Jump to content

The new airline thread

FUSEPLUG

By FUSEPLUG
in Squadron Bar

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Duck
Duck

I’m currently on mil leave finishing up my retirement but looking at the January Bid lines out of Orlando they varied from 60-80 hours, some of them with 18 days off for the month. Since I’ve been gon

brabus
brabus

@Lord Ratner Valid points. The bitch for quite awhile has been why are DAL pilots flying record premium pay while simultaneously wanting a new contract. But, it has still worked out, assuming TA passe

HuggyU2
HuggyU2

It's just SWA being envious of UAL, DAL and AA:  now, SWA can say they are "an airline with Wide Bodies".  

Posted Images

ViperMan Gray Beard

ViperMan

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

Here we go...

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/08/spirit-airlines-will-defer-airbus-orders-furlough-260-pilots.html?__source=iosappshare|com.apple.UIKit.activity.Message
 

Isn't it great that the judge prevented Jet Blue's purchase of Spirit, and allowed Spirit to continue their ultra low fare model?

 

7 hours ago, SurelySerious said:


We can’t have two airlines combining and “reducing competition” and “raising prices.” Instead we’ll have the government artificially reduce all commercial flights into the northeast for the summer and then block a useful merger that puts one out of business.

Spirit and JB should be allowed to sue the shit out of the Biden regime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nsplayr Gray Beard

nsplayr

Posted
Posted
On 4/9/2024 at 1:10 AM, ViperMan said:

Spirit and JB should be allowed to sue the shit out of the Biden regime.

Yea that dastardly Ronald Reagan really played the long game on this one! The judge in that case was appointed by Reagan in 1985. I get that the Biden DOJ was arguing against the merger, but it was not them that decided the case. 
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Young

FWIW I’m not a M&A expert nor an airline business expert, so I don’t really have a dog in the fight on if the merger was a good idea or not.

My hot take is that as a customer you shouldn’t fly either JetBlue nor Spirit anyways! Pay for a big boy airline ticket and you & your bags have a much better chance of arriving at your destination fairly close to your intended arrival time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ViperMan Gray Beard

ViperMan

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Yea that dastardly Ronald Reagan really played the long game on this one! The judge in that case was appointed by Reagan in 1985. I get that the Biden DOJ was arguing against the merger, but it was not them that decided the case. 
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Young

FWIW I’m not a M&A expert nor an airline business expert, so I don’t really have a dog in the fight on if the merger was a good idea or not.

My hot take is that as a customer you shouldn’t fly either JetBlue nor Spirit anyways! Pay for a big boy airline ticket and you & your bags have a much better chance of arriving at your destination fairly close to your intended arrival time.

Ok a Reagan judge decided the case. You do understand that it was Biden's administration that brought the case right?

You understand one of the most basic features of our government and the separation of powers is that the judicial branch can't charge people? That they can't bring cases? That they can't actually direct the very power they wield? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nsplayr Gray Beard

nsplayr

Posted
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Ok a Reagan judge decided the case. You do understand that it was Biden's administration that brought the case right?

You understand one of the most basic features of our government and the separation of powers is that the judicial branch can't charge people? That they can't bring cases? That they can't actually direct the very power they wield? 

Yep, that why I mentioned that the Biden DOJ argued the case! Good noticing though. I guess their argument was more persuasive to a very experienced and likely a decently conservative judge than the argument made by the companies.

What were the best arguments for and against allowing the merger? At what point is the industry too consolidated? Would you be ok with, say, Delta and United merging today? How did the Delta & NW merger work out? How about American and U.S. Air? And for whom? Shareholders, managers, workers, and customers are all different constituencies.

How about McDonnell-Douglas and Boeing merging, how well did that work out?

I’m asking genuine questions, other than that last one. Like I said, I’m not an expert and have no dog in the fight of the actual JetBlue/Spirit merger, other than bad experiences flying with both of them. Interested in the thoughts of others here on the pros/cons of both historical airline mergers and possible future defense & aviation consolidation in general.

Edited by nsplayr
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ViperMan Gray Beard

ViperMan

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Yep, that why I mentioned that the Biden DOJ argued the case! Good noticing though. I guess their argument was more persuasive to a very experienced and likely a decently conservative judge than the argument made by the companies.

What were the best arguments for and against allowing the merger? At what point is the industry too consolidated? Would you be ok with, say, Delta and United merging today? How did the Delta & NW merger work out? How about American and U.S. Air? And for whom? Shareholders, managers, workers, and customers are all different constituencies.

