BUsh and Big Business

BeenThere

Member
Aug 26, 2002
89
0
So much for Bush and the GOP sleeping with big business
Reuters
Bush ''respects'' decision to deny aid to United Airlines
Thursday December 5, 10:11 am ET
WASHINGTON, Dec 5 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush stands behind the decision of a government board to deny United Airlines a $1.8 billion U.S. government loan guarantee, asserting it was based on the merits, the White House said on Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENT


White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the president respects the decision of the Air Transportation Stabilization Board, which on Wednesday refused United''s application for the loan guarantee, pushing the world''s No. 2 airline to the brink of filing for bankruptcy.
The federal board said United, a unit of UAL Corp. (NYSE:UAL - News), did not present a financially sound business plan. It said United''s revenue projections did not match up with its hefty cost structure, and expressed concern that the company would not be able to pay back its loans.
The decision was made on the merits by the board based on the extensive financial information available to them and based on the criteria that were established in the law, Fleischer told reporters.
 
C

coldplay

Guest
actually it's just something he does not want to clog his tiny brain right now. He's so focused on his "Get Saddam" agenda, that everything else is moot and takes a backseat.
He'll deal with it & all other economic issues AFTER 2004. By then it'll be the other guy's problem, and not his. same tactic he used during his "businessman" days. someone was always there to bail him out, whether it be Daddy, Mumsie, or Dickie boy.
 
C

coldplay

Guest
actually it's just something he does not want to clog his tiny brain right now. He's so focused on his "Get Saddam" agenda, that everything else is moot and takes a backseat.
He'll deal with it & all other economic issues AFTER 2004. By then it'll be the other guy's problem, and not his. same tactic he used during his "businessman" days. someone was always there to bail him out, whether it be Daddy, Mumsie, or Dickie boy.
 

AirplaneFan

Advanced
Aug 20, 2002
174
0
Couldn't the unions loan the money to UAL to keep it out of bankruptcy? Or the banks? NO WAY they would, its too much of a credit risk. But the unions are only too happy to have the government give it a subsidy. And there is no way that Bush Administration will now bail out AA or the others. The best theohter airlines might expect is a reauthoirization of the ATSB. It just seems to me that there is a statute of limitation on when airlines can come back looking for money because of the events of 9/11. There are some problems that might have been exacerbated ny 9/11, but the government is not responsible for those. The purpose of the ATSB is to assist airlines in making the shift to the new aviation paradigm, not to give airlines bailouts because the paradigm shifted.
 

AirplaneFan

Advanced
Aug 20, 2002
174
0
Couldn't the unions loan the money to UAL to keep it out of bankruptcy? Or the banks? NO WAY they would, its too much of a credit risk. But the unions are only too happy to have the government give it a subsidy. And there is no way that Bush Administration will now bail out AA or the others. The best theohter airlines might expect is a reauthoirization of the ATSB. It just seems to me that there is a statute of limitation on when airlines can come back looking for money because of the events of 9/11. There are some problems that might have been exacerbated ny 9/11, but the government is not responsible for those. The purpose of the ATSB is to assist airlines in making the shift to the new aviation paradigm, not to give airlines bailouts because the paradigm shifted.
 

Buck

Veteran
Contributor
Aug 20, 2002
7,317
1,576
www.fairtax.org
Where is the AFL-CIO to rescue the workers? They are paid through dues to handle these issues. You jab the President, but you pay the industrial unionists. That figures. Call John Sweeney. Ask him what you should do. The debacle at United is only the fault of the company and it's mismanagement of it's business and the IAM industrial union attitude that could not see that workers can only be compensated at their market rate. This same issue is effecting American or will in the future. I believe a good thing for the pilots at AA is that they are already making less than those at United. The mechanics also are compensated little more than at AA. I do not know about the work groups. If as a mechanic my marketability provides for a certain level of compensation, then Fleet Service should not be paid more because a mechanic or pilot is. They should be paid for their marketability. Do you really believe that if Bill Clinton could have been reelected or if the Democrats had the presidency and control of Congress that this would have saved United's workers?

Again where is the AFL-CIO whom you pay to protect you?
 

Buck

Veteran
Contributor
Aug 20, 2002
7,317
1,576
www.fairtax.org
Where is the AFL-CIO to rescue the workers? They are paid through dues to handle these issues. You jab the President, but you pay the industrial unionists. That figures. Call John Sweeney. Ask him what you should do. The debacle at United is only the fault of the company and it's mismanagement of it's business and the IAM industrial union attitude that could not see that workers can only be compensated at their market rate. This same issue is effecting American or will in the future. I believe a good thing for the pilots at AA is that they are already making less than those at United. The mechanics also are compensated little more than at AA. I do not know about the work groups. If as a mechanic my marketability provides for a certain level of compensation, then Fleet Service should not be paid more because a mechanic or pilot is. They should be paid for their marketability. Do you really believe that if Bill Clinton could have been reelected or if the Democrats had the presidency and control of Congress that this would have saved United's workers?

Again where is the AFL-CIO whom you pay to protect you?
 

