The webcast was pretty good. Things look good.
The only thing I hope people aren't disappointed in is that Parker played down any near term give back of cash. I felt that he was hesitant or wanted to be non-committal when on cnbc a short while ago, but he pretty much said let the merger play out and we'll see how the industry is behaving ... essentially saying, maybe in a few years.
People are talking about fuel going lower in spite of the fact the economy is starting to hit on more cylinders. What could be better for the airline sector?
Sure we are producing more oil, but many commodities are talked about as being weak. If commodities moderate at all, that would take a lot of pressure off inflation and could aid in extending this bull.
You worked for ATC? Got a question then. Is there a way out of that airspace that the Malaysian flight was in that is not covered by ground radar? How would I find that out if you don't know?
ljack360 ... thanks for explaining the subroutine use with the instruction sets (or lack of). I'm not in that field, but knew a little and thought it might be something like that. It was good to have someone spell it out for me. Thanks.
It was just a headline on my news alerts, but definitely needs some looking into ... if I find out how they justify saying something like that, I'll get back.
Thanks for those insights ... I'll look again at the surface ... and actually, I was just going to ask the 64 bit question ... might wait to look at the HP. But have to do this before summer.
Thanks ... So if I catch what you're saying it may be a little trade off between performance and battery life, but essentially both do a decent job? I did go to a web site that compared processors, and the results seemed so close that I couldn't tell the difference, but they probably were to a trained eye. The biggest thing I noticed was the instruction sets in Haswell, but not in Baytrail ... I just don't know how that would impact me and whether or not I would notice. Here is the quote, "The Core i5-4210Y microprocessor supports AVX, AVX2 and FMA3 instructions, that were introduced in the recent past. These extensions are not widely used by applications yet, but their support should improve in future programs."
I guess that means future programs would still work on Baytrail, but I just wouldn't know any better that it could be better on Haswell. I hate getting bogged down ... I should just go out and buy it and then get a new one if I'm suffering too much in the future.
Thanks again for your input.
This is a personal question, but would appreciate some good insights if anyone would care to share. I'm considering the Dell Venue Pro 11 ... what would be a better choice for the processor the Baytrail-t or the Haswell (i3 or i5). I know that the 3770 Baytrail doesn't have some instruction sets in it that Haswell has, but how would that impact things?
It's over the next few years, but UAL announced that they are going to save $2 billion in costs. I didn't hear the webcast, but if this is additional "synergy" type saving, then this could double their earnings. That will bring their projected earnings more in line with the other legacies.
Today DOJ asked the BK judge to approve the deal made in November between the DOJ and AAL without changes. The consumer groups' objections were without merit.
" but could have gotten a lot more had they waited."
That's just it stkfather ... they weren't going to get more, but they were guaranteed their money no matter if AAL went up or down. The shorts came from some other area of the investment world. But who knows, maybe someone involved with the debt holders is in trouble with the boss because he shorted without any need to do it. We're beating this to death.
I know you didn't say "all" shorted. However, if any shorted at least one share it would have been a pure short play ... it would have made more sense for any of the other various stakeholders to short for hedging reasons than the debt holders.
stkfather ... you said, "What the prof is saying [and I have said this before] ..."
Yes, I know that is what prof (and apparently you too) were saying. All I was saying is that what was said didn't make sense. I don't see it. I don't see the hedge ... it would have been just a pure short play by an institution assumed not to be in equity investment. They were going to get their money if it went up or down without shorting.
airlineprof ... You said many AALCP holders shorted AAL. This group was essentially guaranteed their money. You're saying these institutions that were not into equities (long or short) decided to start shorting equities? Shorting in their case would have been a pure short play only making "extra" money if it went down, but losing a sure thing if it went up ... the conversion formula was well known to these institutions.
JML ... I've followed the posts (many from you) that claimed far fewer shares for labor than I thought, so I understand jdmaer24's question.
Labor gets 23.6% of the Creditor New Common Stock Allocation. I've posted the below paragraph before but nobody answered. I'll try again ... this is what labor gets 23.6% of (and it is not 23.6% of the creditor shares).
1.78 Creditor New Common Stock Allocation means the New
Common Stock Allocation, less the Initial Old Equity Allocation, less the Market-
Based Old Equity Allocation.
JML ... were those paragraphs cited meant to be the statements that implied "all" shares will be "issued"?
Because 1.148 ... "with respect to any Mandatory Conversion Date" is an important qualifier. That just meant you'll use the full amount of New Common Stock when you take the 1/4.
I understand the true-up ... but that may not issue all shares either, though it will get closer.
And, I'll have to go back and look at labor. I thought it was something like 23.x% of the shares that AAMRQ didn't get. It's been awhile and I could be wrong on that.
Anyway, I never thought that the three stakeholder formulas added together were meant to be set equal to the New Common share amount ... it was always a less than or equal to ... capped by max plan shares.