Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
You might be right on that as a worst case scenario, but Richard has never impressed me as that sort of vindictive man. I've known him for over 20 years. He's really just an icey businessman who is strictly a data guy. I believe he's thinking of this TA as a quick walk-off home run if he could pull it off, but he's not expecting it. If we vote it down, he's already got the next TA written which will still let him do what the data says is smart. My bet is that the second TA is something he's absolutely certain will get 51%. But he'd be foolish to show it until he has to.
Carl
Hey everybody.......I think Carl is spot on with this. My dad was the president of a very large company. I told him whats going on and he gave me his perspective as the top management dog. His advice....vote no.
I'm still stuck on allowing more 76 seaters. That's a no for me. Tsquare, I just can't allow more DC-9 replacement jets without fighting to stop an increase. 70 more dc-9's is a lot. I'm willing to risk our current pathetic scope to improve on what's in the TA. Everything else in the TA I can reluctantly live with. Pay sucks, but i do get the time value crap. Not scope though.
I'll be at the peachtree city roadshow next week to hear the arguements. I've got some smart friends working on a con paper as we speak. Looking forward to reading/seeing their numbers. I know they will be posted here shortly.