Dave's Gloomy Forecast

Ladies,

UAL will NOT get the ATSB funding if it doesn't sweeten the pot for Uncle Sam. UAL has too many assets that it can use to save itself. UAL has too little Union participation to entice the Board to assist. UAL has too much money in the bank and too many options still left to use until it's out of options and MUST use the tax payers money. I know it's a loan but UAL must demonstrate the ability to repay within 7 years regardless of and domino effect conspiracy theorys may or may not exist. The US gov will let UAL fail if it decides to fall on it's sabre. Labor costs are but one piece of the puzzle as well. In order to survive, UAL must take a strong look at ALL of it's contractual expendatures from airplanes to coke in the galleys. UAL may not (I think definetely not) be able to avoid BK only because the vendors and lessors want what they've been promised in their contracts. As far as amending the labor contracts before BK as opposed to after.... it's a good thing. The judge can only do 2 things to a contract in BK. He/she can completely throw it our or leave it alone. I doubt the judge will resist the temptation to leave the industrys most breath-taking pilot contract alone when UAL files later this year.
 
UAL777flyer:

UAL777flyer asked: I'm curious what you mean by McKinsey recommending a unique corporate restructuring. And what do you mean when you say that Jake Brace may not have support?

Chip answers: UAL777, I am not free to discuss this comment, but let's just say McKinsey is a very expensive firm who likely has the ear of Tilton. As far as the CFO, politically look at whom he is aligning himself with.

Chip
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/11/2002 11:49:35 PM N628AU wrote:

Whenever I hear of outside consultants around, I can't help but to think of the Bobs from the movie Office Space.
----------------
[/blockquote]

My God, someone who thinks just like me (scary)! First thing I thought of as well...even started singing a Michael Bolton tune (shudder)...
If you're currently employed, or recently laid-off, RENT THIS MOVIE if you haven't already done so. You'll laugh your you-know-what off!
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/11/2002 9:52:14 AM UAL777flyer wrote:

iflyjetz,

I'm curious why you think that UA is not interested in U's most valuable assets, DCA gates and slots. I tend to disagree. Those assets add considerable value to UA by plugging the only gaping whole in their network.

----------------
[/blockquote]

Well, because Dulles, a UAL hub, is 20 minutes down the road from DCA. The value of U's DCA slots and gates is far less to UAL than other carriers.

LGA fleet service, that was funny.
 
The plot thickens...Just when I thought the conspiracy theory couldn't go on any longer.

Hey Chip, is that a unique corporate transaction in your pocket or are you just glad to see us.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/12/2002 2:23:52 AM mga707 wrote:

[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/11/2002 11:49:35 PM N628AU wrote:

Whenever I hear of outside consultants around, I can't help but to think of "the Bobs" from the movie Office Space.
----------------
[/blockquote]

My God, someone who thinks just like me (scary)! First thing I thought of as well...even started singing a Michael Bolton tune (shudder)...
If you're currently employed, or recently laid-off, RENT THIS MOVIE if you haven't already done so. You'll laugh your you-know-what off!

----------------
[/blockquote]

Office space is a favorite of mine. Yes, you almost think those people work for US Airways :). Heh, most of my paperwork is a lot like the infamous TPS Reports...it's very important that we do it, but no one knows what they are for, who looks at them and why we do them. They are just important.

I'm looking for my red swingline stapler.

Jon C.
 
N628AU:

N628UA said: Most likely, this relationship will go no further than NW/CO did. Which one there saw siginifcant cuts ot route transfers to the partner? For US to see the full benefit, they must grow longer stage lengths by adding more transcontinental flights, especially to LAX/SFO/DEN to linkup with short haul UA and UAX flights.

Chip comments: Your analysis is correct and I believe is the US plan of attack, once revenue returns.

Chip
 
Chip,
I do not mean to dis you here, but you come off as a little bit of an insider, who knows what's going on.
I read you on the U yahoo board, and you were sure, the merger would go through.
You might want to use the IMO or I think once in awhile.
Or this is pure conjecture.
Just some friendly advice.

If you really want to help out Ual give us insight into U today after BK.
What would really be helpfull to Ual employees are issues the U people are going through. Let them see the reality of what BK will do to them.
I think the mechanics in general are letting emotion guide their judgement.
Thank you in advance for any help you can give us.