How about McDonnell-Douglas and Boeing merging, how well did that work out?

I’m asking genuine questions, other than that last one. Like I said, I’m not an expert and have no dog in the fight of the actual JetBlue/Spirit merger, other than bad experiences flying with both of them. Interested in the thoughts of others here on the pros/cons of both historical airline mergers and possible future defense & aviation consolidation in general.

I did notice. I didn't understand the "but Republicans" refrain. Anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nsplayr Gray Beard

nsplayr

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

I did notice. I didn't understand the "but Republicans" refrain. Anyway.

Democratic Admin argues one thing, companies argue another, decided in DOJ’s favor by a Republican judge. Doesn’t seem particular partisan when the Dem admin and GOP judge both agree with the same argument. That was my point on the politics.

That being said, I’m neutral on the actual case…do you have an opinion on this or other mergers that’s worth sharing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AirGuardianC141747 Flight Lead

AirGuardianC141747

Posted
Posted (edited)

All very informative and interesting. So - furloughs, door plugs, wheels, engines, engine cover or something off a SWA 73 recently, further economy issues, Boeing issues and delays of certifying Max 10 and other production, etc. - quite a bit of areas need to get their s**t together. At least Brown will be hiring for those interested and a slight boost for them, but overall just a shift of business within the  $ spending world we live. Hopefully things will climb back up for everyone next year s we hopefully get past this 2024 year of many impacts and distractions. Stay safe out there.

Edited by AirGuardianC141747
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smokin Gray Beard

Smokin

Posted
Posted

I haven't read up on it because I couldn't care less about Spirit, but if it is anything like the other mergers or acquisitions that the Biden admin has stopped, then it is 100% power politics to either help out influential donors or play to the unions.  Just take a look at the canceled Japanese acquisition of US Steel.  A mutually beneficial acquisition canceled because a competitor has access to the White House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ViperMan Gray Beard

ViperMan

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Democratic Admin argues one thing, companies argue another, decided in DOJ’s favor by a Republican judge. Doesn’t seem particular partisan when the Dem admin and GOP judge both agree with the same argument. That was my point on the politics.

That being said, I’m neutral on the actual case…do you have an opinion on this or other mergers that’s worth sharing?

It's fine for one guy to have decided in the government's favor. I don't lament that part of our system. And one rando deciding in the government's favor doesn't make it equal parts R and D responsibility. My problem is with the administrative philosophy that leads to such decisions being made in the first place.

Personally, I don't know how the ULCCs have been able to operate for so many years. Honestly, if a business wants to sell itself to another business, I don't see how it's the government's business to stop it. This case seems similar to me as the government saying to an individual they can't sell their home to buyer X at price $Y even though they feel they can't afford the mortgage anymore. The government comes in and says no, you can't sell to party X for $Y...two months later, the business is going under (as predicted by said business), and lo and behold, it seems like the business will have to sell to multiple parties for less than $Y. I know you don't think that would be fair, and I don't see how that's a proper function for our government to play. The business isn't viable to begin with, so the legal reasoning the R judge used was bunk in the first place. And furthermore, you holding one random judge's viewpoint as an equal counter-weight to the entire executive branch's decision to pursue this case is a comically lopsided what-about-ish view of how the government works.

That was my argument. Let's not wander too far. What about that argument do you find lacking? And if it's nothing, do you think the administration should face liability for damaging the financial prospects of the owners of that business? IMO the American public is not entitled to cheap airfare. I don't see how it's any of the government's business to regulate a non-necessity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HuggyU2 Gray Beard

HuggyU2

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, herkbum said:

Ballsy move

Shining your ass in public will often cause you to be shown the door. 

The back door, in this case. 

Edited by HuggyU2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SocialD Gray Beard

SocialD

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, HuggyU2 said:

Shining your ass in public will often cause you to be shown the door. 

The back door, in this case. 

 

Hopefully a 63 or 64 year old willing to fall on his sword on his way out the door a little early.  ...legends live forever! :flag_waving:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Danger41 Gray Beard

Danger41

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, SocialD said:

 

Hopefully a 63 or 64 year old willing to fall on his sword on his way out the door a little early.  ...legends live forever! :flag_waving:

I think the odds of a 64 year old being unnecessarily naked and not realizing his camera and mic are on is a pretty likely scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FourFans Gray Beard

FourFans

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Danger41 said:

I think the odds of a 64 year old being unnecessarily naked and not realizing his camera and mic are on is a pretty likely scenario.

So, you've partied with some airline captains too, eh?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...