Delta ask for POR extension
- Thread starter magsau
- Start date
deltaflyboy
Member
The time frame on this extension falls in line with the time line that we have been shooting for all along for exiting bankruptcy...still hoping for an early 2007 exit...
Any further extensions would mean that we are falling behind in the expected time line, so hopefully this will be the last extension asked for...
Any further extensions would mean that we are falling behind in the expected time line, so hopefully this will be the last extension asked for...
NewHampshire Black Bears
Veteran
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Boy, I hope so, otherwise WORLD TRAVELER will have a #### load of "splaining" to do, to the UAL folks
NH/BB's
From the article:
(At least that was the reasoning from some when other airlines had gone through this before. But I am sure that shortly we will be reassured that this is -- um, different somehow. That's a relief!)
So this is the THIRD extension? :blink: Oh my. If an insolvent airline has to ask for MULTIPLE EXTENSIONS, doesn't that usually mean they are in deep doo-doo? And may not even emerge AT ALL???
(At least that was the reasoning from some when other airlines had gone through this before. But I am sure that shortly we will be reassured that this is -- um, different somehow. That's a relief!)
...and the Henny Pennys come out. truth is...the changes to the BK process that came in late last fall are to make the timelines more concrete but nearly every company has to file for extensions...multiple times. Each extentsion is like 90 days and I believe that even under the old law, you have 6 months to file a re-org. Nobody wants to repeat a US Airways and try to come out before even having time to re-org all of the debt so extensions are filed. Timeline for DL has always been the 1st half of 2007 and due to technicalities with the process...multiple extensions are necessary. Is everyone here just pretending to forget that DL has mentioned over and over that the 1st half of 2007 is when they plan to emerge?! I think it is an act by most but for those that truly are confused...there...I have spelled it out.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
The PBGC wants DL to issue debt to them. DL wants them to accept equity alone. There's time for DL to work on them and still emerge in early 2007.
NewHampshire Black Bears
Veteran
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
WT,
Something like "this"(PBGC) is "above my pay grade", so I invoke Ignorance.
Having said that, After the "Corn-Holing" that the PBGC took from US/UA, my money (in the DL case) will be bet on the PBGC !!!!!!!!!!!!
Now couple that with the fact that the PBGC wound up "being more flexible"(new pension funding laws), it would'nt surprise me to see the PBGC being "thrown a bone", which would mean just bad timing for DL.
NH/BB's
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
let's make something clear. The PBGC does not have the right to not take DL's pilot pension. What they can do is attempt to recover as much as possible from DL. You'll remember that UA basically went to the BK court on every contentious issue and lined up enough supporting parties to convince the BK court to rule in UA's favor, even if everyone ended up getting screwed by UA although on different issues.
You may have noticed that DL has tried to negotiate issues rather than force a ruling like UA did. DL could very well get the creditors to support DL in minimizing the amount of debt DL would have to take on. The PBGC is the only party that is pushing for such a position. The creditors will all support DL if they decide to push for a less burdensome settlement w/ the PBGC. If the PBGC balks, the creditors could make it known that they would refuse to back DL's reorganization and the court would undoubtedly side w/ DL. The PBGC is not in the favored position they try to make themselves out to be. If they were, UA and US couldn't have steamrolled over the PBGC like they did.
You may have noticed that DL has tried to negotiate issues rather than force a ruling like UA did. DL could very well get the creditors to support DL in minimizing the amount of debt DL would have to take on. The PBGC is the only party that is pushing for such a position. The creditors will all support DL if they decide to push for a less burdensome settlement w/ the PBGC. If the PBGC balks, the creditors could make it known that they would refuse to back DL's reorganization and the court would undoubtedly side w/ DL. The PBGC is not in the favored position they try to make themselves out to be. If they were, UA and US couldn't have steamrolled over the PBGC like they did.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #11
Is DL going to issue the new DL stock or are they going to resurrect the old stock? If they are issuing new stock are they not "screwing" all of those shareholders? Your mantra that DL is the Kinder and Gentler BK airline is a bit flawed. DL is doing whatever they have to do, rolling over the pilots pension and putting the screws to the current shareholders just like anyone else in the BK process.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
no, the pilots screwed themselves. They are the ones that raided their pension plan like a bunch of 3rd graders left home alone raid the cookie jar. DL simply told the pilots the plan could not be saved, a point ALPA got months and months before DL terminated the plan.
And yes DL has indeed had more cordial relationships with its creditors than who know who did. DL has not had to ask the court to terminate every agreement as "they" did. In fact, you may recall that DL's creditors didn't think DL got the best deal on some of its fleet renegotiations but DL asked the creditors to accept it anyway because it was more important for DL to have a stable fleet plan so it could continue to generate more revenue than to drive rates down lower. And that is exactly what DL did.
we'll be able to look back at this w/ a little more perspective in a year or so but the reality is that UA's future was a lot more uncertain when it went into BK than DL's was. UA took the heat and beat everyone up during a much more difficult period for the industry. DL adapted to the better revenue environment of 2006 and has been able to restructure more dramatically and more quickly. Part of DL's success is due to the better economy but part is also due to the fact that DL learned from UA and everyone else that went into BK before DL.
As I've posted elsewhere, UA is finally reaching a point of parity with the rest of the industry on several important metrics and so may finally be able to breathe a bit easier.
And yes DL has indeed had more cordial relationships with its creditors than who know who did. DL has not had to ask the court to terminate every agreement as "they" did. In fact, you may recall that DL's creditors didn't think DL got the best deal on some of its fleet renegotiations but DL asked the creditors to accept it anyway because it was more important for DL to have a stable fleet plan so it could continue to generate more revenue than to drive rates down lower. And that is exactly what DL did.
we'll be able to look back at this w/ a little more perspective in a year or so but the reality is that UA's future was a lot more uncertain when it went into BK than DL's was. UA took the heat and beat everyone up during a much more difficult period for the industry. DL adapted to the better revenue environment of 2006 and has been able to restructure more dramatically and more quickly. Part of DL's success is due to the better economy but part is also due to the fact that DL learned from UA and everyone else that went into BK before DL.
As I've posted elsewhere, UA is finally reaching a point of parity with the rest of the industry on several important metrics and so may finally be able to breathe a bit easier.
