Unprecedented Change…
- Thread starter USA320Pilot
- Start date
JungleClone
Senior
- Jan 9, 2004
- 338
- 0
USA320Pilot,
You've been ranting about various "unique corporate transactions" involving US and UA for years now and not one of them has come to fruition. Do you honestly expect anyone reading these boards to continue to take you seriously without providing anything other than simple conjecture and rumor-spreading? As has been pointed out, TED is not a separate subsidiary of UAL, it is attached to the same operating certificate.
If Glenn Tilton were intent on spinning off TED as its' own subsidiary and then selling it to a combined US/HP, there's absolutely NO WAY he'd accomplish that in time for a February 2006 bankruptcy exit. Why would UA want to get rid of TED? It is performing higher than initial expectations. While not all TED markets are making money, they've all seen margin improvement. I don't see the benefit of UA getting rid of TED, especially since all Glenn Tilton and his minions have done is talk about how TED will be a lynchpin of UA's strategy going forward.
Are you actually insinuating that UA will attempt a merger of a combined HP/US? It makes no sense given that with all the cost reductions UA has made since they entered bankruptcy, they're still nowhere close to sustained profitability. Why, upon emerging from bankruptcy, would UA immediately saddle themselves with more debt? UA already has the critical mass in place. They're better off cherry-picking assets from those carriers who give themselves a haircut in the immediate and near-term future.
You can throw words like "consolidation" and "major industry landscape restructuring" around all you want, but who will help the acquiring carrier pay for the merger? While in theory, consolidation makes sense given the problems that the industry is facing, it doesn't even begin to help carriers pay for all the headaches of pulling off a merger.
Let's not forget that UA really has no concrete business plan to use upon emergence from Chapter 11, other than "business as usual". The folks running UA these days are not creative or strategic thinkers. They do not have the wherewithall to think outside the box and re-shape UA into a competitive juggernaut going forward. Sure, the balance sheet looks a lot better and costs have certainly come down. But that is exactly what a company in bankruptcy is expected to do. Where are the efficiency changes that are needed to lower operating costs? Where is the creativity in changing how the product is distributed? Where is the streamlining of WHQ that was promised? The bottom line is that even though UA is tens of thousdands of employees lighter than several years ago, and even though the remaining 60,000 employees are earning much lower salaries and enjoying much lower benefits, the company is no more efficient than the day it filed for Chapter 11. For all their work on the much-heralded "FIT" (fix, improve, transform) project, very few, if any, of the results have been rolled out across the system. Maybe Senior Management should have focused a bit more on things besides drastically lowering employee salaries and benefits.
As for your merger talk, you'll need to bring a few more facts to the table before I take the bait.
You've been ranting about various "unique corporate transactions" involving US and UA for years now and not one of them has come to fruition. Do you honestly expect anyone reading these boards to continue to take you seriously without providing anything other than simple conjecture and rumor-spreading? As has been pointed out, TED is not a separate subsidiary of UAL, it is attached to the same operating certificate.
If Glenn Tilton were intent on spinning off TED as its' own subsidiary and then selling it to a combined US/HP, there's absolutely NO WAY he'd accomplish that in time for a February 2006 bankruptcy exit. Why would UA want to get rid of TED? It is performing higher than initial expectations. While not all TED markets are making money, they've all seen margin improvement. I don't see the benefit of UA getting rid of TED, especially since all Glenn Tilton and his minions have done is talk about how TED will be a lynchpin of UA's strategy going forward.
Are you actually insinuating that UA will attempt a merger of a combined HP/US? It makes no sense given that with all the cost reductions UA has made since they entered bankruptcy, they're still nowhere close to sustained profitability. Why, upon emerging from bankruptcy, would UA immediately saddle themselves with more debt? UA already has the critical mass in place. They're better off cherry-picking assets from those carriers who give themselves a haircut in the immediate and near-term future.
You can throw words like "consolidation" and "major industry landscape restructuring" around all you want, but who will help the acquiring carrier pay for the merger? While in theory, consolidation makes sense given the problems that the industry is facing, it doesn't even begin to help carriers pay for all the headaches of pulling off a merger.
