UNITED AIR LINES TO LAY OFF 950 PILOTS

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

gatt writes:

I've heard that plenty of times from the MBA types, and I remind them
that it's the responsibility of human beings to crush commercial
pedophelia wherever it appears.

That may be your emotional reaction, but from a more objective
standpoint, it doesn't stand.

You should see how quickly they change their tune when you shoot 'em
an e-mail that says "Hey, Skip, check out this URL hosted by your
customer" and they get to see a website advertising some infant
choking on some old fat S.O.B.'s...

They probably don't frequent such sites; naturally when a frequent
visitor to these sites sends a URL they are likely to be surprised.
That doesn't change the overall business and legal principles, though.

I'm the one that has to verify that **** and report it to the FBI and
then listen to these corporate pricks justify keeping the host online
because the revenue they bring, but, you give some of these
profit-grubbing ****stains a sample of the real world and it puts
things into perspective for them.

If you don't like what you see on the sites, and it's illegal, then
logically you should go after whoever produced what you see. Closing
down a Web site won't change anything, unless the only thing important
to you is to have it out of sight and out of mind.

Wrong again, fjuktjard.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

gatt writes:

Telecom stocks are the absolute last thing I'll ever invest in again.
I'm under NDE about my present soon-to-be-former employer, but, the
general idea of telecom management is "we're profitable so let's buy
the competition." When the engineers say "Okay, look, you can buy
the competition but you have to be able to support their network and
their customer base," they're basically persona non grata. One
month, your $1000/month business T-1 service is working perfectly or
if it goes down, somebody can fix it for you immediately and the
next, there's a 45-minute hold time for support and nobody's sure
which part of the network you're on. Customers go to elsewhere, the
executives collect huge-ass severances and move on and the company
reputation is basically ruined.

Unfortunately, that phenomenon exists throughout the business world,
not just in telecommunications.


You're an idiot. Fjuktjard.

B A R R Y wrote:

Telecom stocks are the absolute last thing I'll ever invest in again.
I'm under NDE about my present soon-to-be-former employer, but, the
general idea of telecom management is "we're profitable so let's buy
the competition."


You sound like you work for the same telecomm I do! G

How many letters does your stock symbol have?

The original company was delisted by NASDAQ in 2002 because it "failed
to regain complaince with the market value of publicly held shares and
minimum bid price requirements..." so, Zero at this point.

As ridiculous as what they were doing seemed in 2002, the upstart that
acquired them is making the same mistakes on a bigger scale. The
old-timers who survived the old company collapse are jumping ship
because the company that acquired them is showing the same sort of
cavalier arrogance that sunk all the CLECs and ILECs that collapsed when
they were just getting started.

-c

Mxsmanic wrote:

gatt writes:

So, really, the only thing that's actually driving the cost up today ...

The cost isn't really rising much.

A barrel of oil was €40.98 in 2006. Today, it's about €89.95 or so.
(That's US$50.00 in 2006, US$142.00 or so currently.)

Also, United is an Amerian airline, and makes its revenues in US
dollars, and pays for its fuels in US dollars. Its fuel costs, like
most airlines in the USA, have risen considerably.

It's just that the dollar is falling.

That is only one factor. There are others as well.

Only a very stupid person given to simple-mindedness would believe that
the dollar's fall in value is the single reason for the current run-up
in oil prices.

The
cost of oil in other currencies is far more stable, since they are not
falling.

The cost of oil in euros is somewhat more stable than in dollars, but
the increase has still been tremendous. Your paroxysms of bloviation
do not negate that.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Larry Dighera writes:

Reducing the number of flights to increase capital asset utilization
seems like a sound strategy to me.

How does that work?

You don't know how capital asset utilization works? It's a fundamental
factor in running a service-oriented transportation business, especially
an airline.

Hi,

In article ,
Bertie the wrote:
See? He's already making a difference.

Ah yes, good old Gordon. Our saviour...

Andy

Andy Hawkins wrote in
:

Hi,

In article ,
Bertie the wrote:
See? He's already making a difference.

Ah yes, good old Gordon. Our saviour...


Too bad you haven't got Maggie back, she'd solve it, eh?


Bertie

Hi,

In article ,
Bertie the wrote:
Too bad you haven't got Maggie back, she'd solve it, eh?

Ah, the Iron Lady. We do miss her.

Andy

Andy Hawkins wrote in
:

Hi,

In article ,
Bertie the wrote:
Too bad you haven't got Maggie back, she'd solve it, eh?

Ah, the Iron Lady. We do miss her.


Me too, she was the best thing to happen to the UK since the V2.


Bertie

Hi,

In article ,
Bertie the wrote:
Me too, she was the best thing to happen to the UK since the V2.

Oh I dunno. What about the four day week?

Andy