Anyone want to chip in and purchase an Airbus?

[Joshua949]

I hope US Airways survives. Like everybody else here in the forum, I to hope that no more airlines go out of business b/c our economy tends to take beatings when any major business goes out of business, plus think about all of the employees of US. It's very hard to find a job nowadays & we certainly don't want anymore people jobless. I think US Airways is a good company. I have flown them before & the flight turned out very peaceful & restful, which is what I love to find on flights. I like to be able to rest up before I get to my destination. Obviously, I believe US Airways is doing to right in order to make it this far.

 

[JollyRodger]

PLEASE p602!

I never condoned M&A that is designed to profit of the misfortune of others. More often than not there's a synergy that occurs and employees, management, and stockholders are all better off. Why is that so bad.

There were way more M&As in the 90's that the 80's.

This probably won't work but let me say it another way. I'm remodelling a home. Every decision I make is based on two principles. 1) Do I like this color/applicance/material? and 2) Will this expense add or detract to the value of my home?

Why do I do this? I would respond by saying I want a nice house and hope to sell my home someday for more money that I payed for it. I guess that makes me greedy. The point is that people make these decesions everyday in their lives and it doesn't make them greedy -only smart. There's a difference.

Hey tony I never said PR/marketing didn't matter. But you overestimate its effect on an airline on it's last legs and its "stupid" execs.

 

[pilot602]

[ QUOTE ]
I never condoned M&A that is designed to profit of the misfortune of others.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't have a M&A that doesn't profit at someone elses expense. It's part of the definition. Someone or some party loses something in anykind of M&A.

[ QUOTE ]
More often than not there's a synergy that occurs and employees, management, and stockholders are all better off. Why is that so bad.



[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, more often than not, a lot of folks get screwed in the deal because the new "company" now has double "everything" and starts massive layoffs to "trim the fat." Example, AA. They boasted how after the TWA deal they would be the largest airline in the world. Then they became the largest airline in the world and found out, the hard way, they couldn't react - fast enough - to a changing market because they were the biggest airline in the world. In the end a lot of folks lost their jobs (my father lost all his medical benefits) in the deal.

[ QUOTE ]
There were way more M&As in the 90's that the 80's.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
This probably won't work but let me say it another way. I'm remodelling a home. Every decision I make is based on two principles. 1) Do I like this color/applicance/material? and 2) Will this expense add or detract to the value of my home?

[/ QUOTE ]

I understandwhat you're saying but it doesn't apply to the concept of a Merger or Aqcuaition. Remodelling your home is an investment which has no (or very, very few) negative "riders." It'd be the same as a company buying ten new airplanes, or building a new office in a new market.

If, however, you has said I'm going to buy my neighbors mortgage note and then foreclose on their home so that I can take their land thereby increasing the value of my home you'd be much closer to a merger analogy.

 

[JollyRodger]

Go back and read my post. I never said that everyone benefits from M&As. Did I say that people don't get fired or demoted? NO! Just read. The negative effects of M&As are often publicized, but the benefits go largely unoticed. Many people get hired, promoted, and the aggregate good is increased. But hell that wasn't even the point in the first place. You always have to digress every discussion into a little man vs. corp. america.

Finally you haven't and cannot refute my point about the house. You've missed the point because it requires you to equivicate principles between two ideas. Agree or disagree you've proven to everyone you have SFB.

Here's a tip; people often use qualifiers and quantifiers when making a statement. Pay attention to phrases like: often, usually, sometimes, many, few, it seems, if... and don't mistake them for ones like: always, is, never, not.... You'll look a lot smarter.

 

[tonyw]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey tony I never said PR/marketing didn't matter. But you overestimate its effect on an airline on it's last legs and its "stupid" execs.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what the difference between making a profit and losing money on an average flight is for SWA?

Two passengers in a 737 cabin.

That's all it takes. Two people who think, SWA is a cool airline, I want to fly on them and then book their tickets on SWA.

You're right that I'm on the outside looking in. But if you think I am wrong, then please tell me how selling profitable assets will put US Airways in the black.

 

[JollyRodger]

see the above post chief. I NEVER said selling profitable assets will help them into the black (just read). I just said how do you know these assets are profitable(?) and why do you think you are so good at analyzing USAir's actions with so little information (again just read).

And for the record, you can't sell things that don't have value. Do you think USAir could raise a bunch of cash by selling off its unprofitable routes? DO YA? Who would buy them?

 

[tonyw]

[ QUOTE ]
And for the record, you can't sell things that don't have value. Do you think USAir could raise a bunch of cash by selling off its unprofitable routes? DO YA?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is some value to them. If US Airways said, hey, American, want some routes for $100, I think American might listen, don't you?

I stand by my assertion. You cannot shed profitable assets, keep the unprofitable ones, and hope to survive.

I don't have all the answers. Nor did I say I did. If Warren Buffett couldn't figure it out, well, then, what chance does a marketing chap like me have?

But I can certainly say that some of the actions of US Airways management appear stupid.

 

[BobDDuck]

It's not so much a matter of whether the routes they are selling off are profitble routes, but rather not sinking good money into non profitble ones. You're right... They wouldn't make very much by selling off some of their less profitable routes, but they wouldn't have to subsidize them with funds coming from profitable ones (ie, the shuttle and LGA gates). By selling some things that are constantly running in the red they would not get a large short term cash inflow, but their long term cash outflow would diminish. If they sell off high value investments they will realize a quick gain but in the long term will have a much smaller income stream to offset their red investments. This analysis doesn't require any "insider" information. It is just common business theory. That said, (as I said before) there could be a million other reasons why they are attempting to do things this way that we as the Joe On The Street know nothing about.

Ethan

 

[SteveC]

Pardon be for backing up the bus (beep, beep, beep), but JollyRodger said:[ QUOTE ]
Finally you haven't and cannot refute my point about the house. You've missed the point because it requires you to equivicate principles between two ideas. Agree or disagree you've proven to everyone you have SFB.

[/ QUOTE ]
Jolly, I know you weren't talking to me here, but I've read this paragraph about 10 times and still can't figure out what you were saying.
What does "requires you to equivicate principles between two ideas" mean? And what is SFB?
<Pardon my ignorance and curiosity>

 

[pilot602]

It means Sh*t For Brains ... and he jumps on the personal attacks the minute his argument goes to hell.

 

[SteveC]

Allow me to be the first to congratulate you on 2000 posts!

 

[Mr_Creepy]

This is really turning in to squawk box material

 

[pilot602]

Thanks .. but 2,000 posts only means I have too much free time and am under the dellusion people actually give a *$#@ about what I have to say (which no one really does)!