Start a thread. What BK means. Learn from us. Or something else we can read to help Ual stay out of BK.
Thanks again.
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/10/2002 11:36:10 PM chipmunn wrote:


[FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3]Busdrvr:[/FONT][/P]


[FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3]Why is it so hard to believe the UA board is tired of labor trying to control the corporation? Moreover, why is it so hard to believe the ATSB could believe UA will not be able to obtain a Fitch Rating projected 7 percent profit margin within seven years unless the governance issue is dealt with? Could it be the UA board is sick and tired of answering to labor and wants to eliminate the governance issue so management can make decisions in the best interest of the company? In addition, Avek's comments are accurate.[/FONT][/P]


[FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3]Chip [/FONT][/P]
----------------
[/blockquote]


I'm confused. How is labor participation in UA governance a problem, but won't be at U? As far as management being tired of answering to labor, why isn't any of UA's problems management's fault? Perhaps they should look to themselves a bit. And get real, if the labor reps on UA's board had abrogated their fiduciary responsibilities to the shareholders, a management front man would have sued the a$$es off them.

I'm not a pro on UA's internal issues, but I am damned sure I would have liked some labor seats on the BOD during the Schofield/Wolfe era. So long as it wasn't JUST an ALPA seat, or is that what this is really all about? The only thing I can think of worse than just management running U, is just management and pilots running U.

The ATSB specs are the same for any airline, labor governance or not. The ATSB may not think labor can get the job done in time, but nobody KNOWS that. We do know from the U debacle several drop dead deadlines were blown thru, and we lived to tell about it. I know the IAM brass is fully cognizant of the stakes, and what they and their members stand to lose. I am confidant they will do there best to avoid it. But I am also convinced they will force UA into BK before they take one for the team while anyone else is sitting on the bench.
 
While there are plenty of examples of lousy leaders and senior execs over this industry's history, I would much rather take my chances with qualified management people running an airline than employees doing it. Will all management folks turn out to be perfect? Absolutely not. Mistakes get made. Bad decisions get made. That is life. If you're searching for perfection in decision-making, it doesn't exist. Even the greatest leaders in corporate American history have made mistakes from time to time. But the bottom line, in my opinion, is that the majority of employees are not qualified to be guiding the strategic direction of an airline. You can say what you want about legal and fiduciary responsibilities of union BOD members. But like it or not, they have a built-in conflict of interest because their allegiance is going to be with their particular group first and the interests of the company as a whole, second.

But I'm not totally opposed to union representation on an airline's BOD. What I'm totally opposed to is those union BOD members having veto power over major decisions, including the hiring and firing of CEO's.

Had UA's unions not had that power, an argument can be made that John Edwardson would have become UA's CEO instead of Jim Goodwin, who was viewed to be more labor-friendly, and UA wouldn't be in the mess it's in today. So it isn't just management that makes bad decisions.
 
Diogenes:

Diogenes asked: How is labor participation in UA governance a problem, but won't be at U?

Chip answers: Diogenes, because the UA ESOP controls a majority of the common stock and the three employee board seats have veto power or governance. In the US agreements, the employees do not have a majority of the stock or board governance.

I believe employee stock ownership and board representation at both UA & US can be good, but I do not believe employee majority ownership and governance is effective.

In fact, today's UA news supports the argument the UA labor coalition is trying to restructure without a federal loan guarantee. Why? In my opinion, because of reports the ATSB has the governance issue in its cross-hairs. If the UA employees want the loan guarantee, they will have to give up the ability to control the board.

Apparently the government does not believe UA can be profitably/effectively operated because employees will not make the difficult decisions necessary during down economic times. I have previously stated that it was likely the coalition plan, with the AFA exception, is to offer concessions lower than required by the ATSB, in hopes the cuts would be enough to entice the public markets to provide capital to the company. Sources indicate the non-employee UA Board members would like to proceed with a formal reorganization, but the employee board member representatives have been successful at preventing a bankruptcy petition filing.

I believe it is significant UA CEO Glenn Titlon told employees over the weekend in a recorded message that “we'll update the board of directors on our progress this weekâ€￾ and the carrier has a “very precise decision timetable.â€￾ If recent history is used as a benchmark, UA could file for bankruptcy protection on a Sunday with October 20 and October 27 potential dates.

UAL777flyer, I agree 100 percent with your last post.

Chip
 
[blockquote]
----------------
On 10/12/2002 12:32:43 AM chipmunn wrote:

Chip answers: UAL777, I am not free to discuss this comment, but...

Chip
----------------
[/blockquote]

There you go again. I know! I know!... You can tell me, but then you'll have to kill me.


Chip,
Sounds to me like if UAL can get access to capital without the ATSB, your unique corporate transaction (UCT) within BK will will not come to pass.
What a shame. What will happen to U then? Will there be a UCT part 2?
 

Latest posts