kapkomet

Look, I'm not saying I'm for this deal, but why is it automatically assumed the worst thing possible every time the President does something? That's the part I don't get. What if there are more reasons then what's being said? What if these guys were going to help us set up some ways to monitor middle east shipments, etc better? What then? But of course, there would never be any mention of those things. My personal stance on this one is it's not right and shouldn't be done - this being said with the facts that I know right now. But if there's something more that we don't know, then maybe there's more to it.

No... There. That's better.

Partially true. I'm trying to not brag, but I consider myself one of the reasons we got out of bankruptcy. Of course, I got no retention bonus, but every single person I worked for did (I was a direct report to both the CFO and the COO - the only analyst at the company to do that), and a lot of stock options in the 'new' company. Imagine that. The pilots that are "just starting" is not the point. A 20% cut on $20,000 is a lot less then 20% on $400,000. The guys with seniority are who they are targeting. And if enough of them get pissed off, they'll retire, which plays even more into the hands of the company. And as far as your comment about 'the same top talent that got the airlines where they are today' is not exactly true either. The landscape of airlines in 1999-2000 is SIGNIFICANTLY different then it is today. Decisions were made then that simply will not or cannot fly in today's business environment. To oversimplify, what got the airlines in serious trouble was dirt cheap oil, and the huge new orders for new planes.

I think at some point, both these companies will have to merge.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 11:03 PM) http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/22/news/compa...dex.htm?cnn=yes Apparently Delta needs to offer its managers a 6 to 12 month severance package to stem attrition while asking the airline pilots to take a 15% pay cut this year after having them take a 33% pay cut last year. Pilots are pissed. They might strike. Yea. That's what happens to pilots who were paid by far the highest in the industry. Their salary scale is just now coming back in line AFTER the cuts that are on the table. As far as offering retention packages to management, companies need talent to get through bankruptcy. If that talent leaves, they won't emerge. It's that simple. The incentives should not be paid unless they emerge, IMO.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 11:31 PM) Yes they are. They actually hate us even though our country has saved their asses a number of times. What the hell is it around here today with the blatent stereotyping? This is a bulls*** statement. STFU unless you've been there and know that they 'hate us'.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 10:07 PM) No--both you and Kap are instead citing the origins behind the perceived outrage. Which, as we gather, were incited by Syrian and Iranian clerics. How do you explain the thousands rioting through streets in various cites across Africa, Europe, and Asia? To them, these protests are entirely about the sacreligious caricatures of their prophet. Yea, and how did they hear about it? Their clerics.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 08:19 PM) And we exactly let it happen. Yep. We "let" it happen. Uh huh.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 08:47 PM) However, as I showed a little bit earlier...normal procedures for approval, as required by law since 1993, weren't followed in this case. So while Bush almost certainly didn't know about it before it became an issue, somehow it was allowed to sidestep the approval procedures outlined in the law, and the President is still willing to defend it with a veto threat. So there is certainly something odd going on. This was a transaction between the UAE company and the main British firm who held the company. The US was a minor party - and I'm not sure that they were suspect to the same laws.

They're getting exactly what they want - a bloodbath 'at the hands of the Americans.'

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 08:05 PM) OK. It's still a pretty big deal. And he didn't know. Transactions like this go on all the time. So no, he probably didn't. And no one else would have noticed, normally. This isn't exactly 'normal' but in a way it is in that as I just stated, these type of transactions, WITH Middle East countries, happen quite frequently.

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 07:56 PM) Sorry if it's been asked.. but.. how did he not know about something this big..? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11494815/ Bush unaware of port deal until after approval White House: President only learned recently of handover to Arab firm MSNBC staff and news service reports Updated: 1:29 p.m. ET Feb. 22, 2006 WASHINGTON - President Bush was unaware of the pending sale of shipping operations at six major U.S. seaports to a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates until the deal already had been approved by his administration, the White House said Wednesday. I got the impression from his press comments that he did know about it. There's a lot more companies then just this one that have Arab influences and ownership. The only reason that this one got any attention is because there's anti-competetive lawsuits that were recently filed. As soon as someone got ahold of that, the 'connect the dots' was played into UAE is taking over our (six) ports. Ownership and operation are two totally different things.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 05:46 PM) I think these protests have so little to do with religion, its ridiculous. It's absolutely not about religion. It's about fanaticism... and the clerics running everyone in a tizzy.

Remember that everything in China is "state-owned" And that poll graph - I call bulls*** on that just because of the way it's worded. And these people hate AMERICANS is not true. They hate the GOVERNMENT of America. I've been there, I know this... although, that's a different spin... something I haven't yet touched on. They LOVE Americans. You know why? Because we give them money. If we didn't, we might as well be a turd pile laying in the road that they walk over. The culture is so different, especially in Dubai (UAE). I have a lot more to say on this, but I don't know how much time I have or if anyone cares.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 05:21 PM) We don't need those types of companies controlling our infrastructure. 'racist'... Yea, I hear you. I just wonder what's really behind all this.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 05:17 PM) Big difference between a privately held company and a state owned one. All of the major companies in the Middle East and China are state owned. So, by extension, that means we can never have any of those interests in our country? That's indeed 'profiling'. Again, maybe we need to 'profile'. Or maybe not.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 05:00 PM) That's bulls***. We dont think the UAE is supporting terrorism, we know it. I don't have time to go into it right now, but I was somewhat serious when I said something about alluding to knowing some things about Dubai and how they operate. I'm telling you - there's more going on here then we know. I'm not saying it's right, but there's a lot more to this then is being reported.

Yea - the thing is - now the civil war junk is really starting to be pressed. It amazes me how far these "peace loving" Muslims are going to try to start the Civil War - and then blame the Americans for it, and more specifically George W. Bush.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 04:57 PM) Can I borrow $6,800,000,000.01? Hey - I have an "in" in Dubai...

Hey you know, this could be the opportunity of a lifetime. Any of you soxtalkers out there want to start a logisitics company that runs ports???

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 04:45 PM) It's a STATE-OWNED company. The UAE owns, or partly owns, this company. The UAE has had terrosist ties. There should be no reason that a terrorist-supporting government manages American infrastructure on our soil. It is ludacris. That's why an overwhelming majority of Americans and politicians are opposing this deal. I hear you. And I'm inclined to agree, on the surface. However, again, on principle, we shouldn't be buying a DROP of oil then - Iran, Saudi, UAE, etc. On southsider's question - I think there are about 3 or 4 major companys that do this. This is only from what I can remember when talking about this when I worked at the airline and talked about import shipments. The British Company that has been doing it (now selling out to UAE) will take the British out of the business for good. There's another port company that is in the US (I think in MIA), but they are small potatoes. The major companies that do this now are the UAE folks, and 2 from China, and the one here, the one here being by far the smallest of the group. Again, this is off the top of my head, no research done.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 04:23 PM) For me the issue has always been about the hypocrisy (sp?) of the adminsitration on this issue first and foremost. The nations of the world are "either with us or against us." We used suspected ties to terrorism as partial reason for the Iraq invasion. Now, we're giving a lucrative deal to a company owned and controlled by a government that has provided funding to El Quaida, from a country that some of the 9-11 hijackers travelled throuugh to get to the US, and one of a handful of countries (Pakistan and Saudi Arabia being the others) that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate Afghan government. How's that for ties to terrorism? I truly don't think the move compromises our security in any way, and a good NPR piece this morning supported this belief. But I'd like aomwone who thinks reservations aboutt this deal are unfounded to square the "with us or against us" rhetoric with the fact that we are giving a company owned by a state with KNOWN ties to terrorist organizations a $6 billion dollar contract. So why don't we stop buying Saudi oil? Why didn't we two days after 9/11?

I think this is very well written.

This is flat out wrong. It's once again politicizing something that doesn't need any more politicizing.

First of all, people that are clamouring about the ownership, the laws of America governs these ports. Americans run them. Security is by the Americans. Port workers are Americans. In other words, virtually nothing will have changed about anything having to do with these ports. However, I do think that there is some kind of back-room deal going on here. I think that this was done to set a "trap"... but the trap just sprung before anyone could use it.