Buck

Veteran
Contributor
Aug 20, 2002
7,317
1,576
www.fairtax.org
It is my understanding that at least at American there were financial problems before 9/11. As for the unions backing a failing industry, they are not paid for that. The AFL-CIO affiliates are for representation, collective bargaining and politics. If the unions wanted to be able to back a $2 Billion dollar buyout the members dues would have to increased. This would be against the law. That is not to say that members cannot give voluntary contributions to their unions, but not in the form of dues. I wonder what the term deregulation was intended to mean? If truly deregulated, would an airline not be forced to liquidate if they had to file bankruptcy? Also why in a deregulated industry would a company expect any government subsidies?
 

Buck

Veteran
Contributor
Aug 20, 2002
7,317
1,576
www.fairtax.org
It is my understanding that at least at American there were financial problems before 9/11. As for the unions backing a failing industry, they are not paid for that. The AFL-CIO affiliates are for representation, collective bargaining and politics. If the unions wanted to be able to back a $2 Billion dollar buyout the members dues would have to increased. This would be against the law. That is not to say that members cannot give voluntary contributions to their unions, but not in the form of dues. I wonder what the term deregulation was intended to mean? If truly deregulated, would an airline not be forced to liquidate if they had to file bankruptcy? Also why in a deregulated industry would a company expect any government subsidies?
 

Tango-Bravo

Advanced
Aug 29, 2002
106
0
www.usaviation.com
[blockquote]
----------------
The purpose of the ATSB is to assist airlines in making the shift to the new aviation paradigm, not to give airlines bailouts because the paradigm shifted.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Excellent point. There is a huge difference between AA and US/UA in their responses to the "new paradigm" that didn't exactly sneak up on the airlines overnight. Whereas AA has taken meaningful steps toward adjusting to the new realities (that began to unfold years before 9/11/01), like the rolling hub concept and a more equitable fare structure, US and UA seem determined to carry on with their dysfunctional, outdated business plans, expecting to cover-up for their managerial ineptitude by brutalizing labor while continuing with the same-old same-old worn out plan (that had them predicting record losses for 2001 before 9/11 happened) under the pathetic so-called leadership of self-serving, greed-driven, opportunist upper management...not a viable plan. Did W somehow conspire to infiltrate the management ranks of US and UA with incompetent non-leaders because he wanted to see them fail - or at least teeter on the brink? Wouldn't be surprised if some of the conspiracy buffs who post in this forum believe it...gimme a break!
 

Tango-Bravo

Advanced
Aug 29, 2002
106
0
www.usaviation.com
[blockquote]
----------------
The purpose of the ATSB is to assist airlines in making the shift to the new aviation paradigm, not to give airlines bailouts because the paradigm shifted.
----------------
[/blockquote]
Excellent point. There is a huge difference between AA and US/UA in their responses to the "new paradigm" that didn't exactly sneak up on the airlines overnight. Whereas AA has taken meaningful steps toward adjusting to the new realities (that began to unfold years before 9/11/01), like the rolling hub concept and a more equitable fare structure, US and UA seem determined to carry on with their dysfunctional, outdated business plans, expecting to cover-up for their managerial ineptitude by brutalizing labor while continuing with the same-old same-old worn out plan (that had them predicting record losses for 2001 before 9/11 happened) under the pathetic so-called leadership of self-serving, greed-driven, opportunist upper management...not a viable plan. Did W somehow conspire to infiltrate the management ranks of US and UA with incompetent non-leaders because he wanted to see them fail - or at least teeter on the brink? Wouldn't be surprised if some of the conspiracy buffs who post in this forum believe it...gimme a break!
 
OP
B

BeenThere

Member
Aug 26, 2002
89
0
I would venture to say that all the Corporate Shenanigans existed long before Bush became president. It's amazing how every topic turns to an anti Bush or GOP agenda. United's woes as well as most of the other major carriers were caused by gross mismanagement. Hey, why don't you blame cancer on the Bushes while you're at it? Funny thing though, if you remember when the unions begged George Bush the First to get involved in the Eastern Airlines situation and he refused, he became organized labor's archenemy. Then when George Bush the second DID get involved with airline labor disputes, right away, he too was anti-labor and pro big business. I guess you Clintonites forget Slick Willie's midnight intervention with the APA and AMR? I sense hypocrisy and selective memories here.
 
OP
B

BeenThere

Member
Aug 26, 2002
89
0
I would venture to say that all the Corporate Shenanigans existed long before Bush became president. It's amazing how every topic turns to an anti Bush or GOP agenda. United's woes as well as most of the other major carriers were caused by gross mismanagement. Hey, why don't you blame cancer on the Bushes while you're at it? Funny thing though, if you remember when the unions begged George Bush the First to get involved in the Eastern Airlines situation and he refused, he became organized labor's archenemy. Then when George Bush the second DID get involved with airline labor disputes, right away, he too was anti-labor and pro big business. I guess you Clintonites forget Slick Willie's midnight intervention with the APA and AMR? I sense hypocrisy and selective memories here.