|
Originally Posted by Gupboy
(Post 1399626)
The immaturity by some on this forum is unbelievable. This thread was started to remind everybody to calm down and let the SLI process run its course. It has deteriorated in to sheer idiocy. I'm sorry I started the thread. So much for civil professional discourse.
|
Originally Posted by Sunvox
(Post 1399669)
Immaturity by some?
Which APC person posted racist remarks to make their case? Which APC member lied to make their case? Which APC member started talking about killing passengers? UAL pilots are on here trying to argue facts based on 10-k's and actual ALPA policy and they are running into pilots bent on slandering the profession and arguing that UAL was a dinosaur. Some UAL pilots may succumb to emotion now and again but so far I have yet to see a UAL pilot debase themselves with racisism, lying, or vulgar references to passenger deaths. I would pay anything to see their faces when they actually see the SLI when it is released by the arbitrators. I am going to disengage SLI threads in general until the List is released. It seems like for every sane CAL poster that disagrees but is rational there are 10 more following up with what we have seen here. |
Originally Posted by Horhay
(Post 1399591)
Oops, sorry, I stand corrected. It wasn't a "cash" deal, you're right...it was a stock transaction.
United acquired CAL by issuing 1.05 U shares for each CAL share...it was more simply an acquisition and NOT a cash purchase per se...therefore; United acquired Continental in this manner... We good? Cheers, Horhay Point to where in ALPA merger policy or Alleghany-Mohawk it states that matters. United Airlines did not acquire CAL, UAL Corp did. UAL Corp, which United Airlinesa wholly own subsidiary of, acquired CAL. So UAL corp is just merging its subsidiaries. Here is from page one of the Annual report for 2009... UAL Corporation (together with its consolidated subsidiaries, “UAL”), a holding company whose principal subsidiary is United Air Lines, Inc. (together with its primary subsidiaries, “United”), was incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware on December 30, 1968. We sometimes use the words “we,” “our,” “us,” and the “Company” in this Form 10-K for disclosures that relate to both UAL and United. Our world headquarters is located at 77 W. Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60601. The mailing address is P.O. Box 66919, Chicago, Illinois 60666 (telephone number (312) 997-8000). Form 10-K |
Originally Posted by Sunvox
(Post 1399669)
Immaturity by some?
Which APC person posted racist remarks to make their case? Which APC member lied to make their case? Which APC member started talking about killing passengers? Neither side is immune to its 2 percenters. People need to grow up and stop acting like little boys. |
Originally Posted by Horhay
(Post 1399540)
DMC - what is your background and experience? Are you CAL or UAL? For background, I've got 4 years with U on the Guppy, 3 in the Bus, and 15 months with CAL on the turbo-Guppy(NG). From your post, you imply (per the "jumpseated on both...") that you've not actively flown at either airline, is that the case? While I appreciate your jumpseating observations, it's a far different experience than spending 3-4 days working with a pilot directly. If you are/were a CAL or UAL crew, I apologize for the omission.
Agreed-both companies have their toads, some of whom are deleriously poor pilots, many of whom are incapable (or prevented by management) of EVER upgrading; I can assure you that the level of competence, standardization, and professionalism is FAR higher at U than C. Granted, it's only a small snap-shot of one equipment type at one base...I do though believe this holds true in the bigger scheme as well. The "merger of equals" tripe was simply a weak attempt by management to set the employee's expectations to avoid divisiveness commonly found in integrating disparate working groups. Reference Jeff's often-used, and completely meaningless use of the "co-worker" term. MBA-101 attempt to bring oneself to the "level" of the laboror (read labor groups) so as to engender team cohesion and inspire desired behavior for the sake of bolstering productivity metrics. UAL purchased CAL with cash to avert a merger approval vote and avoid the failed result of the US air debacle in 2000. Cheers, Horhay I am a 2005 CAL hire, about to complete the 737 upgrade. I was hoping to be a 737 captain by the time I was 30 but I guess 33 will work. |
Originally Posted by cadetdrivr
(Post 1399577)
Indeed.
Particularly considering the last pilot related hull loss/fatality at UAL was in 1978(?) with the fuel incident in the DC-8. I'm thinking people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...h_1210284c.jpg http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2044/1...1bb_z.jpg?zz=1 You are an idiot! Nobody died on those CAL flights.. How about Sioux City???? Forgot that one?? Or the blow out cabin on the 747 near Hawaii??? |
Originally Posted by cadetdrivr
(Post 1399577)
Indeed.
Particularly considering the last pilot related hull loss/fatality at UAL was in 1978(?) with the fuel incident in the DC-8. I'm thinking people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...h_1210284c.jpg http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2044/1...1bb_z.jpg?zz=1 Not to mention the Colorado Springs accident that was pilot induced. An axe in the captain's head did not help the matter... |
Originally Posted by DMC12
(Post 1399824)
Not to mention the Colorado Springs accident that was pilot induced.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the United Airlines flight 585 accident was a loss of control of the airplane resulting from the movement of the rudder surface to its blowdown limit. The rudder surface most likely deflected in a direction opposite to that commanded by the pilots as a result of a jam of the main rudder power control unit servo valve secondary slide to the servo valve housing offset from its neutral position and overtravel of the primary slide. http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/summary/AAR0101.html
Originally Posted by DMC12
(Post 1399821)
How about Sioux City???? Forgot that one?? Or the blow out cabin on the 747 near Hawaii???
|
______________
|
Hey DMC,
I'll gladly join the UAL guys when they throw you a blanket party in the employee parking lot. |
Not to mention the Colorado Springs accident that was pilot induced. An axe in the captain's head did not help the matter. Are you hearing the "voices" again? |
Originally Posted by DMC12
(Post 1399821)
How about Sioux City???? Forgot that one?? Or the blow out cabin on the 747 near Hawaii???
Scott |
Or the blow out cabin on the 747 near Hawaii??? |
Originally Posted by intrepidcv11
(Post 1399837)
Hey DMC,
I'll gladly join the UAL guys when they throw you a blanket party in the employee parking lot. Scott |
Originally Posted by DMC12
(Post 1399819)
I am a 2005 CAL hire, about to complete the 737 upgrade. I was hoping to be a 737 captain by the time I was 30 but I guess 33 will work.
I was trying to ascertain as to how "jumpsat on both" provides one the holistic view and perspective to determine which group, per se, adheres to the highest levels of quality and standardization. It is now apparent (this being your first or second airline) you simply don't possess the depth and breadth of experience to make a qualified judgement regarding said issue. Additionally; your retort regarding "crash statistics" speaks VOLUMES about your lack of the aforementioned as well...truly class-less. Frats brother |
Originally Posted by DMC12
(Post 1399821)
You are an idiot! Nobody died on those CAL flights..
How about Sioux City???? Forgot that one?? Or the blow out cabin on the 747 near Hawaii??? Your good fortune is there remain those who are willing to sacrifice for your carcass, regardless of the lack of moral fiber or humility contained within.... |
Originally Posted by Olecal
(Post 1399645)
My guess is that the active longevity will account for something, in the status and category of furloughed. Ask your merger committee, both committees are well aware of that!
You are correct that choice is not in ALPA merger policy, but take the blinders off. Define career expectations... Do you know what it means? Or do you think it only means widebody? It has way more latitude than you think, read past awards, and see what was considered part of expectations. You could look at everything as black and white, and with blinders on, but looking at this with an open mind and realizing the latitude that the arbitrators have, we will all be just a bit less disappointed when the list is published. You are holding on to active longevity, there are many other factors, and they WILL be credited to both sides. I would bet anything on that! Let's say, for example, that UAL wanted to merger with CAL back in the early 2000's (that is probably when informal talks started) and by some miracle DOT and DOJ approved the merger but with stipulations. The merger happens and integration is done but the stipulations are that the new company needs to divest certain amount of capacity in certain markets for anti-trust issues. It is not unusual when capacity shrinks after a merger. Would you agree that is a fair statement? So, the company complies and lo and behold furloughs are going to be needed. The list is already integrated so they start from the bottom and obviously its from both groups. I think its obvious where I'm going with this. I also think that to discount any possibility that two management teams would NOT AT ALL try to do as much of the prep work prior to submitting their proposal to DOT and DOJ is being obtuse. In fact it would be naive to think that these type of discussions did not happen. Put yourself in their shoes for 30 seconds and ask yourself why you would NOT want to prep this deal as much as you can beforehand. Neither of these two companies had the cash for an outright purchase so a merger of equals had to be the answer and that can only be done when market caps/stock price are pretty similar and the swap ratio is one where both parties agree. I think all can agree that nobody here on this board was privy to conversations between the principles on this merger. That being said, what I offer above is certainly in the realm of possibility and logic and can not simply be dismissed outright. |
Originally Posted by Horhay
(Post 1399852)
Jesus, you have NO concept of these two incidents...what's more disturbing is you lack the compassion and understanding of knowing what it's like to bury aviators and friends you've known in aviation. You simply have no concept of the perils of aviation, whatsoever...
