(Local Airlines) Aloha oe, Aloha...

On Mar 30, 3:10=A0pm, Michael J Wise <mjw...@kapu.net> wrote:

> " Aloha Airlines is shutting down its passenger flight operations
> beginning tomorrow.

Maybe not. IIRC I heard on the radio that it's up to creditors
whether
Aloha can shut down. Some judge ruled that way on whether to allow
the shutdown. I guess it's a little like the Bear Stearns thing where
it's
worthless if it can't continue to operate.

Hasn't a judge already ruled that Aloha has the right to file for
bankruptcy?

"al Guacamole" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1207096802-sch@news.lava.net...

On Mar 30, 3:10 pm, Michael J Wise <mjw...@kapu.net> wrote:

> " Aloha Airlines is shutting down its passenger flight operations
> beginning tomorrow.

Maybe not. IIRC I heard on the radio that it's up to creditors
whether
Aloha can shut down. Some judge ruled that way on whether to allow
the shutdown. I guess it's a little like the Bear Stearns thing where
it's
worthless if it can't continue to operate.

The airline industry has received extraordinary financial
benefits since the beginning of the service,
The classic corpoate welfare bums..
In this modern era the operation of a business is well known.
There is NO excuse for failure.. other than the special interests
have given themselves extraordinary salaries and stock options.
All largely paid for by the public taxpayer.
Now they line up at the public trough again.
Time fo r new policy ... with the public interest at the center.

No one can get "benefits" from the government, or get a "handout"
form the
government, "if" those we elect to represent us, do not give them those
benefits....

"John W. Bienko" <as312@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:1207585500-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> The airline industry has received extraordinary financial
> benefits since the beginning of the service,
> The classic corpoate welfare bums..
> In this modern era the operation of a business is well known.
> There is NO excuse for failure.. other than the special interests
> have given themselves extraordinary salaries and stock options.
> All largely paid for by the public taxpayer.
> Now they line up at the public trough again.
> Time fo r new policy ... with the public interest at the center.
>

On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> Don't you think that ANY company that is in deep
> financial trouble has as their primary responsibility
> what is best for the shareholders of the company?

In theory, yes. In practice, no. That's why we have the
Sarbannes-Oxley act. To keep CEOs and Boards from
inflating company profits, and hiding problems from
creditors and shareholders. The usual corporate
practice doesn't help the shareholder, but is in the
interest of the CEO. In this case, it's pretty obivous
that the Aloha executives don't want a takeover by
Mesa. The same was said about a takeover of ***** by
Microsoft.

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1208037900-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> Don't you think that ANY company that is in deep
>> financial trouble has as their primary responsibility
>> what is best for the shareholders of the company?
>
> In theory, yes. In practice, no. That's why we have the
> Sarbannes-Oxley act. To keep CEOs and Boards from
> inflating company profits, and hiding problems from
> creditors and shareholders.

And does it work? The answer is, no it does not work, because you
only have
to look at those companies who have folded to know the answer to that
question. Enron is a classic example of that.

The usual corporate
> practice doesn't help the shareholder, but is in the
> interest of the CEO. In this case, it's pretty obivous
> that the Aloha executives don't want a takeover by
> Mesa. The same was said about a takeover of ***** by
> Microsoft.
>

You have got to be kidding me. The company did not have the cash
available
to keep operating, what has that got to to with what you just said?

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Jerry Okamura wrote:

> There are "government" programs for homebuyers. A
> homeowner can deduct their mortgage interest, the
> property taxes they pay on that home. If they own
> the home for a couple of years, and make a profit
> when they sell the home, they can exempt $250,000 per
> person from capital gains taxes. Those who do not
> own a home, do not get the same breaks....

Yet you call buying your own home "gambling", and not
worthy of protection for the consumer....

> When someone like Bill Cosby said recently about the
> problem with Blacks was he called a racist for saying
> what he said? Was what he said a fact?

I don't recall specifically what he said. But IIRC
weren't his comments general enough that they could be
construed to mean that if you were black, you deserted
your wife and unborn child... ie Cosby didn't say that
a lot of problems with black mothers were due to
fathers deserting them because they did not have the
sense of responsibility for the messes that they
created. In this hypothetical example, his words were
stated to mean that the cause was that they were black.

