Originally Posted by
Sunvox
Zoomie,
I applaud individuals like GoCats who have taken time to use facts and figures to bolster their argument. Your statement above is a retort with no factual basis. You say you disagree, but you use only your opinions and sarcasm as evidence. You draw enormous analogies between Alaska and Continental as stand alone operations but you offer zero analysis as to how they may or may not be similar and what that MIGHT imply about Continental IF it had remained independent. In short, you take the easy way out and take no time at all to study the facts as they exist. Doesn't that bother you even the slightest?
How many planes did Continental have on order in April of 2010? What was the growth plan outlined in the 2009 Annual report? Was growth above 2 or 3% ever mentioned? Did the growth plans change between 2007 and 2009? What was the Global Aviation Industry outlook in 2009?
Do you honestly believe that Continental was going to grow regardless of industry trends? Do you really believe that United was never going to grow under any circumstances? Do you really believe that the Delta/Northwest merger allowed for smaller legacy carriers to effectively grow 10% or more from 2010 to 2013?
Nobody at United is saying that Continental wasn't a great company and a good partner; what every United pilot wants, I think, is a little respect for what we brought to the table namely a strong global route structure and a fleet of large aircraft doing long haul efficient flying that we all get to share in not to mention the increased feed opportunities we gain from joining forces.
Also, the boys at USA kicked ALPA out because they felt wronged and in response ALPA rewrote the merger policy to include the word "longevity". Not United pilots - ALPA. We didn't get a windfall; we got what current ALPA merger policy dictates.
You're right Sunvox.
That sounds great to post more information, but I didn't need to use additional facts. All these facts you suggest I post have been posted, ad nauseum. Go back and read the thousands of posts over the last 12 months... the money, the aircraft orders, the growth, etc.
It doesn't matter as the guys at L-UAL have their blinders on and choose to believe that CAL was just like them. However, if CAL was just like UAL, the merger would have gone exactly like it did at DL/NWA or Southwest/Airtran, that is UAL would have dictated the terms of the merger. Tilton would have been in charge and pretty much the CAL side would have to adopt the UAL way of doing things. DL told NWA the way it was going to be, and they were only slightly larger. SWA powned Airtran and had them kneel at the LUV altar. Why was this? Why did CAL even have a voice during the merger? I agree that back in 2001, UAL would have done the same to CAL and gone back for more after eating up CAL. I also don't try and say UAL was going to fail. They were much healthier than AA and USAir at MAD, and things were starting to turn around for you guys. Things had already turned around for CAL, then the recession hit. During the recession, DAL lost over $2 billion, not even close to what either CAL or UAL lost combined, but look at them now, they are powning UAL.
However, strangely, with CAL, the big carrier who was on the up and up, according to UAL pilots and approximately 0 people in the investment community, had the merger dictated by the little guy, run by the little guy's leader.
My sarcasm in the last post was meant for some of those that still believe that UAL saved CAL, which is just revisionist history at best.
Another question that puzzles me is why in the world would CAL pilots be "against" the merger whereas UAL pilots seemed to relish the thought. It couldn't possibly be because CAL had a nice plan to grow the airline whereas UAL only had a plan to merge their airline. So CAL got its growth and UAL got its merger, however the growth that the pilots at CAL had was sacrificed and now that growth will be used mostly to replace UALs aging fleet for years to come. We're no longer getting that growth for a long time, or ever since we got it through merging.
When age 65 passed in 2007, we had a plan to grow, and much of that growth was through the 787 and additionally through some domestic feed through brand new 737s. All these aircraft were ordered around 2006 time frame, 4 years before the MAD and well before the merger at any legacies was even feasible. Had it not been for the economic downturn, none of these mergers would have been approved by the DOJ.
I'm not saying it's unfair, its reality.
You really think CAL wasn't going to get the aircraft orders without UAL? You didn't seem to address that fact. What was CAL going to do with all its aircraft orders absent a merger?