UAL deal."

A major portion of that statement if false!!!! UAL hired and placed in the seniority list at doh the PAN AM pac pilots. UAL hired without interviews the number of pilots that staffed the LHR routes. The remaining PanAm pilots that did not come WITH assests were given preferential hiring. How many Pan Am pilots did DL take? Did they give them preferential hiring when they bought the JFK and FRA hubs? The answer is NO.

Speaking of taking crews with aircraft. How many EAL pilots did U take when they bought the EAL 757's and the PHL operation? NONE . Not one EAL pilot was given any thing other than newhire status at U.

The go's around comes around can swing right back in the face of the U pilots.


----------------
[/blockquote]


***********************************

magsau


You need to get your history books back out. You are incorrect. The UAL transaction to purchase the Pan AM pac did not go by DOH but by slotting. Most of the pilots were senior and retired in a few years. They were way more senior than the UAL pilots but were slotted on a ratio. I can't remember the ratio but it seems like a 3 to 1 or something. The LHR transaction was minium staffing and much more restrictions.

DL bought the Europe 310 fleet and took only qualified pilots. They were also slotted. The most junior pilot was 700 numbers or so junior to the last pilot on the current list. " They had planned to hire this number prior to the purchase of assets". They also took pilots with the Shuttle's 727s.

So what information do you want to share on the peferential interveiws?

How many pilots went with the Pan Am sa?

 

[Slam&Click]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/30/2003 7:56:43 PM BottomFeeder wrote:

It was pretty logical back a few weeks ago.

At least he is hooked in to the spinalcord at U.

----------------
[/blockquote]
Now we're on the same page!
=================
Thanks for your balanced honesty, Real World!

 

[767jetz]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/30/2003 12:15:38 PM Bear96 wrote:

(And it's kind of silly to refer to UAL as "the Elk Grove Township-based airline" like that, isn't it, unless you are writing a newspaper article, or the geographical location of the corporate HQ is relevant to the topic in some other way? Plus you might want to check your use of "'s" and the grammar rules of plural vs. possessive. Just trying to help you with your clunky writing style, in case writing for the media is your post-U Plan B.)
----------------
[/blockquote]

[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif'] [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif']
That was great! Thanks Bear. I needed a good laugh!
[img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif'] [img src='http://www.usaviation.com/idealbb/images/smilies/9.gif']

 

[767jetz]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/30/2003 10:55:27 AM chipmunn wrote:

Separately, I find it interesting UA employees never post on the US message board unless a transaction with US is discussed. Why is that?

Chip

----------------
[/blockquote]

DUHHH!!??

Maybe because we mind our own business and don't really care about what goes on at U unless it pertains to UAL. We have enough on our plate as it is.

 

[Biffeman]

I believe someone is making more out of this, no where is it said nor implied US will be doing anything for UA.

 

[DCAflyer]

767jets said:

DUHHH!!??

Maybe because we mind our own business and don't really care about what goes on at U unless it pertains to UAL. We have enough on our plate as it is.

DCAflyer responds:

For someone who minds UAL's business, you certainly spend a lot of time posting on the US Airways board.

 

[767jetz]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 1/31/2003 10:57:16 AM DCAflyer wrote:


For someone who minds UAL's business, you certainly spend a lot of time posting on the US Airways board.


----------------
[/blockquote]

Only when the discussion involves MY company.

Is that really so hard to understand?