Airtran At It Again!

[Fly]

You are correct...it is political. Phew.....Bush definitely doesn't want an additional 65,000 families on unemployment, right before an important election. And ATSB can't push this off until November. I bet we get the loan! and then vote him out of office 😛

 

[whatkindoffreshhell]

You are correct...it is political. Phew.....Bush definitely doesn't want an additional 65,000 families on unemployment, right before an important election. And ATSB can't push this off until November. I bet we get the loan! and then vote him out of office 😛

Nonsense. Using the national averages, only about a third of your 65K will vote.

And don't start with the "yeah but remember the 2000 election results" because Al Gore won that by 500,000 popular votes.

And even if your vaunted "65,000 employees" vote (um, how many of them are even registered??) that number is more than offset by your competitors and their customers.

(didn't PanAm fly full loads internationally right up to the end??)

UA must fix its business model without the ATSB.

 

[Fly]

Relax!! If United gets it, they get it. Don't hyperventilate on us. I think they'll get it....you don't.....whatever!









oh.....and Gore won the popular vote 😛

 

[Busdrvr]

"Where did you get this information? Can you quote a source? Regardless, it proves that network airlines (at least the ones Wall Street believes will survive the current downturn) continued to have access to capital post-9/11."

According to NWA's 2003 10k, the company got 300 million in Jan 04 with unsecured bonds (due 2009) coupon rate of 10% and semi annual interest payment due. Bonds sold for $962 for a $1000 principle amount, resulting in a yeild to maturity of 11% Another 33 million a year in debt service....

In any case, prettey b@lsy comment comming from an airline that had to be bailed out by Minn in the 90's. Seems to me UAL would being much better if not for government intervention on behalf of it's biggest Pac competition...

"If UA goes under, there’s not much of a market for those planes (the 757 is not exactly the darling of the used jet market these days), "

NWA took delivery of 25 of them since 2001. Guess the same level of idiots are running the show there....

"And, yes, NW could have gone after some of UA 747-400s. But they didn't for the same reason they're placing A330-200s in the Pacific; the 747-400 is simply too large for most routes...too bad UA didn't figure this out until long after they'd bought so many of the things"

Yet NWA took delivery of two NEW 400's in 2002.... Hmm with nearly new modles selling for around 33% of new... Yup, they've got it figured out at NWA.... How many 747's does NWA operate (with less pac ASM's than UAL)?

"AWA would have gone BK without the loan only because of 9/11. Had 9/11 not occurred there would have been a signed deal on 9/12. 9/11 was the sole reason for the deal not to be closed."

I'd say, by looking at debt ratings ect of UAL (higher ratings than AWA prior to 9/11) that the same case could be made without reservation WRT UAL.

"Nonsense. Using the national averages, only about a third of your 65K will vote."

In case you were wondering, those 65K have neighbors... Wonder what would happen in ORD and DEN if there was suddenly a glut of foreclosures and lower consumer spending? By your argument, unemployment could be 49% as long asthe 51% had REALLY good jobs they attributed to the presidents policies....

 

[hp_fa]

UA did not have a deal pending on 9/11 that got trashed, therefore your argument fails. AWA had a deal and 9/11 directly effected that deal.

 

[Fly]

United didn't lose anything on 9/11 <_< HELLO! To try to imply that somehow AWA was more negatively impacted than United is unbelievable. :blink:

 

[whatkindoffreshhell]

In case you were wondering, those 65K have neighbors... Wonder what would happen in ORD and DEN if there was suddenly a glut of foreclosures and lower consumer spending? By your argument, unemployment could be 49% as long asthe 51% had REALLY good jobs they attributed to the presidents policies....

Spinning at its' finest folks! All you amateurs takes notes, this is how it is done!

My goodness, now we've got the neighbors in DEN & ORD who will determine our next President! I suppose all the UA people took care of their neighbors during the last decade of ridiculous airfares.

Fly -- do not presume that I desire the ATSB to give 'ol UA the boot. My point has always been that UA should also have an alternate plan. Perhaps other creditors will tolerate a BK business spending on new drapes, but that is not the responsibility of the federal taxpayers.

 

[Fly]

It is my understanding that if United has any other plan, the loan can't be granted. They may have another plan in mind, but they certainly can't reveal it.

 

[whatkindoffreshhell]

Understood. I am just wary of UA and the big-bang event a la $200 per share stock, Allegis, USmerger, ATSB Round One etc.

The United brand represents glorious value. To blow it all on one grand toss of the dice --- well, then they deserve history.

 

[Busdrvr]

"UA did not have a deal pending on 9/11 that got trashed, therefore your argument fails. AWA had a deal and 9/11 directly effected that deal."

UAL didn't NEED a "deal" prior to 911, thats the MFP.

"Spinning at its' finest folks! All you amateurs takes notes, this is how it is done!"

Then I'm a pro?, That's the best compliment I've had in quite a while!! Thanks!!! 😀 FWIW, review what happened to the housing market (and the local economy for that matter) in IAH in the early 80's. One market segment dumped and it literally destroyed housing values.

 

[hp_fa]

Ummm, wasn't the stated purpose of ATSB to help airlines that were negatively effected by 9/11? AWA went right for the loan and accepted the terms beacause it then all of a sudden lacked access to the capital markets. UAL made a different decision and now wants to use ATSB as post-bankrutcy financing. There is a difference.

As I said, AWA had a deal on the table that went away as a direct consequence of 9/11. That is my point.

 

[Busdrvr]

"AWA went right for the loan and accepted the terms beacause it then all of a sudden lacked access to the capital markets. UAL made a different decision and now wants to use ATSB as post-bankrutcy financing. There is a difference."


:blink: :blink: YGTBSM!!! UAL DID go straight for the loan, that may have contributed to the current situation (single focus). The reason they haven't gotten it yet is do to GOVERNMENT demands and stalling, not because of UAL's actions. BTW, take a look at UAL vs AWA for a five year period prior to 911. Who appears to be the better bet?

 

[Fly]

Posted on Apr 29 2004, 04:19 PM
Ummm, wasn't the stated purpose of ATSB to help airlines that were negatively effected by 9/11?

Stop! You're killin me here. You are correct though, the loan was established to help airlines negatively affected by 9/11. United WAS affected, so they SHOULD get the loan. Are you implying that AWA was MORE affected by 9/11 than United Airlines? OMG Too recap....United Airlines lost 2 airplanes on September 11; one went into the World Trade Center (killing thousands) and the other into a field in Pennsylvania. But according to you, AWA lost a deal that was supposed to happen on 9/12, so they must have lost more. :blink:

 

[WorldTraveler]

What happens in Canada and Italy will undoubtedly also affect the ATSB's decision as will Independence Air's (or whatever they are called) big press conference in a couple weeks. History has shown and the next several weeks will bear out that the world will go on without United Airlines if the government so decides to deny the loan. Other countries are willing to take a hands-off approach to the problems of their airlines and the US should do the same. Competition will continue to sweep across the industry making it all the more important for the remaining network carriers to be able to stand on their own two feet.

In reality, pulling the plug on UAL is not at all likely to affect the Nov election - the US will cover alot of ground in the next couple months and the airline industry will rebuild w/ or w/o United. The economy is showing considerable strength.

Part of what makes so many people detest United is their "we are so important" mindset which is conveyed in the CEO reply to the WSJ journal article (separate post). Actually, no one is so important that others can't take their place. The fundamental question the ATSB will have to answer is whether UAL's balance plan is viable enough for them to remain as a profitable independent company and whether 9/11 is truly the source of the UAL's problems. Many of us believe that on the latter question, the answer is no.

 

[Busdrvr]

"Actually, no one is so important that others can't take their place."

Just curious, who is it that would take UAL's "place"? The truth is that no one COULD effectively take over the route structure. The economy would take a HUGE hit. One major diff between UAL now and past debacles (EAL, Pan Am) is the other airlines were NOT the second largest airline in the US at the time of Demise. Go back east some time and ask folks who were around when EAL tanked how that affected the economy. Ask them which major cities they lost service to, that has NEVER been replaced effectively. Ask the businesses in smaller towns like Redmond and Eugene Oregon what has changed since 911 and the resulting pull back of UA service. Ask them if anyone else has EFFECTIVELY filled the gap.

"and whether 9/11 is truly the source of the UAL's problems. Many of us believe that on the latter question, the answer is no."

Many people believe Elvis is alive also.... simple question, what were UA's bond ratings prior to 911. What were the competitions? What were they afterwards? What do people in YOUR pink sky'd world attribute that change to? Barry Bonds becoming number 3 on the all-time HR list? GMAFB. The deny 911 as the primary causal factor in the current Airline debacle is ludicrous to say the least. Yields were RECOVERING at the time after a mild recession. BTW, have you talked to Elvis lately?....