That is about the best summary of this thread I can think of.
I can think of better summaries of this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxf24
I'm confused;
You said it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxf24
are you recognizing recognition or vice versa?
I recognized the reality of what this merger means for FFP members: "cuts in the FF programs .... will come around sooner, be worse and be worse for more people, than would be the case in the absence of this 'merger'".
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxf24
Most, many, few or some. Depending on the qualifier selected we could both be right. However, this is not the issue being discussed.
If you want to discuss the likely situation that more accurately describes the real enviornment, then the qualifier selected matters and your post is responsible for talking about a "many" that is far from generally descriptive of GE. You say "this is not the issue being discussed" but your actions contradict your statement. Can we chalk that up to your first statement quoted above?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxf24
Are you trying to say analyst reports and particularly ratings agencies are worthless because they don't provide "meaningful and decision-actionable time frame for those [possible] events?"
That's not what I said -- I said what I wanted to say in my post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxf24
Probability does not necessarily come with time frames, though I have seen a model estimating the time frame for a possible chapter filing for various legacy carriers, including NW. Since there are so many variables, it is absurd to cater to your desire to validate an opinion with a specific time frame. Besides, such information is highly confidential.
Probability does necessarily come with time frames if the model is to be of any use for proper judgment-/decision-making.
It's funny how your post whines about the my assertion that time frames matter even while your posts here refer to analysis and analysts whose conclusions and models are only worthwhile if the models include a time frame whether you notice it or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxf24
Shouldn't there a happy medium, communicated clearly without unnecessary fluff in an attempt to obnubilate the issue? Doesn't reality fall somewhere in the middle of the pro-DL, pro-merger, rosy outlook you're wrongly accusing me of and the head-in-the-sand, red-Koolaid drinking opposition?
Speaking of your mention of "pro-DL, pro-merger rosy outlook" some could be reminded of a line from Hamlet and adjust it for gender as appropriate: "The [lady] doth protest too much, methinks."
There's nothing "head-in-the-sand, red-Koolaid drinking" about stating that "cuts in the FF programs .... will come around sooner, be worse and be worse for more people, than would be the case in the absence of this 'merger'".
__________________
This game is not as much fun as it used to be: 2008/2009 Frequent Flyer Program Fleecing Award goes to Delta Airlines
I recognized the reality of what this merger means for FFP members: "cuts in the FF programs .... will come around sooner, be worse and be worse for more people, than would be the case in the absence of this 'merger'
As said before, there are "implicit assumptions in your analogy that aren't necessarily reasonable." I understand that you're going to continue to recognize the reality you've chosen to acknowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GUWonder
If you want to discuss the likely situation that more accurately describes the real enviornment, then the qualifier selected matters and your post is responsible for talking about a "many" that is far from generally descriptive of GE. You say "this is not the issue being discussed" but your actions contradict your statement. Can we chalk that up to your first statement quoted above?
WFT
GE was brought into the discussion to support the point that a leading market position matters. Trying to nit-pick and haggle over the commoditization of GE's market segments is petty and off-topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GUWonder
That's not what I said -- I said what I wanted to say in my post.
You posted a lot of words, but haven't said anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Probability does necessarily come with time frames if the model is to be of any use for proper judgment-/decision-making.
It's funny how your post whines about the my assertion that time frames matter even while your posts here refer to analysis and analysts whose conclusions and models are only worthwhile if the models include a time frame whether you notice it or not.
Wait, you say my communication and interpretation of third-party research material is irrelevant because I don't provide a time frame, yet the time frame used by these sources is acceptable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Speaking of your mention of "pro-DL, pro-merger rosy outlook" some could be reminded of a line from Hamlet and adjust it for gender as appropriate: "The [lady] doth protest too much, methinks."
There's nothing "head-in-the-sand, red-Koolaid drinking" about stating that "cuts in the FF programs .... will come around sooner, be worse and be worse for more people, than would be the case in the absence of this 'merger'".