Let's not forget that UA really has no concrete business plan to use upon emergence from Chapter 11, other than "business as usual". The folks running UA these days are not creative or strategic thinkers. They do not have the wherewithall to think outside the box and re-shape UA into a competitive juggernaut going forward. Sure, the balance sheet looks a lot better and costs have certainly come down. But that is exactly what a company in bankruptcy is expected to do. Where are the efficiency changes that are needed to lower operating costs? Where is the creativity in changing how the product is distributed? Where is the streamlining of WHQ that was promised? The bottom line is that even though UA is tens of thousdands of employees lighter than several years ago, and even though the remaining 60,000 employees are earning much lower salaries and enjoying much lower benefits, the company is no more efficient than the day it filed for Chapter 11. For all their work on the much-heralded "FIT" (fix, improve, transform) project, very few, if any, of the results have been rolled out across the system. Maybe Senior Management should have focused a bit more on things besides drastically lowering employee salaries and benefits.
As for your merger talk, you'll need to bring a few more facts to the table before I take the bait.
RowUnderDCA
Veteran
- Oct 6, 2002
- 2,123
- 1
Regarding fragmentation out of U's system, what would/could the new U sell and to whom?
OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #95
In regard to those who want to "shoot the messenger" that there will likely be mergers or fragmentations of legacy carrier's in the "not-to-distant", United is shopping assets for sale that include TED, or the UCT/ICT, what's your opinion of the following two articles?
How US Airways/America West merger got off the ground -- Talks between airlines began in 2003, but didn't get serious until this year
But there were several twists along the way, according to people familiar with the events. America West was not the only carrier to express interest in US Airways, nor was America West the only partner US Airways pursued.
The search for a deal began in the fall of 2003, when David Siegel was still US Airways' chief executive officer. Siegel had led US Airways through its first bankruptcy and wrested more than $1 billion in concessions from the company's labor unions. But even as the carrier completed a painful round of cost cuts and emerged from bankruptcy, Siegel knew US Airways was still too small and too inefficient to compete against discounters such as Southwest, which had already announced plans to start service in Philadelphia, a US Airways' hub.
Siegel was convinced that for US Airways to avoid the fate of failed carriers such as Eastern Airlines and Pan Am, both of which liquidated in the 1980s, he would have to bring US Airways' costs down further and position the airline for consolidation with another carrier. He explored several options.
Acquire United Airlines, the nation's No. 2 carrier. That option was code-named "Project Minnow," with US Airways as the small fish gobbling the bigger one.
See Story
Will US Airways' fifth trip down the merger runway be successful? Over the years, US Airways has eyed marriage with United (twice) and American (twice), only to be spurned. But observers believe its latest trip to the altar, with America West, may prove successful
David Siegel took US Airways through its first bankruptcy. After reemerging in 2003, he soon realized that costs had not been cut enough and the carrier faced heightened competition from Southwest and other low-cost carriers on the East Coast.
He began an aggressive search for new partners. He approached United again -- part of an initiative code-named "Project Minnow," with US Airways as the small fish swallowing the bigger one.
Complete Story
ALPA is preparing for more M&A activity or fragmentations that could effect the new US Airways, its revitalized airline, and much stronger balance sheet. For those people who continue to "shoot the messenger" regarding United Airlines, what's your opinion of the two articles hyperlinked above and "Project Minnow"?
Regards,
USA320Pilot
How US Airways/America West merger got off the ground -- Talks between airlines began in 2003, but didn't get serious until this year
But there were several twists along the way, according to people familiar with the events. America West was not the only carrier to express interest in US Airways, nor was America West the only partner US Airways pursued.
The search for a deal began in the fall of 2003, when David Siegel was still US Airways' chief executive officer. Siegel had led US Airways through its first bankruptcy and wrested more than $1 billion in concessions from the company's labor unions. But even as the carrier completed a painful round of cost cuts and emerged from bankruptcy, Siegel knew US Airways was still too small and too inefficient to compete against discounters such as Southwest, which had already announced plans to start service in Philadelphia, a US Airways' hub.