Your good fortune is there remain those who are willing to sacrifice for your carcass, regardless of the lack of moral fiber or humility contained within.... I just love seeing you UAL folks so rattled up!!! I can't help it if the last 13 years of your career sucked!!! I guess the late 1990s cocky attitude of UAL go you nowhere. You are right, I am an idiot, but I am an idiot that never got furloughed. |
Originally Posted by intrepidcv11
(Post 1399837)
Hey DMC,
I'll gladly join the UAL guys when they throw you a blanket party in the employee parking lot. I will actually arrange that, maybe I could sue the airline or get LTD or something??? Awesome idea, keep them coming.... |
Originally Posted by boxer6
(Post 1399874)
Please keep in mind that mergers are not done in a vacuum. Two management teams don't one day decide to have a meeting and announce 30 days later a merger is agreed upon.
Let's say, for example, that UAL wanted to merger with CAL back in the early 2000's (that is probably when informal talks started) and by some miracle DOT and DOJ approved the merger but with stipulations. The merger happens and integration is done but the stipulations are that the new company needs to divest certain amount of capacity in certain markets for anti-trust issues. It is not unusual when capacity shrinks after a merger. Would you agree that is a fair statement? So, the company complies and lo and behold furloughs are going to be needed. The list is already integrated so they start from the bottom and obviously its from both groups. I think its obvious where I'm going with this. I also think that to discount any possibility that two management teams would NOT AT ALL try to do as much of the prep work prior to submitting their proposal to DOT and DOJ is being obtuse. In fact it would be naive to think that these type of discussions did not happen. Put yourself in their shoes for 30 seconds and ask yourself why you would NOT want to prep this deal as much as you can beforehand. Neither of these two companies had the cash for an outright purchase so a merger of equals had to be the answer and that can only be done when market caps/stock price are pretty similar and the swap ratio is one where both parties agree. I think all can agree that nobody here on this board was privy to conversations between the principles on this merger. That being said, what I offer above is certainly in the realm of possibility and logic and can not simply be dismissed outright. Otherwise a well thought out response, but I don't think it will count for much as you can not prove it. Also, UAL was in talks with USAir when CAL came along... |
Originally Posted by boxer6
(Post 1399874)
Please keep in mind that mergers are not done in a vacuum. Two management teams don't one day decide to have a meeting and announce 30 days later a merger is agreed upon.
Let's say, for example, that UAL wanted to merger with CAL back in the early 2000's (that is probably when informal talks started) and by some miracle DOT and DOJ approved the merger but with stipulations. The merger happens and integration is done but the stipulations are that the new company needs to divest certain amount of capacity in certain markets for anti-trust issues. It is not unusual when capacity shrinks after a merger. Would you agree that is a fair statement? So, the company complies and lo and behold furloughs are going to be needed. The list is already integrated so they start from the bottom and obviously its from both groups. I think its obvious where I'm going with this. I also think that to discount any possibility that two management teams would NOT AT ALL try to do as much of the prep work prior to submitting their proposal to DOT and DOJ is being obtuse. In fact it would be naive to think that these type of discussions did not happen. Put yourself in their shoes for 30 seconds and ask yourself why you would NOT want to prep this deal as much as you can beforehand. Neither of these two companies had the cash for an outright purchase so a merger of equals had to be the answer and that can only be done when market caps/stock price are pretty similar and the swap ratio is one where both parties agree. I think all can agree that nobody here on this board was privy to conversations between the principles on this merger. That being said, what I offer above is certainly in the realm of possibility and logic and can not simply be dismissed outright. |
This thread is still open? Really?
|
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 1399917)
This thread is still open? Really?
|
Originally Posted by SEDPA
(Post 1399913)
Reasonable people may be able to subscribe to this theory .... And may in fact put a "value" on said equity in relation to an integration. By the same standard of reasonableness, one would have to account for the prep work done on the CAL side for the merger, specifically the limited growth of wide bodies and early retirement of 737s.
At the end of the day, I don't believe Bethune and Kellner did any positioning of CAL for a future merger. I am not stating this as fact, of course, but merely trying to reasonably connect the dots as observed. Had industry consolidation not started, I think Kellner was doing a great job steering the ship for CAL. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:28 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands