![]() |
Originally Posted by etflies
(Post 1126596)
You took flying at a loss to mean they're going to divest one entire certificate and a chunk of another?
Not to feed the troll, but if that did happen, wouldn't getting rid of the props and some 900s put Pinnacle at a disadvantage? And no, cutting them wouldn't put us at a disadvantage, in fact, it would give us an advantage by increasing net liquidity $ of the company. Selling off assets raises money. |
Backruptcy by the end of 2011! O wait it is 2012 now...I actually think the opposite will happen, and were getting more Qs!
SHYGUY in 3....2.....1 . I can see it now, him running to the computer screaming NOOOOOO!!! Need to stop the madness with my FACTS... O the huge manatee |
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 1126601)
Of course it would! But Phildo specifically under-bid the ATL 900 contract thinking it would only be a shoe-in and the rest of the flying gained from Delta would make up for it. That never materialized. The same thing with Colgan's Q operation. It was underbid, and bid based on wage rates of Colgan pre-JCBA. Now the labor rates are much higher and we pay for the fuel of the Qs and Saabs. The money coming in is not eualing the expenses to operate the props.
And no, cutting them wouldn't put us at a disadvantage, in fact, it would give us an advantage by increasing net liquidity $ of the company. Selling off assets raises money. |
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 1126601)
You took "Those losses cannot continue" to mean we'll keep all of them in our fleet? You're in for a rude awakening very soon.
I hope you're wrong, but I wouldn't discount the possibility either. |
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 1126593)
It has been announced partially. The flying is at a complete loss, and those losses cannot continue. This isn't flamebait, this is based on factual statements.
|
This thread should be merged with the other pinnacle thread. Nothing new here. Shy just started a new one because we quit paying attention to him in the other and needed a headline grabber to feed his epeen. At minimum the thread title should be changed to "old pinnacle rumor thats been floating around since December but i thought i would create a new thread about it and act like its the latest and greatest."
|
Originally Posted by Airsupport
(Post 1126609)
This thread should be merged with the other pinnacle thread. Nothing new here. Shy just started a new one because we quit paying attention to him in the other and needed a headline grabber to feed his epeen. At minimum the thread title should be changed to "old pinnacle rumor thats been floating around since December but i thought i would create a new thread about it and act like its the latest and greatest."
|
How do you divest two airlines that are losing money? What does that mean anyway, divest? Isn't that what American has been trying to do for 10 years with Eagle? Doesn't someone have to buy this flying? Why would you buy flying that has the potential to put you out of business?
|
Originally Posted by jayray2
(Post 1126634)
Why would you buy flying that has the potential to put you out of business?
|
Originally Posted by ShyGuy
(Post 1126601)
we pay for the fuel of the Qs and Saabs. The money coming in is not eualing the expenses to operate the props.
Also, the Saabs receive a "passenger connect fee," from United. It varies and increases to help offset rising costs such as fuel. In IAH, this connect fee is renegotiated every 6 months depending on increased fuel and other costs. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:58 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands