Please tell me why this can't happen here. Only 3% of the population have a significant 401k. When 97% of the country doesn't have enough money to retire, there would be zero political pressure to stop this move. Two Senators, one from Iowa and one from out east have already proposed this here. Our money would be used to shore up the public pensions.

I disagree that the 2010 election was about stopping this type of takeover. It was about a majority wanting the government to stop spending on other peoples projects, not their own pet projects. For example, look at the amount of people on various forums calling for government takeover of the airline industry..ie re-regulation.

So...where would M88 surplus folks go?...Most of those would be ultra junior already and with the 9 going away will they just go to the bottom of another list?

ACL does it look like there may be some upward movement this time with all the rumors of more 75/76 and 74's coming out of mothball?

So exactly how long have you been working at alpa national?

Do you think they will put more 75/76's into MSP? I am curious what will happen to the 737's here in ATL and maybe NYC with the 320's flying the shuttle.

Yes it does incur a 2year seat lock.

It's been stated that there will be ER vacancies due to the 757/767's coming out of desert as well as 744 vacancies for the same reason. Also the extra LHR routes will require more ER pilots too. :)

IDK where the MSP/MEM DC9 guys will go. MEM is a senior base so it's hard to say. Many of those guys have not commuted in quite some time. Crazy thing is if they do completely close MEM DC9 that will leave only MEM 320.

Maybe they'll move MEM 320 to ATL 320!! :eek:

I have been told that there are not enough aircraft for 3 bases. I don't see any base remaining in MEM or MSP.

And that makes sense to me. Only 34 DC9-50's left, right? I wonder how long before DTW DC9 gets axed too? :(

So where would that leave the 737? I guess it fills in the RJ loss with 319/320 and 737 and 88/90's.

I guess we would finally have to to take those ticks off the dog in mem!:D

I think the 737 in ATL is safe. CVG 737...........I'm not sure about. But I'm just a line grunt, & these are just guesses. BTW, I stunk at True/False tests which I often guessed on so take it FWIW. :D

Airline Stocks Still Buys With $100 Oil
 

Transportation

By Ted Reed 01/04/11 - 10:43 AM EST
Stock quotes in this article:ALK, DAL, LCC, UAL*


CHICAGO (TheStreet) -- Worried that rising fuel prices will reduce airline profits?

Don't be, said two airline analysts in recent reports. "High Oil Prices Are Good for Airlines," is the headline on a report by Stifel Nicolaus analyst Hunter Keay, while Soleil Securities analyst James Higgins titles his report: "Analyzing Higher Fuel Price Impact: Less Than We Expected."

Keay writes that capacity cuts since 2008 have resulted in "a comprehensive restructuring of the industry [that] should contribute to accelerating earnings growth into next year, even with expensive jet fuel." Domestic capacity has fallen 8% since 2006 and has fallen back to levels last seen in 2003 and 1999, he said, noting that 2011 domestic capacity growth is unlikely to exceed 1%.


Many investors are ignoring trends including capacity discipline, the advent of fees, widespread hedging, reduced leverage for labor, the potential for more mergers and the low likelihood of startups, Keay wrote, noting that United is his favorite airline stock.

Higgins, meanwhile, said that while higher fuel prices represent "the single greatest threat to the outlook for airline stocks ... most carriers would still make money in 2011 in a $100 oil environment." He said Alaska is least affected by higher fuel prices, due to strong hedging positions and industry-high margins.

Higgins' other favorites are Delta and United. Higher fuel costs could result in American losing more money and in US Airways and AirTran swinging to losses, he said.

As for fuel hedging, Keay said Delta has the most advantageous position, with 39% of 2011 hedged at $85 a barrel. Delta recently provided 2011 fuel cost guidance of $2.47 a barrel, less than Southwest guidance of $2.70 to $2.75 a barrel. In general, he said, airlines including Southwest have limited hedging positions, meaning that fuel cost increases are more likely to be passed on to consumers.

Regarding fee income, Keay noted that fees will account for the total amount of US Airways 2010 net income, which he estimates at $486 million, just one indication that fee income is likely to reduce historic earnings volatility.

Keay also noted that that 2010 growth in passenger revenue per available seat mile will equal about 13% and will outpace capacity growth (as measured by available seat miles) by about 1,000 basis points, the biggest gap between revenue growth and capacity growth since 1981.