A Scenario...is It Possible
- Thread starter madders
- Start date
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
Bob,
Are you sure you didn't get "recruited" by the management team at Roachfest?
If you think we wouldn't be exactly where we are today irregardless of an agreement between the pilots and the company, just consider these numbers from the BK filings:
Sept 10, 04 - $750 million is unrestricted cash (ATSB requires $725 million)
Sept 15, 04 - $110 million DB pension payment due (no IRS waiver)
Early-Mid Sept, 04 - Approx $7-8 million due to pilot's DC plan ($19 million total for months of July, Aug, and Sept 1-10 to be paid in Sept, Oct, & Nov)
Little immediate savings from ALPA settlement since pay/benefits lag actual work done - changes to pay, DC plan contributions, medical, vacation, etc would not kick in for at least a month. Any furloughs would increase short-term expenditures (furlough pay, training)
No agreements near conclusion with other unions.
So explain how U had any choice but to file BK, regardless of having an agreement with ALPA or not.
Jim
ps - ok, the ATSB could have agreed to the lower cash limit outside BK - $585 million by Oct 14. That leaves $165 million unrestricted cash available to spend. Less $110 million DB pension paymen & $19 million DC payment leaves $36 million. Less cash burn (reportedly $1-3 million a day by the media, so be optimistic and call it $1 million a day) of $30 million leaving $6 million.
Are you sure you didn't get "recruited" by the management team at Roachfest?
If you think we wouldn't be exactly where we are today irregardless of an agreement between the pilots and the company, just consider these numbers from the BK filings:
Sept 10, 04 - $750 million is unrestricted cash (ATSB requires $725 million)
Sept 15, 04 - $110 million DB pension payment due (no IRS waiver)
Early-Mid Sept, 04 - Approx $7-8 million due to pilot's DC plan ($19 million total for months of July, Aug, and Sept 1-10 to be paid in Sept, Oct, & Nov)
Little immediate savings from ALPA settlement since pay/benefits lag actual work done - changes to pay, DC plan contributions, medical, vacation, etc would not kick in for at least a month. Any furloughs would increase short-term expenditures (furlough pay, training)
No agreements near conclusion with other unions.
So explain how U had any choice but to file BK, regardless of having an agreement with ALPA or not.
Jim
ps - ok, the ATSB could have agreed to the lower cash limit outside BK - $585 million by Oct 14. That leaves $165 million unrestricted cash available to spend. Less $110 million DB pension paymen & $19 million DC payment leaves $36 million. Less cash burn (reportedly $1-3 million a day by the media, so be optimistic and call it $1 million a day) of $30 million leaving $6 million.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
"the agreements were in place"
I notice the plural in there - at best ALPA's agreement could have been in place just before the filing. If you want to blame the RC4 for that, fine - you're not alone though I disagree. But we would have entered BK2 without all agreements (plural) in place without a doubt.
We'll soon be able to tell if you're right or not though. Thru the court, new "agreements' will be in place soon and we'll see how many come forward to invest in this place. Including the good Dr.
Jim
I notice the plural in there - at best ALPA's agreement could have been in place just before the filing. If you want to blame the RC4 for that, fine - you're not alone though I disagree. But we would have entered BK2 without all agreements (plural) in place without a doubt.
We'll soon be able to tell if you're right or not though. Thru the court, new "agreements' will be in place soon and we'll see how many come forward to invest in this place. Including the good Dr.
Jim
PB,
First of all , LH cannot buy a controlling interest in either US Flagged carrier due to current laws....so that dispells that myth.
Secondly...if you think the RC4 is what sunk U into it's present state? You must be hitting the sauce a bit to hard. I'm sure that you and Senator Santorm will both be eating crow on those comments.
U is in BK due entirely 100% to poor leadership , negative cash flow due to more of the same....and payments coming due on almost everything you can name.
However...if blaming the RC4 works for ya? You have pretty much made your opinions about as null and void as they make them with the rest of the thinking people of the world.
No union on the property , regardless of their individual or collective stance killed USAirways..in fact its not exactly dead , as the checks keep cashing for now. U is dying from the core and from the continued lack of vision that has always crippled it. U has always been to quick to run from a market instead of fighting to keep it..and once you lose something in this business..its pretty much lost for keeps.
First of all , LH cannot buy a controlling interest in either US Flagged carrier due to current laws....so that dispells that myth.
Secondly...if you think the RC4 is what sunk U into it's present state? You must be hitting the sauce a bit to hard. I'm sure that you and Senator Santorm will both be eating crow on those comments.
U is in BK due entirely 100% to poor leadership , negative cash flow due to more of the same....and payments coming due on almost everything you can name.
However...if blaming the RC4 works for ya? You have pretty much made your opinions about as null and void as they make them with the rest of the thinking people of the world.
No union on the property , regardless of their individual or collective stance killed USAirways..in fact its not exactly dead , as the checks keep cashing for now. U is dying from the core and from the continued lack of vision that has always crippled it. U has always been to quick to run from a market instead of fighting to keep it..and once you lose something in this business..its pretty much lost for keeps.
I know LH cant buy US, but couldnt they buy the maximum allowable amount (39% or whatever?).
How much of a stake was British Airways allowed to buy?
How much of a stake was British Airways allowed to buy?
PineyBob said:
First off, the company had not met with any union other than ALPA prior to bankruptcy; so, for your argument to be valid, we would have to assume that cockpit wages and work rules were the only barrier to access to the capital markets. I don't think even the company would make that claim.
Second, may I remind you that twice before the employees have been told that " the company could return to profitability if only you will make these concessions."
Coulda/woulda/shoulda. The evidence before the employees today tells a different story.
BoeingBoy said:
Not unless they only want the east coast portion and then UAIR would make more sense and cost less money. God only knows they're practically non-existent the other side of the Mississippi.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
LH doesn't care about UA's Pacific presence. They are only interested in feeding their transatlantic routes; since the majority of transatlantic passengers come off the east coast, US is a better fit for a European carrier than United.
No one is going to invest in US unless there is a plan for sustained profitability. When you get that in place, there are plenty of people who want a piece of US, including for the purpose of operating a US airline - as Virgin wants to do - and not just operate Lufthansa Connection. Further, the problems that US has in having a large enough network will be just as acute if it is a standalone carrier in the US; as a percentage of total passengers, there aren't near enough passengers who would fly US to connect to a transatlantic airline to justify investing in a US airline, esp. when a big chunk of US' current flying involves the Carribbean which does not largely connect to transatlantic flights.
No one is going to invest in US unless there is a plan for sustained profitability. When you get that in place, there are plenty of people who want a piece of US, including for the purpose of operating a US airline - as Virgin wants to do - and not just operate Lufthansa Connection. Further, the problems that US has in having a large enough network will be just as acute if it is a standalone carrier in the US; as a percentage of total passengers, there aren't near enough passengers who would fly US to connect to a transatlantic airline to justify investing in a US airline, esp. when a big chunk of US' current flying involves the Carribbean which does not largely connect to transatlantic flights.
BoeingBoy
Veteran
- Nov 9, 2003
- 16,512
- 5,865
Thanks for the food for thought.
For some reason, I thought LH (like BA) would be interested in something that would give them an "around the world" presence. I didn't realize that they were not that active out west.
I'll blame it on my "east coast focused" flying....
Jim
For some reason, I thought LH (like BA) would be interested in something that would give them an "around the world" presence. I didn't realize that they were not that active out west.
I'll blame it on my "east coast focused" flying....
Jim
