UNITED AIR LINES TO LAY OFF 950 PILOTS

Mxsmanic wrote:

yedyegiss writes:

Mxsmanic wrote:

you can increase revenue indefinitely.

Explain how, in the current economic climate, American airlines can
increase revenue indefinitely.

It depends on the airline.

You failed to explain how, and instead went into your usual paroxysm of
bloviation. In my experience, a person who postulates a solution to a
business problem, such as "you can increase revenue indefinitely," and
then turns out to be incapable of explaining how this can actually
accomplished, tends to be extremely stupid. This applies even moreso
when the person postulating such a solution is in miserable economic
straits, and seems incapable of following his own advice.

Nomen Nescio wrote:

Maybe I'm wrong, but I just can't see "speculation" accounting for more
than a 10 - 20% swing. Certainly not insignificant, but certainly not the
REAL problem.
Here's some evidence that speculation isn't the problem.........................
Congress says it IS the problem,


So do a lot of hard-working Americans.


When was the last time those clowns were right about anything?


Well, that reminds me of high school. "Well, if the teacher says it's
so it must not be, 'cause, like, teachers are, like, stupid and
stuff...huhhuh. They suck. School sucks. This,like, sucks."


But while we may disagree as to the source of the problem, I think
we will agree that energy is a BIG problem.
This Country was built on fairly inexpensive energy.
When manufacturing falls, America falls.

100% agreement! But, I don't think it's the line workers, the welders,
electricians, circuit board builders, etc that decided to send
manufacturing overseas. It was the business types.

Well, Junior
I'm a little old to be a Gen X crackpot (Think long hair,tie-dye, and Hendrix)..............
But I "wasted" my vote on Perot.

Hey, man, I know my way around Little Wing and wasted my vote on Perot too.

Should I be shorting telecom stocks now?

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.

And I gotta say, I'm rather surprised that "pedophelia, identity theft and
jihadist websites" are that big a market.

They're not, but, "free webhosting" sites are popular and you absolutely
would not believe how successful those spam-driven dubious online
pharmaceutical operations are because hiring somebody to keep them off
your network is not a staffing priority.

No, I think the American people ought to do something.

Well, the VOTE sure isn't working! What's your suggestion?

Stop electing people who take money from special interests. I hate to
sound like Lou Dobbs here, but it's time to flush the toilet.

[stuff read, noted and snipped for brevity]

If the market is that unstable and the speculators that capable of
manipulating a GIANT worldwide economy, it's time for Uncle Sam to
declare war on speculators, not insurgents in Baghdad.


The key word is "worldwide". How much of an effect do you really think a few US traders can
possibly have?


That's like saying the oil industry or airline industry is just "a few
companies," isn't it?

-c

Mxsmanic wrote:

writes:

Don't want to.

C

Squirm, Anthony. You're an obedient little doggie, and once again
you've turned desperate.

Hi,

In article ,
Bertie the wrote:
If you can wait fifty years!

I think the current wait is more like 47 actually.



Andy

Andy Hawkins wrote in
:

Hi,

In article ,
Bertie the wrote:
If you can wait fifty years!

I think the current wait is more like 47 actually.

See? He's already making a difference.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote:

writes:


Here's an example so simple even you should be able to understand it:

Instead of making 2 flights at 50% capacity, you make 1 at 100%.


When did capacity enter the picture?

In a business where allocation of assets and capacity utilization are
fundamental to the success of that business, it should be assumed. In
my experience, only extraordinarly stupid people don't understand such
business fundamentals, and only extremely stupid people would even ask
a question like "when did capacity enter the picture?" when discussing
such matters.

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.

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.

gatt 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?

yeedyeegiiss wrote in
:

Mxsmanic wrote:

writes:


Here's an example so simple even you should be able to understand it:

Instead of making 2 flights at 50% capacity, you make 1 at 100%.


When did capacity enter the picture?

In a business where allocation of assets and capacity utilization are
fundamental to the success of that business, it should be assumed. In
my experience, only extraordinarly stupid people don't understand such
business fundamentals, and only extremely stupid people would even ask
a question like "when did capacity enter the picture?" when discussing
such matters.

It will be fun to see how Anthony tries to slither away from this one!