Soros doesn't say this-- ie that blacks took out these
subprime loans because they were black or that their
social environment caused them to do that. He told
Charley Rose that the reason many will suffer from a
home forclosure is that so many who are unqualified but
bought into the American concept of home ownership are
black. You need to tell the difference between what
Cosby says and what Soros says.

> You do not have to worry about paying of your debt,
> if you are successful. You have trouble paying of
> your debts or trying to pay of your debts, when you
> are not successful.

But it doesn't mean that you don't have to pay off your
debts when you are unsuccessful. You still have an
obligation to pay back, and the honorable CEO does his
best to do that.

"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@lava.net> wrote in message
news:1208383800-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> There are "government" programs for homebuyers. A
>> homeowner can deduct their mortgage interest, the
>> property taxes they pay on that home. If they own
>> the home for a couple of years, and make a profit
>> when they sell the home, they can exempt $250,000 per
>> person from capital gains taxes. Those who do not
>> own a home, do not get the same breaks....
>
> Yet you call buying your own home "gambling", and not
> worthy of protection for the consumer....

Because it is "gambling", if you are buying your home in the hopes
that the
purchase will appreciate in value. And yes, anyone who buys a home,
that
should know better, i.e. that they cannot keep up with the payments
such a
decision involves, is not worthy of protection. It is the same basic
problem when our government "bails" out a business.
>
>> When someone like Bill Cosby said recently about the
>> problem with Blacks was he called a racist for saying
>> what he said? Was what he said a fact?
>
> I don't recall specifically what he said. But IIRC
> weren't his comments general enough that they could be
> construed to mean that if you were black, you deserted
> your wife and unborn child... ie Cosby didn't say that
> a lot of problems with black mothers were due to
> fathers deserting them because they did not have the
> sense of responsibility for the messes that they
> created. In this hypothetical example, his words were
> stated to mean that the cause was that they were black.

Do a web search, I am sure you can find exactly what he said. Then do a
further search to find out what many in the black community said in
response
to what he said.
>
> Soros doesn't say this-- ie that blacks took out these
> subprime loans because they were black or that their
> social environment caused them to do that. He told
> Charley Rose that the reason many will suffer from a
> home forclosure is that so many who are unqualified but
> bought into the American concept of home ownership are
> black. You need to tell the difference between what
> Cosby says and what Soros says.
>
>> You do not have to worry about paying of your debt,
>> if you are successful. You have trouble paying of
>> your debts or trying to pay of your debts, when you
>> are not successful.
>
> But it doesn't mean that you don't have to pay off your
> debts when you are unsuccessful. You still have an
> obligation to pay back, and the honorable CEO does his
> best to do that.
>

Companies can "escape" their obligations because the very Government
that
you support, gave them that ability to "escape" from their obligations.

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Dan Birchall wrote:

> okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com (Jerry Okamura) wrote:

>> ...it is "gambling", if you are buying your home in
>> the hopes that the purchase will appreciate in
>> value.
>
> All "investments" are "gambling" by this definition.
> Not that I disagree with it, mind you. :)
>
> I guess I should be glad that I bought a small, cheap
> home so I'd have somewhere to live in and call my
> own, not so I'd have something to re-sell.

Jerry doesn't buy that-- ie that people buy homes other
than wanting to resell them. If he did, then he would
have to admit that homeowners deserve consumer
protection and a bailout for making bad decisions from
shyster lending companies. He's just stated that two
times in this thread, and can't conceive of any other
reason for buying a house. In that sense, he's out of
touch.

"Dan Birchall" <nobody@imaginary-host.danbirchall.com> wrote in message
news:1208540400-sch@news.lava.net...
>
> okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com (Jerry Okamura) wrote:
>> ...it is "gambling", if you are buying your home in the
>> hopes that the purchase will appreciate in value.
>
> All "investments" are "gambling" by this definition. Not
> that I disagree with it, mind you. :)
>
Yes