Your drawing an inference that was not intended since your posts are clearly intended to be alarmist and protagonistic, rather than apologetic.
As said before, there are "implicit assumptions in your analogy that aren't necessarily reasonable." I understand that you're going to continue to recognize the reality you've chosen to acknowledge.
I understand that you are going to imagine what you want to imagine, including making up stuff about "implicit assumptions in [my] analogy".
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxf24
GE was brought into the discussion to support the point that a leading market position matters. Trying to nit-pick and haggle over the commoditization of GE's market segments is petty and off-topic.
A review of the GE mentions will show it is your posts that were engaged in the nitpicking and haggling over GE -- that includes your use of the term "many" which is misleading. The reality is that your claim about GE using the term "many" was largely unrepresentative of GE and would best be considered misleading or an attempt to mislead. Furthermore comparing GE to DL or NW or the airline industry in general is quite the funny joke given it's like comparing apples to squash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxf24
You posted a lot of words, but haven't said anything.
Given your litany of responses to my posts, it seems your actions betray the fiction of your claim. The reality is that some parties -- for their own reasons -- are not happy with consumers being informed about what the results for FFPs are to be as a result of this "merger" going ahead: "cuts in the FF programs .... will come around sooner, be worse and be worse for more people, than would be the case in the absence of this 'merger'".
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxf24
Wait, you say my communication and interpretation of third-party research material is irrelevant because I don't provide a time frame, yet the time frame used by these sources is acceptable?
That is not what I said. It's not as simple as you imagine it to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxf24
Your drawing an inference that was not intended since your posts are clearly intended to be alarmist and protagonistic, rather than apologetic.
An empty claim.
There is no good reason for most of DL and NW FFPs' customers to be apologists for this "merger" when "cuts in the FF programs will come around sooner, be worse and be worse for more people, than would be the case in the absence of this 'merger'". People are free to imagine that a cold, unemotional mention of present reality and future outcomes is "alarmist" but it won't change the reality that "cuts in the FF programs will come around sooner, be worse and be worse for more people, than would be the case in the absence of this 'merger'".
The whining about "alarmists" was circulating the rounds when the critics of the US-HP "merger" were mentioning how cuts in the FF programs would come around sooner, be worse and be worse for more people in US DM, than would be the case in the absence of that 'merger'.
Reviewing this thread in 15 months will be quite telling.
__________________
This game is not as much fun as it used to be: 2008/2009 Frequent Flyer Program Fleecing Award goes to Delta Airlines
"cuts in the FF programs will come around sooner,be worse and be worse for more people, than would be the case in the absence of this 'merger'"
"cuts in the FF programs will come around sooner,be worse and be worse for more people, than would be the case in the absence of this 'merger'"
This must be your mantra - I suggest you get a copyrighted.
The beauty is, regardless of what happens, you can always claim you were right since it is impossible to know what changes (or enhancements) would be made to WP or SM if the two carriers remained independent.
With that said, this seems to be an excellent opportunity to exit this line of discussion, since talking in (verbose) circles has no point but to pad one's post count. I trust you'll take the last word and I hope I've offered you the pleasure of feeling like you were "right."
This must be your mantra - I suggest you get a copyrighted.
The beauty is, regardless of what happens, you can always claim you were right since it is impossible to know what changes (or enhancements) would be made to WP or SM if the two carriers remained independent.
With that said, this seems to be an excellent opportunity to exit this line of discussion, since talking in (verbose) circles has no point but to pad one's post count. I trust you'll take the last word and I hope I've offered you the pleasure of feeling like you were "right."
That's called an attempt to pre-emptively deny future FFP cuts being a result of this "merger", and/or it's a window into some of the excuses to be expected in the year ahead.
15 months from now we'll know what cuts came through and that some "merger" apologists will still be defending the "merger" and denying that this "merger" was bad for most FFP members. Even if it ends up also failing to deliver for DL and/or NW shareholders, there will likely still be some apologists.
15 months from now, let's see.
__________________
This game is not as much fun as it used to be: 2008/2009 Frequent Flyer Program Fleecing Award goes to Delta Airlines
?!?!?! Are you suggesting, as per this wiki page, that your posts usually include "self-reference" so that your posts "acquire meaning despite being made of "meaningless" elements."?
I understand that you are going to imagine what you want to imagine, including making up stuff about "implicit assumptions in [my] analogy".
How is he/she "making stuff up"? Your referenced analogy does include assumptions that you are making, even though you don't outline those assumptions or state why you're making them or what basis they have for being correct. In a traditional scientific proof, these assumptions are usually preceded by a "Given that..."
You didn't make that disclosure and thus the reader was left to parse that for themselves. And since you didn't make any justifications for your assumptions, the reader is left to accept your assumptions, refute your assumptions, or abstain from passing judgment on your entire analysis without your whole case being made on your terms.
Either you forgot to outline and detail these assumptions or you chose not to go into them, in either case the burden is on you to support them.
Nothing in this merger is a given, no matter how much you try and obfuscate your points in a maze of rhetoric.
?!?!?! Are you suggesting, as per this wiki page, that your posts usually include "self-reference" so that your posts "acquire meaning despite being made of "meaningless" elements."?
Are you suggesting, as per your above post, that scanning a wiki page is a reasonable alternative to reading, understanding and applying knowledge from a 800+ page book?
While we are on the subject of meaning arising from meaninglessness and vice versa, perhaps this would be a good time to return to the argument put forth by some on this forum that oil prices are an anamoly and that "if the eco nuts would just let us drill all around the you, ess of Ay, that gas and kerosene would return to bucolic 1950's price levels."
We have already had posts linking to hard data of the USGS , but this interesting quote also appeared in today's paper :
There is no doubt that a lot of people have been discomfited and genuinely hurt by $4-a-gallon gas. But their suffering will not be relieved by drilling in restricted areas off the coasts of New Jersey or Virginia or California. The Energy Information Administration says that even if both coasts were opened, prices would not begin to drop until 2030. The only real beneficiaries will be the oil companies that are trying to lock up every last acre of public land before their friends in power — Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney — exit the political stage.
The whole scheme is based on a series of fictions that range from the egregious to the merely annoying. Democratic majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, noted the worst of these on Wednesday: That a country that consumes one-quarter of the world’s oil supply but owns only 3 percent of its reserves can drill its way out of any problem — whether it be high prices at the pump or dependence on oil exported by unstable countries in Persian Gulf.
A lesser fiction, perpetrated by the oil companies and, to some extent, by misleading government figures, is that huge deposits of oil and gas on federal land have been closed off and industry has had one hand tied behind its back by environmentalists, Democrats and the offshore protections in place for 25 years.
The numbers suggest otherwise. Of the 36 billion barrels of oil believed to lie on federal land, mainly in the Rocky Mountain West and Alaska, almost two-thirds are accessible or will be after various land-use and environmental reviews. And of the 89 billion barrels of recoverable oil believed to lie offshore, the federal Mineral Management Service says fourth-fifths is open to industry, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaskan waters.
Clearly, the oil companies are not starved for resources. Further, they do not seem to be doing nearly as much as they could with the land to which they’ve already laid claim. Separate studies by the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Wilderness Society, a conservation group, show that roughly three-quarters of the 90 million-plus acres of federal land being leased by the oil companies onshore and off are not being used to produce energy. That is 68 million acres altogether, among them potentially highly productive leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.
(legislators) have introduced “use it or lose it” bills that would force the companies to begin exploiting the leases they have before getting any more. Companion bills have been introduced in the Senate, where suspicions also run high that industry’s main objective is to stockpile millions of additional acres of public land before the Bush administration leaves town.
Just focusing on handing more land over to the oil companies on a silver platter instead of taking difficult efficiency and conservation measures would be yet another nail in the economy's coffin.
NWDL must come up with a business model that accomodates high fuel prices in order to survive and thrive.
