Consider this.
12-15-2012 | 06:30 AM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,750
Likes: 0
From: 737 CA
Sled
voted YES
12-15-2012 | 08:41 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
In summarizing: we are looking at a well know practice of merger redundancy versus your pipe dream that CAL was planning to somehow buy up a bunch of not for sale international WB routes and increase WB fleet 200%....ridiculous but obviously a weak SLI strategy.
12-15-2012 | 01:41 PM
#53
Banned
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
From: IAH 737 CA
Growing a standalone airline's WB fleet 200% and trimming 95% of an airline's NB fleet via redundancy from a merger are two completely different animals. One is a pipe dream and the other is a nightmare reality from a common practice for companies seeking cost savings in mergers.
In summarizing: we are looking at a well know practice of merger redundancy versus your pipe dream that CAL was planning to somehow buy up a bunch of not for sale international WB routes and increase WB fleet 200%....ridiculous but obviously a weak SLI strategy.
In summarizing: we are looking at a well know practice of merger redundancy versus your pipe dream that CAL was planning to somehow buy up a bunch of not for sale international WB routes and increase WB fleet 200%....ridiculous but obviously a weak SLI strategy.
CAL was and is still growing. No pipe dream there. Isn't that why most lual pilots voted yes? Narrowing your purchases to narrowbody aircraft to facilitate the redundancy you speak of....plausible and a reality. Look at how many narrowbody aircraft we have vs widebody. The fleet count speaks volumes.
The dream you speak and ridiculous argument you speak of is one of the worlds top three airlines supposedly shedding an entire fleet of aircraft, not for the the known and exorbitant cost of fuel or passenger demand, but to magically set up a merger more than two years down the road.
Who's smoking the unicorn horn now?
12-17-2012 | 04:38 AM
#54
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,725
Likes: 0
From: UAL retired
The dream you speak and ridiculous argument you speak of is one of the worlds top three airlines supposedly shedding an entire fleet of aircraft, not for the the known and exorbitant cost of fuel or passenger demand, but to magically set up a merger more than two years down the road.
Who's smoking the unicorn horn now?
Who's smoking the unicorn horn now?
No unicorn, and it wasn't 2 years . . . it was right in the middle of the negotiations for the merger.
I honestly look forward to the day when all this is behind us and folks can stop being angry with each other over outcomes that they can't possibly change, BUT the 737 fleet went away in the fall of '09, roughly 6 months before the merger was announced. Do you honestly not believe that when one side in an airline merger discussion decides to park an entire fleet that that wasn't discussed during the merger talks?
Last edited by Sunvox; 12-17-2012 at 05:19 AM.