Siegel was convinced that for US Airways to avoid the fate of failed carriers such as Eastern Airlines and Pan Am, both of which liquidated in the 1980s, he would have to bring US Airways' costs down further and position the airline for consolidation with another carrier. He explored several options.
Acquire United Airlines, the nation's No. 2 carrier. That option was code-named "Project Minnow," with US Airways as the small fish gobbling the bigger one.
See Story
Will US Airways' fifth trip down the merger runway be successful? Over the years, US Airways has eyed marriage with United (twice) and American (twice), only to be spurned. But observers believe its latest trip to the altar, with America West, may prove successful
David Siegel took US Airways through its first bankruptcy. After reemerging in 2003, he soon realized that costs had not been cut enough and the carrier faced heightened competition from Southwest and other low-cost carriers on the East Coast.
He began an aggressive search for new partners. He approached United again -- part of an initiative code-named "Project Minnow," with US Airways as the small fish swallowing the bigger one.
Complete Story
ALPA is preparing for more M&A activity or fragmentations that could effect the new US Airways, its revitalized airline, and much stronger balance sheet. For those people who continue to "shoot the messenger" regarding United Airlines, what's your opinion of the two articles hyperlinked above and "Project Minnow"?
Regards,
USA320Pilot
- Banned
- #96
Blah blah blah,
Prove with facts that UAL is shopping TED,not old information that has nothing to do with your latest rumormongering.
Old news, did not happen, so prove it with facts, not just your rumors and speculation.
And I seriously doubt anyone in CCY, Tempe or WHQ will risk an SEC charge and jail time to tell a REGULAR line pilot who is not a union rep or mangement anything.
Prove with facts that UAL is shopping TED,not old information that has nothing to do with your latest rumormongering.
Old news, did not happen, so prove it with facts, not just your rumors and speculation.
And I seriously doubt anyone in CCY, Tempe or WHQ will risk an SEC charge and jail time to tell a REGULAR line pilot who is not a union rep or mangement anything.
OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #97
700UW:
It just kills you to have to admit I am right over-and-over and my sources on this report do not work for US Airways or America West. I will never reveal sources, but who was the first person to publicly report the UCT discussions before the phrase "Project Minnow" was publicly discussed by the news media?
In regard to TED, the report is gaining momentum and just today two other reliable sources told me they understand United is shopping its assets. Will it happen? I do not know. Is it being discussed within the "executive suites"? Yesiree.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
It just kills you to have to admit I am right over-and-over and my sources on this report do not work for US Airways or America West. I will never reveal sources, but who was the first person to publicly report the UCT discussions before the phrase "Project Minnow" was publicly discussed by the news media?
In regard to TED, the report is gaining momentum and just today two other reliable sources told me they understand United is shopping its assets. Will it happen? I do not know. Is it being discussed within the "executive suites"? Yesiree.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
- Banned
- #98
You were right?
It never happened, you also said the NWA was going to by US, never happened.
You also said the company would win the airbus arbitration, did not happen.
You are wrong over and over again.
Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back and living in your own little world.
Did a UCT or ICT happen?
NOPE!
Maybe I should just call the SEC and tell them who you are and what information you are posting since you claim to be revealing inside information, which is a crime you know.
It never happened, you also said the NWA was going to by US, never happened.
You also said the company would win the airbus arbitration, did not happen.
You are wrong over and over again.
Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back and living in your own little world.
Did a UCT or ICT happen?
NOPE!
Maybe I should just call the SEC and tell them who you are and what information you are posting since you claim to be revealing inside information, which is a crime you know.
OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #99
700UW:
Maybe you should do a little research because you’re clearly wrong (again). I never said any of those points above would happen. In regard to the M&A activity I indicated the parties were in discussions and virtually always made comments like “Will it happen? I do not know. Is it being discussed within the "executive suites"? Yesiree.â€
What may be true today may not be true tomorrow, but that does not mean there were not active negotiations. Read the articles closely, which will help you become a little more informed.
Finally, due to historical averages I believed the company would win the Airbus arbitration, but that was opinion and not information obtained on an Arbitrators O&A. In the end, US Airways outsourced A320 overhaul and then elected to bring it in-house in exchange for outsourcing other heavy maintenance.
In regard to the SEC, you believe you have a claim against me posting “inside informationâ€, that must mean you believe my reports otherwise why waste investigators time, which would then be a fraudulent report. Your thought to try to get somebody in trouble speaks volumes about your personality and demeanor.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
P.S. Ya' know what, I am wondering why I waste my time respoding to you.......
Maybe you should do a little research because you’re clearly wrong (again). I never said any of those points above would happen. In regard to the M&A activity I indicated the parties were in discussions and virtually always made comments like “Will it happen? I do not know. Is it being discussed within the "executive suites"? Yesiree.â€
What may be true today may not be true tomorrow, but that does not mean there were not active negotiations. Read the articles closely, which will help you become a little more informed.
Finally, due to historical averages I believed the company would win the Airbus arbitration, but that was opinion and not information obtained on an Arbitrators O&A. In the end, US Airways outsourced A320 overhaul and then elected to bring it in-house in exchange for outsourcing other heavy maintenance.
In regard to the SEC, you believe you have a claim against me posting “inside informationâ€, that must mean you believe my reports otherwise why waste investigators time, which would then be a fraudulent report. Your thought to try to get somebody in trouble speaks volumes about your personality and demeanor.
Regards,
USA320Pilot
P.S. Ya' know what, I am wondering why I waste my time respoding to you.......
OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #101
700UW:
Since you think you know so much, is it a crime if you have not signed a confidentiality agreement? Moreover, there is no personal "name" associated with this message board, right...
Moreover, it you believe a crime has been committed then the "so called" leak must have merit, otherwise it wouold not be a crime. Right?
Regards,
USA320Pilot
Since you think you know so much, is it a crime if you have not signed a confidentiality agreement? Moreover, there is no personal "name" associated with this message board, right...
Moreover, it you believe a crime has been committed then the "so called" leak must have merit, otherwise it wouold not be a crime. Right?
Regards,
USA320Pilot
OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #102
700UW:
Just one more point...
What's your opinion of the news media reprots of "Project Minnow" where Dave Siegel "began an aggressive search for new partners. He approached United again -- part of an initiative code-named "Project Minnow," with US Airways as the small fish swallowing the bigger one?"
Regards,
USA320Pilot
Just one more point...
What's your opinion of the news media reprots of "Project Minnow" where Dave Siegel "began an aggressive search for new partners. He approached United again -- part of an initiative code-named "Project Minnow," with US Airways as the small fish swallowing the bigger one?"
Regards,
USA320Pilot
- Banned
- #103
If you post inside information from a person who is on the inside of the company it is a crime.
Go read up on the SEC web page, it will confirm it.
You cannot relay inside information even from anyone, whether or not you signed an agreement or not.
Only an investigation will reveal if you revealed inside information or more rumormongering, which I believe the latter is true.
Go read up on the SEC web page, it will confirm it.
You cannot relay inside information even from anyone, whether or not you signed an agreement or not.
Only an investigation will reveal if you revealed inside information or more rumormongering, which I believe the latter is true.
EyeInTheSky
Veteran
USA320Pilot said:
Wasn't that from Gilligan's Island?
OP
USA320Pilot
Veteran
- May 18, 2003
- 8,175
- 1,539
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #105
700UW:
Then if you believe my comments are “rumormongering†then why waste the time threatening me that you were thinking of reporting me to the SEC for committing a crime? If you believe something is not true and you report it to the authorities then that is a crime and slander.
By the way, let me ask you again, “What's your opinion of the news media reprots of "Project Minnow" where Dave Siegel "began an aggressive search for new partners. He approached United again -- part of an initiative code-named "Project Minnow," with US Airways as the small fish swallowing the bigger one?"
Regards,
USA320Pilot
Then if you believe my comments are “rumormongering†then why waste the time threatening me that you were thinking of reporting me to the SEC for committing a crime? If you believe something is not true and you report it to the authorities then that is a crime and slander.
By the way, let me ask you again, “What's your opinion of the news media reprots of "Project Minnow" where Dave Siegel "began an aggressive search for new partners. He approached United again -- part of an initiative code-named "Project Minnow," with US Airways as the small fish swallowing the bigger one?"
Regards,
USA320Pilot
