Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

New CEO at Alaska

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
My exact thoughts when I saw the news. Delta looking to buy? Let's hope not.

That's absurd. How does halving the price and doubling the available shares give anyone an advantage?

It's a mathematical wash no matter how you look at it.
 
Indeed. However, there might be a psychological part of that? Easier to convince your board to buy at $35/share than $70/share? Just because you're a member of the board at Delta doesn't mean you're smart.. ;) Anyhow, I'm crossing my fingers there's no sale in the foreseeable future.
 
Indeed. However, there might be a psychological part of that? Easier to convince your board to buy at $35/share than $70/share? Just because you're a member of the board at Delta doesn't mean you're smart.. ;) Anyhow, I'm crossing my fingers there's no sale in the foreseeable future.

Yeah, People on BOD's of major companies have the financial knowledge of undergraduate students!

I don't always agree with a lot of what the various boards do but I am confident they understand the difference (or the non-difference) of having 36 million shares outstanding at $76 and 72 million shares at $36. There is a difference...it is psychological...but it's the "home-gamers" with Scott Trade accounts that is the concern...not boards of directors, I can assure you.

The important number is not $36 or $72 but $3.6 Billion.

If Delta or anyone else didn't buy Alaska when we could be had for $800 million only a few years ago...i'm pretty sure it's not being seriously considered for approaching 5 times that amount.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, People on BOD's of major companies have the financial knowledge of undergraduate students!

I don't always agree with a lot of what the various boards do but I am confident they understand the difference (or the non-difference) of having 36 million shares outstanding at $76 and 72 million shares at $36. There is a difference...it is psychological...but it's the "home-gamers" with Scott Trade accounts that is the concern...not boards of directors, I can assure you.

The important number is not $36 or $72 but $3.6 Billion.

If Delta or anyone else didn't buy Alaska when we could be had for $800 million only a few years ago...i'm pretty sure it's not being seriously considered for approaching 5 times that amount.

Did you ever think about an airline buying you and then using your cash on hand to help pay for it? It happens a lot in other industries. To thwart mergers, companies also often have some debt on the books. Does AK have a lot of debt?


Godspeed!


The OYSter
 
Did you ever think about an airline buying you and then using your cash on hand to help pay for it? It happens a lot in other industries. To thwart mergers, companies also often have some debt on the books. Does AK have a lot of debt?


Godspeed!


The OYSter

1.1 billion debt, 1.1 billion cash
 
Where are these mentions of aggressiveness by Tilden?
 
Last paragraph

What’s your vision for Air Group, and how do we get there?
I think we have a destiny – to be the first airlines to truly transform ourselves and break the malicious cycle of boom and bust that has plagued the industry. We’ve done a lot of great things in our history, but this is something that hasn’t yet been accomplished.
Our future should be one where we continue to grow and prosper and provide terrific service to our customers and great jobs for our people. We should do this in a way where good begets good and we get stronger as we go – reinvesting in our business, enhancing our product, making ourselves more competitive, and further reducing our vulnerability. It has to be earned through performance, but we should have a future where we are a strong, independent, Seattle-based company. And very importantly, our people should feel like this is a great place for them to use their talents. They should feel like this is fundamentally a good company and that they’re in an environment where they can do well and have rewarding and fulfilling careers. I have every confidence in the people that make up Alaska Air Group and I believe we will make this future vision a reality.
With respect to the ‘how do we get there’ part of the question, we’ll do a lot of what we’ve been doing. First, we’ll work hard and be aggressive. Second, we need to understand what it takes to win: work together, believe in each other and push Air Group to new heights. In terms of specific actions, we’ve put a lot of thought into the Five Focus Areas, and they will be a good road map for us.
 
Where are these mentions of aggressiveness by Tilden?

I wouldn't read too much into that sentence. I don't think he was necessarily referring to growth. Aggressive cost cutting? Aggressive change? Aggressively defending our routes and company? Could have lots of meanings in that context.
 
Last edited:
This is good. Brad is a good man. I would not be surprised if we have a new contract done before we ever even get to openers next spring.

I'm wondering how he will treat "the red headed step child" QX?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom